Jump to content

Your father's DNA


aik
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Moderator
9 hours ago, aik said:

Hello everyone. Let us stop here now. Take i time. I think I am doing wrong debating with those whom I should show compassion. We just here are trying to prove something to each other and gain nothing. At the start I was not intended to debate yet I had not another place but the so called Lion's Den which is a place for debates. 


Aik, I understand how you feel.  We are very unlikely to change each other’s minds about the truth or otherwise of christianity.  And it’s easy for the arguments to get heated.  
 

Christians are not prevented from posting or responding to topics in other forums besides the Lions Den.  They are not allowed to proselytize in these areas, they are not allowed to promote christianity there.  So a christian could engage in questioning or other discussion.  In practice though, I think you can see that it would be difficult to keep such interactions from turning into arguments for and against christianity.     After all, this website is all about our shared rejection of our former christian beliefs.  A place for ex-christians to find fellowship and support.  And for promoting the various reasons why we are convinced christianity is untrue.  
 

Aik, I appreciate your coming here and staying around for a while.  Not just because we like to take the opportunity to make the case against christianity.  I appreciate you as a person and I appreciate your attitude, and I understand your sincere desire to share what you believe to be true.  Whether or not you stay around longer - and I hope you will - I hope your experience here will be positive and informative, and not rancorous or unpleasant in any way.  It’s OK to want to change our minds, as of course we would like to make you think in ways that you haven’t before, and ideally, in time, to become one of us!  Most of us would acknowledge that there are things we lost in leaving christianity, but we have also gained a great deal.  
 

Best wishes to you, aik!

- TABA

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



Keeping this site online isn't free, so we need your support! Make a one-time donation or choose one of the recurrent patron options by clicking here.



Taba has provided an excellent response to your post — it’s a well-written and very complete statement. I’d like to make an analogy based on what he wrote. Many people drink alcoholic beverages. And for most people there is nothing wrong with that. But some people have problems with it, and they realize they need to quit drinking alcohol. So there are groups out there who help such people. Here in America, one of them is called Alcoholics Anonymous, abbreviated AA.

 

Now at an AA meeting, members who have been through problems with alcohol offer help to those who want to quit drinking. But those meetings are not held in bars, and the attendees do not serve glasses of wine or mugs of beer. They do not extend invitations to meet at a bar after the meeting. They do not talk about the pleasures of a good glass of wine or a frosty mug of beer. So the conversation at an AA meeting is intended to provide support for those who realize that alcohol is not working for them, not to tempt them to have another drink. Now if some folks at the meeting want to talk positively about alcohol, they would be asked to leave the room and have that discussion elsewhere.

 

And so it is here. Some of us are glad that you are happy with Christianity. It works for many people, and there are some people whose troubled lives have been turned around through Christianity, just as there are some people who find support sitting around with a group of friends and a pitcher of beer. But here, in the religious equivalent of an AA meeting, it is not appropriate to encourage people to have another drink of Christianity while in the meeting room. That conversation needs to be held elsewhere. And the elsewhere is here in the Lion’s Den. The other rooms are reserved for helping those who have realized that Christianity is not working for them and are trying to find a way out.

 

So do stay here, but understand what Taba has written. We’d love to have you over in the Opine club share with us what’s going on in your country. We’d love to have you here in the Lion’s Den to discuss Christianity and to challenge us just as we will challenge back.

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

This is all very laudable, aik. 

 

But if I were to list personal experiences from my life that you cannot check or test I wouldn't expect you to believe that they are true.

 

And this is the very point you fail to understand.

 

Your personal experiences cannot be tested or checked by us to see if they are true.

 

Just as nobody here should believe my personal experiences without evidence, so we do not believe yours.

 

The same rule applies to me as it applies to you.

 

Personal experiences do not count as objective evidence.

 

It doesn't matter to us how much YOU believe something is true or what YOU have experienced.

 

The only thing that matters to us is objective evidence - because that is something that we can test and check.

 

We don't accept anything by faith.

 

Do you understand now?

Hello Walter. 

 

Ok. I fail to give you the evidence you are expecting from me. But I will tell you a thing.

 

Think about it.

 

I heard about a daughter who said to her mother words like this, Don.t tell me what to do, wasn't it just 20 litres of milk you gave me? I am going to give it back to you, and don't ever teach me. 

 

So scientifically she was almost correct saying about 20 litres. I never calculated. But she did not take into account how many nights were sacrificed by that mother to bring her up, how many times the daughter pissed on the mother and she washed it with love, how many times the mother spent nervous stresses losing ability to sleep or to have rest and so on. 

 

So I am asking now, what kind of evidence had the mother to love her daughter? Was she paid fore it by the daughter? Did she benefit anything from it? What drove her to love so much. And what scientific tangible objective evidence drives any mother to love an infant having not even a real basement for hope that the infant will have grown up, or become a good man or whatever?

 

How can science only correct the daughter. 

 

Believing in Jesus teaches to love as Jesus did. Sacrifying yourself for others. Even if a non-believer loves, it comes from God, because love can be found only in God, nowhere else. Otherwise there is no reason for love without benefit. But I say to you what makes denying God. It gives power to deny love, it gives basement for hatred, it justifies sin. 

 

Richard Dawkins said, How can a man know that his wife's does love him? By not scientific evidences. He said, by her voice, her eyes. But I say, not voice, but by what she had done for him. And this is a subjective evidence which you deny, but Dawkins cannot. 

 

It is better to believe in Jesus than deny him based on fictive facts and twisted arguments.

 

Don't think that I had nothing to answer my dear friend Walter. But I put my answer on scales. Will that be useful for us and everybody here, or will not. If not I will not give the answer even if somebody thinks bad. I don't care about peoples opinion about me. It is also what I gained from Jesus my friend.

 

You are valuable. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, aik said:

Hello Walter. 

 

Ok. I fail to give you the evidence you are expecting from me. But I will tell you a thing.

 

Think about it.

 

I heard about a daughter who said to her mother words like this, Don.t tell me what to do, wasn't it just 20 litres of milk you gave me? I am going to give it back to you, and don't ever teach me. 

 

So scientifically she was almost correct saying about 20 litres. I never calculated. But she did not take into account how many nights were sacrificed by that mother to bring her up, how many times the daughter pissed on the mother and she washed it with love, how many times the mother spent nervous stresses losing ability to sleep or to have rest and so on. 

 

So I am asking now, what kind of evidence had the mother to love her daughter? Was she paid fore it by the daughter? Did she benefit anything from it? What drove her to love so much. And what scientific tangible objective evidence drives any mother to love an infant having not even a real basement for hope that the infant will have grown up, or become a good man or whatever?

 

How can science only correct the daughter. 

 

Believing in Jesus teaches to love as Jesus did. Sacrifying yourself for others. Even if a non-believer loves, it comes from God, because love can be found only in God, nowhere else. Otherwise there is no reason for love without benefit. But I say to you what makes denying God. It gives power to deny love, it gives basement for hatred, it justifies sin. 

 

Richard Dawkins said, How can a man know that his wife's does love him? By not scientific evidences. He said, by her voice, her eyes. But I say, not voice, but by what she had done for him. And this is a subjective evidence which you deny, but Dawkins cannot. 

 

It is better to believe in Jesus than deny him based on fictive facts and twisted arguments.

 

Don't think that I had nothing to answer my dear friend Walter. But I put my answer on scales. Will that be useful for us and everybody here, or will not. If not I will not give the answer even if somebody thinks bad. I don't care about peoples opinion about me. It is also what I gained from Jesus my friend.

 

You are valuable. 

 

 

 

Thank you for your reply, aik.

 

But you really must stop trying to appeal to my emotions.

 

Why?  Because people can use emotions to manipulate others.

 

But objective evidence has no emotional content.

 

And that is why it is more reliable than emotions.

 

The capital of Russia is Moscow.  That is an item of objective evidence that is true for you, me and everyone.

 

You see how it works?

 

So, you will be more likely to persuade me if you can present evidence that is objectively true for everyone.

 

Not evidence that is subjectively true for you.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Thank you for your reply, aik.

 

But you really must stop trying to appeal to my emotions.

 

Why?  Because people can use emotions to manipulate others.

 

But objective evidence has no emotional content.

 

And that is why it is more reliable than emotions.

 

The capital of Russia is Moscow.  That is an item of objective evidence that is true for you, me and everyone.

 

You see how it works?

 

So, you will be more likely to persuade me if you can present evidence that is objectively true for everyone.

 

Not evidence that is subjectively true for you.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Walter,

 

Your arguments are incorrect.

 

First of all I am not about emotions. What I was trying to say is 

 

We in churches do not speak and listen about science. For that case we have various clubs. In churches it is spoken about how to live to be blessing for others, to learn how to love, to overcome sin. And its all about Jesus. Without emotions.

 

Science has no authority to teach how to love how to live etc.

 

Knowledge puffs up but love builds up. 

 

One can have a bulk of information, you call it knowledge, and he makes a nuclear weapon for killing others and sells it to have much money. 

 

The other one has no education, but he every day visits those who are needy to give them joy, hope etc. And we call this knowledge. But knowledge of God. 

 

Having information about origin is useless without love. No emotions my friend. Love makes life. 

 

2. Have you ever seen Moscow, touched it maybe? If not, then you have your knowledge based on books, television news, witnesses who visited Moscow, and teachers who are specialist in geography.

 

Say that I am wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Thank you for your reply, aik.

 

But you really must stop trying to appeal to my emotions.

 

Why?  Because people can use emotions to manipulate others.

 

But objective evidence has no emotional content.

 

And that is why it is more reliable than emotions.

 

The capital of Russia is Moscow.  That is an item of objective evidence that is true for you, me and everyone.

 

You see how it works?

 

So, you will be more likely to persuade me if you can present evidence that is objectively true for everyone.

 

Not evidence that is subjectively true for you.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Do you understand that you failed to answer my question above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, TABA said:


Aik, I understand how you feel.  We are very unlikely to change each other’s minds about the truth or otherwise of christianity.  And it’s easy for the arguments to get heated.  
 

Christians are not prevented from posting or responding to topics in other forums besides the Lions Den.  They are not allowed to proselytize in these areas, they are not allowed to promote christianity there.  So a christian could engage in questioning or other discussion.  In practice though, I think you can see that it would be difficult to keep such interactions from turning into arguments for and against christianity.     After all, this website is all about our shared rejection of our former christian beliefs.  A place for ex-christians to find fellowship and support.  And for promoting the various reasons why we are convinced christianity is untrue.  
 

Aik, I appreciate your coming here and staying around for a while.  Not just because we like to take the opportunity to make the case against christianity.  I appreciate you as a person and I appreciate your attitude, and I understand your sincere desire to share what you believe to be true.  Whether or not you stay around longer - and I hope you will - I hope your experience here will be positive and informative, and not rancorous or unpleasant in any way.  It’s OK to want to change our minds, as of course we would like to make you think in ways that you haven’t before, and ideally, in time, to become one of us!  Most of us would acknowledge that there are things we lost in leaving christianity, but we have also gained a great deal.  
 

Best wishes to you, aik!

- TABA

Taba thank you very much for your words. You sound very healthy. 

 

Just I want to mention about changin a mind, you said at the beginning. I saw how God changes a mind of a man, not only his mind, but all his life. 

 

God bless you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, aik said:

Walter,

 

Your arguments are incorrect.

 

First of all I am not about emotions. What I was trying to say is 

 

We in churches do not speak and listen about science. For that case we have various clubs. In churches it is spoken about how to live to be blessing for others, to learn how to love, to overcome sin. And its all about Jesus. Without emotions.

 

You in churches use science all the time.  Electricity?  Computers?  Cars?  Aircraft?  Ships?  Trains?  Clean and drinkable water?  Money in the bank?  A healthy diet?  All different kinds of alloys and plastics?  Medicine?  Hospitals?  I suppose that you in churches don't use any of these things?

 

4 hours ago, aik said:

 

Science has no authority to teach how to love how to live etc.

 

Correct.  But science provides you with all of the things I've listed above and much more.  Like it or not you rely on science much more than you rely of faith or prayer.   But what you in churches choose to do is to ignore what science has done for you.

 

4 hours ago, aik said:

Knowledge puffs up but love builds up. 

 

One can have a bulk of information, you call it knowledge, and he makes a nuclear weapon for killing others and sells it to have much money. 

 

The other one has no education, but he every day visits those who are needy to give them joy, hope etc. And we call this knowledge. But knowledge of God. 

 

Having information about origin is useless without love. No emotions my friend. Love makes life. 

 

Having scientific information about our origins is something that you must avoid thinking about or deny completely.  Because if you accepted it your faith would die.  So, to keep your faith you deny or avoid what science tells us about our origins.

 

4 hours ago, aik said:

 

2. Have you ever seen Moscow, touched it maybe? If not, then you have your knowledge based on books, television news, witnesses who visited Moscow, and teachers who are specialist in geography.

 

Say that I am wrong.

 

Yes. you are wrong, aik.  On two counts.

 

I have visited both Moscow and St. Petersburg.  

 

And you rely just as much on teachers of geography and knowledge from books as much as I do. 

 

Does your car have satnav?  Or have you been in a car guided by satnav?  Or been on an aircraft guided by satnav?  Or taken a train to a new place?   Or a bus or a ship?  Then you've relied on the geographical knowledge of others.  

 

But now let me ask you a question.

 

Does the Sun stop shining at night, when you can't see it?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/22/2022 at 2:32 AM, aik said:

So does it mean that there is no God just because you cannot see Him or touch Him?

Aik,

For me personally, I'm actually open to the possibility that there is a higher being that cannot be explained/understood using the scientific process as we currently know it. I'm even willing to assume that may be probable (for reasons I won't get into here).

But that does not mean the bible or the biblical god is true. Why do you trust the bible as an authoritative source when it has so many fallacies, inconsistencies and was not written by god, himself?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, aik said:

Do you understand that you failed to answer my question above?

 

I presume that you mean this question?

 

So I am asking now, what kind of evidence had the mother to love her daughter? Was she paid fore it by the daughter? Did she benefit anything from it? What drove her to love so much. And what scientific tangible objective evidence drives any mother to love an infant having not even a real basement for hope that the infant will have grown up, or become a good man or whatever?

 

 

There is ample scientific evidence that primates like chimpanzees and apes love their children, care for them and protect them.  They do so because the extended family groups of these apes work best when all of the members cooperate with each other and work together.  

 

This behaviour is passed down through succeeding generations, both by being inherited and by being taught.  Primates grieve when their children or relations are killed or die through illness.  They do so because they are emotionally committed to each other.  There is ample scientific evidence for this too.

 

Over millions of years and thousands of generations these behaviours and attendant emotions have become more and more sophisticated.  We humans refer to them as love and compassion and sometimes attribute them to a spiritual cause.  But the scientific evidence tells us otherwise.

 

And I have no problem whatsoever declaring that my love for others is due entirely to natural, physical causes over millions of years of evolution.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

aik, 

 

 

Matthew 4 : 8

 

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour.

 

 

 

Is the bible true when it says that all of the kingdoms of the world can be seen from a very high mountain?

 

 

 

Please answer.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, aik said:

In churches it is spoken about how to live to be blessing for others, to learn how to love, to overcome sin. And its all about Jesus. Without emotions.

Aik, Lets be real. Church is all about emotion. It seems you admit that your faith is not based on scientific evidence. So then, why do believers believe? Think about this. You believe because you "feel it in your heart" or you "just know it to be true" or you've experienced something "powerful." These are all emotional responses. Your reason for believing resides within you. But (in my humble opinion) you and all Christians attribute this inner feeling to Jesus. Yet Christians aren't the only ones who feel they are spiritually enlightened. People from many walks of life have the same "inner knowing." I think its audacious of Christians to assume that their "inner knowing" is the only true way, especially when their faith is based upon a book of fables akin to Greek mythology.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, aik said:

 

2. Have you ever seen Moscow, touched it maybe? If not, then you have your knowledge based on books, television news, witnesses who visited Moscow, and teachers who are specialist in geography.

 

Say that I am wrong.

 

I have never ridden on the starship Enterprise, but I have faith that it is indeed real. There are films and books depicting its adventures. 

 

I have never met Harry Potter but I am confident that he is real because many books have been written about him. 

 

You may not believe star trek and Harry Potter are real life things but please just have faith. 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

You in churches use science all the time.  Electricity?  Computers?  Cars?  Aircraft?  Ships?  Trains?  Clean and drinkable water?  Money in the bank?  A healthy diet?  All different kinds of alloys and plastics?  Medicine?  Hospitals?  I suppose that you in churches don't use any of these things?

Using and preaching are different things. You know how to open a dictionary.

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

Correct.  But science provides you with all of the things I've listed above and much more.  Like it or not you rely on science much more than you rely of faith or prayer.   But what you in churches choose to do is to ignore what science has done for you.

All the things you listed I use. Jesus has done more to me and my family than the science. 

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

Having scientific information about our origins is something that you must avoid thinking about or deny completely.  Because if you accepted it your faith would die.  So, to keep your faith you deny or avoid what science tells us about our origins.

it's a new religion, not better than buddhism, islam, or whatever else. 

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

Does your car have satnav?  Or have you been in a car guided by satnav?  Or been on an aircraft guided by satnav?  Or taken a train to a new place?   Or a bus or a ship?  Then you've relied on the geographical knowledge of others.

No, I don't have it.

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

Does the Sun stop shining at night, when you can't see it?

 

No it does not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, aik said:

 

 

Having information about origin is useless without love. No emotions my friend. Love makes life. 

 

 

Love is an emotion. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, freshstart said:

Aik,

For me personally, I'm actually open to the possibility that there is a higher being that cannot be explained/understood using the scientific process as we currently know it. I'm even willing to assume that may be probable (for reasons I won't get into here).

But that does not mean the bible or the biblical god is true. Why do you trust the bible as an authoritative source when it has so many fallacies, inconsistencies and was not written by god, himself?

 

Look, sister. God never showd Himself to be untrustworthy. I read the Bible and I see that what Jesus said is true in my life, and upon the testimonies in lives of others. Words of Jesus are truthful, whatever He promised it came true. There is nothing in the Bible that could make me doubt in God's word. I don't know what kind of fallacies you are talking about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi AIK:

 

Above you write: "We in churches do not speak and listen about science." Therein lies a huge problem. Here in America churches have preached that God will protect you and heal you and to ignore the science and medicine that has been proven to protect you. The result is that 1.1 MILLION people here have died from Covid, and the majority of them are in some way connected to Christianity.

 

Second, you write, "love can be found only in God, nowhere else.." I have provided photographic evidence to you that your god cannot possibly love us, and you continue to ignore my evidence and to produce any evidence to the contrary. Why are you afraid to look at the photos and try to defend your "loving" god?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, aik said:

Using and preaching are different things. You know how to open a dictionary.

All the things you listed I use. Jesus has done more to me and my family than the science. 

 

But Jesus did not provide the building you and your family live in.

Jesus does not supply you with electricity, clean water, gas, food, medicine and the Internet.

Jesus does not employ you and pay your wages.

Jesus has done none of these things.

But science supplies you with everything you need to live a healthy and comfortable life.

Science enables your employers to give you work.

Science enables you to save money in the bank.

Science enables you to read these words on your screen.

 

All of these things you owe to science and not to Jesus.

 

Say that I am wrong.

 

6 minutes ago, aik said:

it's a new religion, not better than buddhism, islam, or whatever else. 

No, I don't have it.

No it does not.

 

And how do you know that the Sun shines at night, when you cannot see it?

 

Perhaps you were relying on science (again!) to answer my question?

 

Say that I'm wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

I presume that you mean this question?

 

So I am asking now, what kind of evidence had the mother to love her daughter? Was she paid fore it by the daughter? Did she benefit anything from it? What drove her to love so much. And what scientific tangible objective evidence drives any mother to love an infant having not even a real basement for hope that the infant will have grown up, or become a good man or whatever?

 

 

There is ample scientific evidence that primates like chimpanzees and apes love their children, care for them and protect them.  They do so because the extended family groups of these apes work best when all of the members cooperate with each other and work together.  

 

This behaviour is passed down through succeeding generations, both by being inherited and by being taught.  Primates grieve when their children or relations are killed or die through illness.  They do so because they are emotionally committed to each other.  There is ample scientific evidence for this too.

 

Over millions of years and thousands of generations these behaviours and attendant emotions have become more and more sophisticated.  We humans refer to them as love and compassion and sometimes attribute them to a spiritual cause.  But the scientific evidence tells us otherwise.

 

And I have no problem whatsoever declaring that my love for others is due entirely to natural, physical causes over millions of years of evolution.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Walter, 

 

Here you several times stated that such behaviour is scientific, but you said nothing my friend. What is the scientific reason for loving and sacrifying oneself without having any benefit? Even if we refer it to the monkeys. But human are different from animals. Take into account that scientist call ".selfish gens". The very propoganda of survival is based on selfish character. And gens are called selfish also. An organism consist of selfish gens. Why a selfish organism sacrifies himself to save another one? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

aik, 

 

 

Matthew 4 : 8

 

Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendour.

 

 

 

Is the bible true when it says that all of the kingdoms of the world can be seen from a very high mountain?

 

 

 

Please answer.

 

 

Yes, Bible is true saying that at the certain moment, in the certain situation devil when tempted Jesus he could show Him all the kingdoms of the world from the top of a mountain. But it doesn't ever say that we any time can climb the mountain and see all the kingdoms of the world.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, aik said:

Yes, Bible is true saying that at the certain moment, in the certain situation devil when tempted Jesus he could show Him all the kingdoms of the world from the top of a mountain. But it doesn't ever say that we any time can climb the mountain and see all the kingdoms of the world.

 

 

So could you please tell us what date the world changed from being flat to being a sphere?

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, aik said:

Walter, 

 

Here you several times stated that such behaviour is scientific, but you said nothing my friend. What is the scientific reason for loving and sacrifying oneself without having any benefit? Even if we refer it to the monkeys. But human are different from animals. Take into account that scientist call ".selfish gens". The very propoganda of survival is based on selfish character. And gens are called selfish also. An organism consist of selfish gens. Why a selfish organism sacrifies himself to save another one? 

 

If you want to talk genetics aik, then I'm going to refer you to a genetic scientist.

 

Please wait and I'll get him to talk to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Revelation 7 : 1

 

After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.

 

 

A sphere doesn't have four corners aik.

 

But a flat, square earth does.

 

 

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, freshstart said:

Aik, Lets be real. Church is all about emotion. It seems you admit that your faith is not based on scientific evidence. So then, why do believers believe? Think about this. You believe because you "feel it in your heart" or you "just know it to be true" or you've experienced something "powerful." These are all emotional responses. Your reason for believing resides within you. But (in my humble opinion) you and all Christians attribute this inner feeling to Jesus. Yet Christians aren't the only ones who feel they are spiritually enlightened. People from many walks of life have the same "inner knowing." I think its audacious of Christians to assume that their "inner knowing" is the only true way, especially when their faith is based upon a book of fables akin to Greek mythology.

We are taught to avoid following emotions. Because emotions pull away from seeing the truth. But i will never say I don't see something just because some group of people don't see it.

 

Yes, there are many people believing in fables and so on and they think... i don't know what they think. But the fable is a fable anyway. It gives nothing to life. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must go now. see you  later. I will answer

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share




×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.