Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Serenity7855]

But you have no way of knowing if what they believed was actually true, any more than you have any evidence that the God you believe in actually exists. It makes you feel good to think so, you've taken the stories in a book of ancient mythology seriously, but beyond that, you've really got nothing.

He has an additional source of knowledge to you. The Holy Ghost.

 

[Serenity7855]

But you claim it anyhow, that's the problem. Neither you nor Savagewind nor any other theist on these forums has any demonstrable, rational reason to believe what you believe or claim what you claim, that doesn't stop you from doing so. You have a book that you want to believe but you have no objective evidence to support it and then you base all of your claims on the irrational belief that said book is actually true and worthwhile.

Can you see why people who don't take this book seriously might have a problem with your claims?

The book, as you glibly put it, is a book of commandments intended to guide the reader into how to live a Christ centred life. No more, no less. It is not a conversion tool. It is a method of keeping you on that straight and nattow once you have been converted. Christianity is a lifestyle. Live a Christ Centred life and the Spirit of God will testify of divinity to your soul, almost automatically. You are under a misconception if you think that the bible has any power to convert.

As for evidence, their is plenty of that everywhere you look, but you do not want to see it. You could not live the life of a Christian so you critique it. As for rational or logical reasons to believe, look at the Plan of Redemption, that nobody here can falsify.

 

[Ingledsva]

How do you expect any Christian, who lives by faith, to know that. Nobody could know that. Savagewind may believe that he is spirit, and that is fine, as that is how he see Him. I think he has a body of flesh and bones based on what Jesus said to Thomas when he asked him to touch him and said does a spirit have flesh and bones, but I do not know that for a surety as I have never seen him. Only if I gain exaltation will I ever know. It is you question that is not only nonsensical but it is a non sequitur. It is not relevant to our salvation.

1. Jesus isn't God.

2. you took that flesh and bone out of context. He was saying he was NOT a spirit.

Luk 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

Luk 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do (such) thoughts arise in your hearts?

Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

*

 

[Bunyip]

The book, as you glibly put it, is a book of commandments intended to guide the reader into how to live a Christ centred life. No more, no less. It is not a conversion tool. It is a method of keeping you on that straight and nattow once you have been converted. Christianity is a lifestyle. Live a Christ Centred life and the Spirit of God will testify of divinity to your soul, almost automatically. You are under a misconception if you think that the bible has any power to convert.

As for evidence, their is plenty of that everywhere you look, but you do not want to see it. You could not live the life of a Christian so you critique it. As for rational or logical reasons to believe, look at the Plan of Redemption, that nobody here can falsify.

Yes, it is not falsifyable - what is the point?

 

[Serenity7855]

1. Jesus isn't God.

2. you took that flesh and bone out of context. He was saying he was NOT a spirit.

Luk 24:37 But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit.

Luk 24:38 And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do (such) thoughts arise in your hearts?

Luk 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.

*

1. I know that Jesus isn't God

2. I was stating that Jesus was saying he is not a spirit.

 

[Cephus]

How do you explain the process of a single thought. The feeling of love, hatred or empathy. What is a thought? How does matter retain so much memory and knowledge. Science can pin point the area in which it happens, and even prescribe medication to make you happy instead of sad, but nobody knows how a concept is formed, by neurons and electro chemical reactions. Not and clue. For all intents and purposes, it is miraculous. No naturalistic laws that exist can be used to give an explanation of how we rationalise and use cognitive thinking to be aware of our being, or involving conscious intellectual activity (as thinking, reasoning, or remembering). If it cannot be explained by naturalistic laws then it becomes supernatural. Ah, I hear the cry of the atheist trying to excuse themselves by saying that just because it is not natural does not make it supernatural. They are wrong, as as usual, in an attempt to try to defend there bigoted views.

It's actually quite simple, although we don't have complete understanding, all of those things are wholly biological and detectable. The idea that we have no idea is simply absurd. We do. You ought to stop listening to people who have no idea.

supernatural

adjective

1. 1.
   (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
   "a supernatural being"
   synonyms: paranormal, psychic, magic, magical, occult, mystic, mystical,miraculous, superhuman, supernormal, hypernormal,extramundane;
   inexplicable, uncanny, unaccountable, unbelievable,non-rational, weird, mysterious, arcane

I'd actually reject the first part as a valid definition of supernatural, that isn't how anyone uses it. Just because we don't understand something that operates in the natural world doesn't make it supernatural, it makes it not understood. Before we knew what DNA was, that didn't make DNA supernatural. It made it beyond our current understanding. You can certainly go with the second part, that is how the word is typically used, but I don't think you can point to a single thing that actually demonstrably fits that definition. It's like "magic". Conceptually it's fine but it really doesn't help us understand the real world.

So, quite clearly, when you say "You cannot demonstrate that there is any such thing as the supernatural." You are demonstrably incorrect as I just have. That also make you wrong on this statement as well. "You cannot demonstrate that there is any such thing as the metaphysical." As if I can demonstrate that abstract phenomenon is supernatural it follows that it must be metaphysical as well. You are just being superfluous by using both terms.

No and I've just pointed out why it's not the case.

I could, of course, expand it to the cause of the Big Bang, Fine Tuning, Dark Energy, Photosynthesis, Ecosystems, Dark Matter and the Higgs Boson, all of which are known but not understood phenomenon, or, metaphysical.

Unknown and supernatural are not the same. Unknown is unknown. You can say nothing about it's actual source because it is, by definition, unknown.

Now, I can see God in all of these unexplained events, yet you announce that "you can't see God". The truth is that you cannot see God. Only those who live a Christ centred life can see God's hand in everything around us. You do not believe and you refuse to see so you will never possess what we have until you wake up and feel the grass between your toes.

You can see anything you want, the question isn't what you see but what you can prove and no matter how much you try to wiggle your way out of it, how you try to define your way out of it, it's still your responsibility and the burden of proof will forever be on those who make claims for which they have no evidence.

 

[Cephus]

It makes me feel good to think so? Why, HOW, could you, would you say that? You do not know that. Do you think it? Do you believe it? WHY?

Are you going to say that it makes you feel bad to believe in the existence of a god?

 

[savagewind]

Are you going to say that it makes you feel bad to believe in the existence of a god?

I think it is easier not to believe. I don't feel bad all the time or good all the time about what I think and believe. Of course I would never go back to nonbelief because who I believe in is a living soul with feelings.

 

[Cephus]

I think it is easier not to believe. I don't feel bad all the time or good all the time about what I think and believe. Of course I would never go back to nonbelief because who I believe in is a living soul with feelings.

I didn't ask about easy.

 

[Ingledsva]

1. I know that Jesus isn't God

2. I was stating that Jesus was saying he is not a spirit.

That isn't what you said.

"...Savagewind may believe that he is spirit, and that is fine, as that is how he see Him. I think he has a body of flesh and bones based on what Jesus said to Thomas when he asked him to touch him and said does a spirit have flesh and bones, but I do not know that for a surety as I have never seen him...."

*

 

[savagewind]

I didn't ask about easy.

Not easy is many times bad. But that does not mean that easy is good. I can't say if I feel better or worse believing because I do not know.

 

[fire]

I love all religions and faiths, all are steppingstones, and of God. There is no right way or path, and no way to falter. A seed will always develop into what it is, it needs no instructional manual. As friends we can supply water and sunlight, but we are not going to turn an acorn into a dandelion.

 

[Cephus]

Not easy is many times bad. But that does not mean that easy is good. I can't say if I feel better or worse believing because I do not know.

Losing weight isn't easy, it's hard work but a lot of people do it because they want to feel good about themselves and putting in all the hard work makes them feel good in the end. It's about ego, the same as religion, even if it isn't recognized as such.

 

[Sonofason]

still whooping up on that strawman?
And you wonder why you are thought of as dishonest?

Wow.

Please refrain from calling others dishonest. It's one thing to make a claim that someone is putting forth a strawman argument, and to show evidence of such, which by the way you have not done, but to imply that person is dishonest in doing so is nothing short of an Abusive ad hominem. "Equating someone's character with the soundness of their argument is a logical fallacy."
Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Try providing evidence with your claims, if you can. I realize it's not as easy as verbal abuse, but it is a more honest and respectable approach.

 

[savagewind]

Losing weight isn't easy, it's hard work but a lot of people do it because they want to feel good about themselves and putting in all the hard work makes them feel good in the end. It's about ego, the same as religion, even if it isn't recognized as such.

That is right. Losing weight does not feel good but it is done for feeling good. If I ever find myself before God I think I will feel good I believed. But I can't say believing feels good now.

 

[Sonofason]

There's no evidence of spirituality, period. It's an invented term with no demonstrable validity. It's like saying you had a psychic vision or a little bird told you. These are not rationally valid ways of gaining objective knowledge. Until it can be actually validated in some objective fashion, rational people are going to consider it imaginary.

spirituality is
"the quality or state of being concerned with religion or religious matters"
Spirituality - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Can you give me an example of what you would call demonstrable spirituality?

Would my going to church be a demonstration of my spirituality?
How about my reading of the Bible?
How about my caring tendencies towards helping to feed the hungry and the poor?
Would me praying in front of you be a fair demonstration of my spirituality?
Would the hairs raising on my arms while glorifying God be any sort of indication and demonstration of my spirituality?

What to you is a demonstration of spirituality?

Or are you looking to put the spirit of God in a box for show and tell? That is not spirituality. That would be a spirit wouldn't it, not spirituality?

 

[Twilight Hue]

The words that go from one phone to another phone through the air are real. HOW? How can you believe in phone messages but not believe intelligence can exist outside of this universe?

If such was the case you would have the same consensus as with electromagnetic signals used to translate voice and images by electronic devices. Such an intelligence as described can't meet those same standards such as electromagnetic waves has and consequently makes for a poor comparison as it stands.

 

[Serenity7855]

That isn't what you said.

"...Savagewind may believe that he is spirit, and that is fine, as that is how he see Him. I think he has a body of flesh and bones based on what Jesus said to Thomas when he asked him to touch him and said does a spirit have flesh and bones, but I do not know that for a surety as I have never seen him...."

*

That is exactly what I said "I think he has a body of flesh and bones" and I qualified it by saying "does a spirit have flesh and bones" meaning that he had a physical body so was not a spirit.

 

[Sonofason]

But you claim it anyhow, that's the problem. Neither you nor Savagewind nor any other theist on these forums has any demonstrable, rational reason to believe what you believe or claim what you claim, that doesn't stop you from doing so. You have a book that you want to believe but you have no objective evidence to support it and then you base all of your claims on the irrational belief that said book is actually true and worthwhile.

Can you see why people who don't take this book seriously might have a problem with your claims?

The concern of a Christian is not people who don't take the Bible seriously, the concerns of a Christian is people who might take the Bible seriously. But everyone deserves to hear the truth. It is up to each individual whether or not he will accept that truth.

 

[Sonofason]

It makes me feel good to think so? Why, HOW, could you, would you say that? You do not know that. Do you think it? Do you believe it? WHY?

It must make him feel good to think that.