Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[joshua3886]

If you really believe in the scientific method then you would know that anecdotal evidence is not accepted anywhere in any scientific setting. Your friend who was brought back from the dead is an example of anecdotal evidence, so regardless of whether his story "lined up with scripture" it should be tossed out the window as not being valid scientific evidence. Arguing faith with science is like arguing Jewish tradition with a Nazi. The two organizations are completely opposed. Science means accepting things only with proper evidence, while faith means accepting things in spite of evidence that goes against it. And any common sense would dictate that basing your beliefs off of a book that was written long after the supposed events happened must be allegory. Humans can't even keep facts straight in a court room, let alone decades after something "miraculous" has already happened. Scriptures about Jesus did not appear until about 70 A.D. long after he would have supposedly been crucified. Now if we turn to actual evidence, there is not one piece of physical evidence for the existence of Jesus other than the bible which is actually a copy, of a copy, of a copy of the original book which was lost over a thousand years ago. We do however have plenty of contemporary writings by people that the bible claims Jesus met, yet not in one of those writings does anybody describe a person matching the description of Jesus Christ. The journal writings of Pontius Pilate (the man who supposedly executed Jesus) are enough to fill a small library, but nowhere does he mention a man named Jesus or even someone matching the description of Jesus in the bible. Furthermore we do have writings about other prophecy nut jobs who preached similar things and people claiming to be Gods themselves, yet none of them were crucified or matched the story of Jesus. Finally, there are so many religious stories before the Jesus claim that are very similar: Osiris, Hercules and Thor were all Gods that were persecuted for their miracles, executed and then rose from the dead to become Gods themselves. Yet these stories came about in history hundreds of years before the Jesus myth came about. So in short: it is not logical to believe in Jesus, it is the rejection of logic and science.

 

[Ingledsva]

1. got a link please?

2. so what? It is not as simple as you might think.

I assume he is talking about the find with the Ossuary Boxes that had Bible names on them. This is VERY controversial. Claims of a hoax, etc.

The Lost Tomb of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

*

 

[Ingledsva]

You don't have to read them.

It is against the RULES here.

*

 

[Ingledsva]

I wonder if someone uses a link to science it is spamming...hmmm

Links obviously are not spamming, copy-pasting a page of info - instead of a quote from the page, and the link, - IS!

*

 

[Sapiens]

Spam is unsolicited material distributed online to multiple addressees.

 

[Storm]

Arguing faith with science is like arguing Jewish tradition with a Nazi. The two organizations are completely opposed. Science means accepting things only with proper evidence, while faith means accepting things in spite of evidence that goes against it.

Actually, no. For one thing, science and faith aren't organizations. For another, they aren't actually in opposition, in large part because only people who claim to have no faith try to say that's what faith means.

Now, there are certain factions among scientists and religious people that actually are opposed, but that's not the same thing.

Also, I'm not an expert on Norse legend, but I don't think Thor ever rose from the dead. I know damned well that he didn't rise from the dead to become a God, seeing as he was born to the Aesir. Please remember that you need to do your homework, too.

 

[Cephus]

Really bad analogy. Our present 'knowledge' does not allow us to honestly think the 'room' is empty. That's why there is a 'blank'. that's your 'blank'. That's your problem. There is nothing 'wrong' with ID belief, it makes sense.

Nope, sorry. Based on all of the available evidence, the room is empty. We're not saying with any degree of absolute certainty that the room is empty, we're saying that we see nothing there. It is incumbent on anyone who claims there is anything in the room to present their evidence that it's actually so, otherwise we will continue to find no reason to take your claims seriously.

 

[Desert Snake]

Nope, sorry. Based on all of the available evidence, the room is empty. We're not saying with any degree of absolute certainty that the room is empty, we're saying that we see nothing there. It is incumbent on anyone who claims there is anything in the room to present their evidence that it's actually so, otherwise we will continue to find no reason to take your claims seriously.

Ditto.

 

[Serenity7855]

Where do you get the nerve to assert that we're "buried in a specially prepared place?"

I don't. Watch the documentary before you jump the gun.

 

[Storm]

Nope, sorry. Based on all of the available evidence, the room is empty. We're not saying with any degree of absolute certainty that the room is empty, we're saying that we see nothing there. It is incumbent on anyone who claims there is anything in the room to present their evidence that it's actually so, otherwise we will continue to find no reason to take your claims seriously.

"Nope, sorry."

Regarding the existence of God, there is no scientific evidence upon which to base a conclusion.

It's one thing to refuse to share someone's beliefs when they can't provide compelling evidence, but quite another to deny their right to believe without providing evidence you find compelling.

 

[Ingledsva]

Spam is unsolicited material distributed online to multiple addressees.

But on this site - also -

Under rule 4 - spam - 4)Posting your own material copied from other forums or anywhere else on the web may also be considered a form of spam if not done in an engaging manner that is aimed at generating discussion or debate. Length of copied material should be limited, but a bit more allowance of length is given to the original posts of threads compared to response posts.

And number 7 is about the legalities of - 7. Referencing, Quotations,...

RF Rules | ReligiousForums.com


*

 

[DrTCH]

Nobody has to disprove the "plan" that was supposedly devised by God, it is up to you, the one claiming that such exists, to prove that it is true. Let us know when you plan to actually do so. Thanks.

Ah, I am finding this reply to be most gratifying. I would suggest that this is a position which essentially draws a parallel with an important principle in American jurisprudence ..that of presumption of innocence. In the USA, it is encumbent upon a court of law...particularly the Prosecution..to establish the guilt of the defendant..not upon him to PROVE his innocence.

And, as I have been a JFK assasination researcher for some forty years..I will mention that Lee Oswald never received his "day in court," and must not be presumed guilty. The Warren Report was, in effect, a Brief for the Prosecution...and demonstrably a farce and a burlesque of justice. I will add that the evidence against the man was always very scanty...and he was never more than (a very poor) suspect in that case.

 

[Storm]

Ah, I am finding this reply to be most gratifying. I would suggest that this is a position which essentially draws a parallel with an important principle in American jurisprudence ..that of presumption of innocence.

Look, I'm hardly Cephus' biggest fan, and he makes the some common mistakes about burden of proof.

That doesn't make this any less dumb. Law is not philosophy, religion, or science, and has it's own standards. American jurisprudence enshrines the presumption of innocence not because that's a great way to find truth, but because the Founding Fathers embraced Blackstone's Ratio. It's a deliberate choice to prioritize consequences above truth.

Furthermore, innocence and veracity are completely different things.

 

[Cephus]

Ditto.

So let us know when you have any objective evidence at all for the factual existence of your god. We'll wait.

 

[Cephus]

"Nope, sorry."

Regarding the existence of God, there is no scientific evidence upon which to base a conclusion.

It's one thing to refuse to share someone's beliefs when they can't provide compelling evidence, but quite another to deny their right to believe without providing evidence you find compelling.

There isn't any objective evidence *AT ALL*. There just isn't. Therefore, it isn't our job to prove God doesn't exist, it's your job to prove he does.

Get on that, won't you?

 

[Cephus]

Ah, I am finding this reply to be most gratifying. I would suggest that this is a position which essentially draws a parallel with an important principle in American jurisprudence ..that of presumption of innocence. In the USA, it is encumbent upon a court of law...particularly the Prosecution..to establish the guilt of the defendant..not upon him to PROVE his innocence.

That's also why people are never found innocent in a court of law, they are found "not guilty". No matter how they cut it, the burden of proof for anyone who claims that a god exists is on the person who claims a god exists, never on the person who is unconvinced in the matter.

 

[Desert Snake]

So let us know when you have any objective evidence at all for the factual existence of your god. We'll wait.

Why would you ask for factual evidence, that makes no sense.
You are free to present your theories, we'll wait.

 

[Cephus]

Why would you ask for factual evidence, that makes no sense.
You are free to present your theories, we'll wait.

Because that's what is required to prove something is a fact. You prefer imaginary evidence?

 

[DrTCH]

I spent many, many years trying to disprove religion and faith. Frankly, most religions are build upon the interpretations and logic of men, who do, by nature, fall short of the glory of God, thus their doctrines are susceptible to being flawed as well. So religions are easy to disprove, and that is not just a handful, that is all of them. So when we see our coequals, on the other side of the fence, rubbing their hands together in glee, taunting us with the words that religions are slowly fading from our world, we can take solice in the fact that we are best rid of them anyway, none of have authority to act in the name of God. To disprove them is a little like using the scientific method. You have to simply be familiar with the scriptures, which give us and insight to the character and will of God, and have god knowledge of the Plan of Redemption. Like science there are set constants and laws that cannot be change. By those laws we can know what is true and what is false. If the contravene a principle or commandment then they are false.

For example, I listen to a testimony of a man who died and was revived. He gave a detailed account of what happened to him whilst he was dead. A very convincing account as well, but for one detail that exposed it as a fraud, or the source was dubious. He said that he found himself in the presence of God. Now, anyone who knows scriptures would know that it is impossible for a Spirit to be in the presence of God, pre-judgement. Anyone who is familiar with the Plan of Salvation would also know that his claim was fallacious. The Plan of Salvation is like a jig saw puzzle with every piece being unique. Many of our religions have some of the pieces, however, none of them have all the pieces. To disprove them is just a matter of looking at the pieces to see if they are all there. I have yet to find a religion that has all the pieces.

To clarify when I say religion I am referring to denominations in the Christian faith.

Now faith and our personal relationship with God is another story. It cannot be faulted in anyway or form. To be converted by the Holy Ghost, who opens the gates to the pure knowledge of the Plan of Redemption, and to receive that knowledge in all humility and faith in Christ, is to make yourself impervious to the fiery darts of Satan. So, in essence, I am throwing down the gauntlet to anyone who thinks they can disprove the logic of the Plan that was devised by God and accepted by Christ. I am looking for miss-shaped jig saw puzzle pieces that do to fit making the finished picture ugly instead of magnificent to behold. I am looking for someone to stump me on any aspect of Gods marvelous work and wonder to bring to pass the salvation and eternal life of mankind. If it cannot be done then even the disbelieved must concede that it is a rational and logical plan.

Oops, nice try...but I am NOT convinced. Most every attempt to prove the existence of God...or the legitimacy of a particular sect or faith is fated to fail...absent a resort to "special pleading" (usually served with ample "true believer" propaganda) which is exceedingly common.

Some variety of spirituality? No problemo... but please don't try to ram some particular faith down my throat, based on specious reasoning.

Incidentally, were we able to manifest JC right here and now...I VERY SERIOUSLY doubt that he'd be a Christian. He'd say..."You people are friggin; crazy!!"...and likely advocate good behavior (like a Buddhist or Hindu), meditation and mysticism....not all this negative junk about being sinners (and a "fallen" race), based on a silly fairy tale "once upon a time." I mean, "Get real!!"

 

[Bunyip]

So waht guides it then? Processes? Coming from where? Natural? What then is natural??? I suppose your answer to that is everything haha

Why would you think it needs to be guided? There is nothing to suggest that it does.