Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Dr. Strange]

Faith is provedby the inner change, that is what faith proves. What is within is invisible, and is known within the mind and from God. Physical arguments cannot show this.

Before I studied Paul Tillich I'd have agreed with you. And, before I learned about the latest on science saying that a singularity can come out of nothing, I'd have agreed with you.

Faith is powerful and now, science and faith are at odds with being.

 

[1robin]

I don't know. How do you know they didn't?

WAIT A MINUTE! Haha! We believe their evidence which is written. Haha A frubal for funny.

Who are you talking to? Which claim are you refuting? Generalized proclamations are not arguments nor are they relevant to anyone until you address them to someone. That is not debating it is yelling at traffic.

 

[Cephus]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"

Donald Rumsfeld, Military strategist

No it is not, but since no one is claiming otherwise, that's irrelevant. It doesn't stop the fact that believing something before there is evidence is foolish. It is as ridiculous to believe in undemonstrated gods as it is to believe in undemonstrated unicorns. After all, just because you can't prove unicorns don't exist doesn't mean they don't!

 

[1robin]

Before I studied Paul Tillich I'd have agreed with you. And, before I learned about the latest on science saying that a singularity can come out of nothing, I'd have agreed with you.

Faith is powerful and now, science and faith are at odds with being.

I don't know about the rest of this but there is no science that gets a single thing from nothing. There are only two possibilities for what your stating.

1. The thing they call nothing is actually something. They do this constantly and it is so deplorable it makes me want to turn my degree in and divorce modern scientists all together.
2. Or they are making up science fiction or using terrible philosophy and cloaking their theological preference or musings under science which it isn't.

For example one of the worst statements in science history is one by Hawking. "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing."

That is not just wrong it is plain stupid. Gravity not only is it's self a thing but it also depends on the pre-existence of other things. And no natural law has ever created anything. 1 + 1 never put a dollar in a single checking account. Natural laws explain how X did Y do not explain how X or Y came into existence. As Lewis (who apparently was a better scientists not mention journalist than Hawking, here) said natural law explains why a + b = c but first you must catch your a and b.

In 20 years of almost obsession with theological scholarship I have never heard of Tillich. But if you tell me what subject he biblical subject he deals with I could almost certainly give you several superior scholars to consider.

How do you mean science and faith are at odds? I did not get it but I will state that modern science it's self was overwhelmingly the product of men of faith and any list of sciences greats will be dominated by Christians. I think almost 80% of histories Nobel's are Christians, much of the rest are Jews.

 

[Ingledsva]

I know that Jesus is not God. Why do you post as though I have said any different?

OK, so what do you mean, exactly, by Jesus being glorified?

*

 

[1robin]

No it is not, but since no one is claiming otherwise, that's irrelevant. It doesn't stop the fact that believing something before there is evidence is foolish. It is as ridiculous to believe in undemonstrated gods as it is to believe in undemonstrated unicorns. After all, just because you can't prove unicorns don't exist doesn't mean they don't!

Oh come on. There is no end to evidence. Just pick a category to make it practical for a forum. Actually maybe a sub-category, as any general category will still have so many examples as to be beyond practicality.

Unicorns did not write the most scrutinized and beloved book in human history, no unicorn is the most attested figure in ancient history, no unicorn has changed mankind more that any other factor in history. No unicorn is validated by countless historical finds. No unicorn ever made sophisticated philosophical claims that pass every test in academia. No unicorn is cited in the thousands upon thousands of rational claims to the miraculous. No unicorn is of a type of being the majority of mankind has believed in for 5000 years. No unicorn ever produced a profit (not even a false one). In fact I can't think of a single equality between God and a unicorn, except both are not objectively provable (however that is the case for all knowledge except that we think).

 

[Cephus]

Unicorns did not write the most scrutinized and beloved book in human history, no unicorn is the most attested figure in ancient history, no unicorn has changed mankind more that any other factor in history. No unicorn is validated by countless historical finds. No unicorn ever made sophisticated philosophical claims that pass every test in academia. No unicorn is cited in the thousands upon thousands of rational claims to the miraculous. No unicorn is of a type of being the majority of mankind has believed in for 5000 years. No unicorn ever produced a profit (not even a false one). In fact I can't think of a single equality between God and a unicorn, except both are not objectively provable (however that is the case for all knowledge except that we think).

Neither did God. There is no evidence God had anything to do with the writing of the Bible, that was the work of men. Blind faith is not evidence. Neither is there a single historical find at all that proves God is a factual entity. Nobody can show that God has made a single philosophical claim because no one can show that God actually exists.

You are confusing blind faith with demonstrable fact. They are not the same.

 

[1robin]

Neither did God.

Your going from bad to worse. Even if you were right you could never ever know it. Not to mention the weight of evidence all but annihilates your unjustifiable assumption.

There is no evidence God had anything to do with the writing of the Bible

2500 prophecies (many of them detailed in the extreme) and all accurate alone disprove your claim but that is not even the tip of the iceberg but I am in a hurry.

that was the work of men

If you mean the writing of revelation then I will you a bone sand agree.

Blind faith is not evidence.

Since that is not the faith I have it is irrelevant.

Neither is there a single historical find at all that proves God is a factual entity.

No one said it did. The historical and other astronomical reliability of the bible suggests very strongly the authors accurately recorded even what can't be verified including their theological claims. No one is discussing proof or should be. Not even history is a mater of proof. Heck no knowledge of any kind is except that we think.

Nobody can show that God has made a single philosophical claim because no one can show that God actually exists.

As I said the authors meet every test of sincerity and honestly and in law circles that means we are to are valid to trust what can't be tested. They said God inspired the bible, they prove to be honest and trustworthy. Only a lunatic thinks a text which proves it's self reliable in every testable way was written by idiots who suddenly went insane when recording what is not testable.

You are confusing blind faith with demonstrable fact. They are not the same.

No your confusing blind faith with Christianity and my posts.

 

[Parsimony]

Then, explain what you said:

"Jesus bled because he was human at the time. Not until he was resurrected did he become glorified."

Are you saying, "Jesus is not God before the Resurrection, but that Jesus is God after the Resurrection?"

Perhaps he takes the Jehovah's Witness' position that Jesus was Michael the Archangel?

 

[savagewind]

Who are you talking to? Which claim are you refuting? Generalized proclamations are not arguments nor are they relevant to anyone until you address them to someone. That is not debating it is yelling at traffic.

If you don't know what a post means click the little arrow next to so and so says. He said how do they know my belief. I think it was a joke. Was it a joke? Anyway it was funny. Neverrmind. I said I trust the evidence the writers saw. Do you understand? Haha

 

[Cephus]

Your going from bad to worse. Even if you were right you could never ever know it. Not to mention the weight of evidence all but annihilates your unjustifiable assumption.

I don't have to know it, all I have to know is that you don't know it. You act like you're rationally justified in believing any load of cockamamie nonsense you want, just because you've designed it in such a way that it's beyond objective evaluation.

2500 prophecies (many of them detailed in the extreme) and all accurate alone disprove your claim but that is not even the tip of the iceberg but I am in a hurry.

Nope, not a single one that will stand up to any kind of evaluation. It would need to be demonstrably written before the fact, be specific to refer only to a single possible event and not be open to purposely being fulfilled by people looking for it to occur. Nothing in the Bible does that.

Try again.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Agreed. There's no evidence. The Holy Bible is completely fabricated and unsubstantiated and a poor foundation to use for any kind of arguement for validity of any creater. It's easy to "fulfill prophecy" . Just pen the fulfillment in and claim it happened. Lol

 

[Cephus]

Agreed. There's no evidence. The Holy Bible is completely fabricated and unsubstantiated and a poor foundation to use for any kind of arguement for validity of any creater. It's easy to "fulfill prophecy" . Just pen the fulfillment in and claim it happened. Lol

Especially because so many of the so-called prophecies are absurdly vague and have to be "interpreted" down the line to claim they actually happened. That's not impressive. An impressive prophecy might be "on October 21, 2020 at 11:47am, there will be a massive earthquake in Los Angeles, California that will kill 3000 people". If that actually happened, I'd be very impressed. Of course, none of the prophecies are precise, they don't refer to a specific event at a specific time in a specific place that cannot be caused by people who are trying to make the prophecy come true, most of the supposed prophecies are not even clearly prophetic, they are just passages that later people came along and claimed actually happened. It's like Nostradamus, they have to run it through their filters to come up with something that it must have actually meant, even if it says nothing of the sort.

 

[Bunyip]

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"

Donald Rumsfeld, Military strategist

It sure is a reliable indicator of absence, and Rumsfeld was refering to the WMD which it turns out did not exist.

 

[Serenity7855]

No it is not, but since no one is claiming otherwise, that's irrelevant. It doesn't stop the fact that believing something before there is evidence is foolish. It is as ridiculous to believe in undemonstrated gods as it is to believe in undemonstrated unicorns. After all, just because you can't prove unicorns don't exist doesn't mean they don't!

But I have received sufficient evidence to prove that there is a deity. First off I gained an intellectual knowledge based on the mountains of circumstantial that exists pointing to God's existence, followed by a spiritual awareness of his existence. I now have no doubt what-so-ever that he lives. I am a realist. I need evidence to believe. I have received that evidence courtesy of the Holy Ghost. I ask nobody to believe me. If you want to know yourself then you must do the same.

James 1:5-6

5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

6 But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed.


3 Behold, I would exhort you that when ye shall read these things, if it be wisdom in God that ye should read them, that ye would remember how merciful the Lord hath been unto the children of men, from the creation of Adam even down until the time that ye shall receive these things, and ponder it in your hearts.

4 And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

 

[Serenity7855]

Agreed. There's no evidence. The Holy Bible is completely fabricated and unsubstantiated and a poor foundation to use for any kind of arguement for validity of any creater. It's easy to "fulfill prophecy" . Just pen the fulfillment in and claim it happened. Lol

Is that what you would do? Dishonestly make false claims? I know that atheists are not bound by any moral accountability but such dishonesty is unethical to us Christians. You must surely know that the Holy Bible has been scrutinised more then any book in existence and it has been deemed as authentic and fully substantiated by experts in that field. It is used worldwide as a foundation to many different arguments as it is a moral compass to the actions of mankind. In all honesty your post is complete and utter dishonest nonsense seemingly intended to provoke a reaction.

 

[Serenity7855]

Especially because so many of the so-called prophecies are absurdly vague and have to be "interpreted" down the line to claim they actually happened. That's not impressive. An impressive prophecy might be "on October 21, 2020 at 11:47am, there will be a massive earthquake in Los Angeles, California that will kill 3000 people". If that actually happened, I'd be very impressed. Of course, none of the prophecies are precise, they don't refer to a specific event at a specific time in a specific place that cannot be caused by people who are trying to make the prophecy come true, most of the supposed prophecies are not even clearly prophetic, they are just passages that later people came along and claimed actually happened. It's like Nostradamus, they have to run it through their filters to come up with something that it must have actually meant, even if it says nothing of the sort

You speak as one with little foresight having an inability to think laterally. If you had an inkling as to how free agency works you would know that it is impossible to predict exactly when an event will happen. Secondly, natural events cannot be predicted. The are based on naturals laws. Why not take a look at some prophecies before discrediting them. Bible prophecies involving the end times

 

[Cephus]

But I have received sufficient evidence to prove that there is a deity. First off I gained an intellectual knowledge based on the mountains of circumstantial that exists pointing to God's existence, followed by a spiritual awareness of his existence. I now have no doubt what-so-ever that he lives. I am a realist. I need evidence to believe. I have received that evidence courtesy of the Holy Ghost. I ask nobody to believe me. If you want to know yourself then you must do the same.

No, you have sufficient faith to believe there is a deity. Evidence can be objectively presented. You cannot do so or you would have by now. Someone would have, you'd think. There is a difference between faith and evidence. Figure it out.

 

[Cephus]

You speak as one with little foresight having an inability to think laterally. If you had an inkling as to how free agency works you would know that it is impossible to predict exactly when an event will happen. Secondly, natural events cannot be predicted. The are based on naturals laws. Why not take a look at some prophecies before discrediting them. Bible prophecies involving the end times

So you're not saying that God, who supposedly inspired the Bible and is supposedly omniscient, didn't know? And since the end times haven't happened yet, no prophecies predicting them mean a thing. People have been claiming the end times are imminent for thousands of years, it hasn't happened yet. What good are prophecies if they don't actually predict anything?

 

[fantome profane]

In are human beings having a human experience. You are comparing God to a human when he is much more then then that. He is a glorified personage.

Jesus bled because he was human at the time. Not until he was resurrected did he become glorified.

Right, but for some reason his glorified resurrected body still had holes in the hands. I have always found that strange.