Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Serenity7855]

Okay, Serenity, you confirmed my first suspicions. Carry on...

I did, perhaps you missed my additional text.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Evening folks
Okay. I will take a shot at this. How do I disprove the plan God has for Christians and God's plan of redemption? There are two (or more) sides to answer this question.

1st. Religion/faith is prooved by individual experiences not historical facts. Abraham and Moses had testimonies of what God told them. Moses did not hear Gods chosen people who had passed on such as Abraham. Yet, he wrote their events and so forth. So religion is testimony and experience.

As such, it cannot be disproved. For example, a person comes to Christ and says "I want you Christ to be my Lord and Savior." So, the Holy Spirit fills her heart, and (to protestant point of view), she is saved. No one else "knows" the validity of her salvation but she and God. We can tap dance of whether her "salvation" is pure or is it psychological (which in some cases, it could mimic that, I'll say), but we cant disprove it.

Another example: I am not an atheist. I practice Nichiren Buddhism and paganism. Nichiren Buddhist believe in the mystic law (aka Holy Spirit). However, the source of the Law does not come from outside ourselves (God coming in); it comes from inside our selves ("God" coming out). No one can disprove that Nichiren Diashonin, Joe Smith, or I did not have a revelation that we, are in fact, Buddhas and have a clear nature to live life as a Boddhissatva of the Earth. We just "Know."


Religion/faith is just that: "We just know; its my experience; I seen it myself." It isn't "Moses saw the burning bush yesterday and I saw it today, so Joe Smith on the other side of the world can prove we saw the same bush in two different time periods not just by our testimonies but by his 'objective' studies."

Religion is not an objective subject. That's why philosophers, philosophize and theologists theologize... if they found concrete answers, those two words wouldnt exist anymore. They'd be just "Facts."

So, I think it is very contradictive to ask to disprove anyone's faith regardless of who or what it is in because its very personal. We impersonalize our faiths so much that to disprove it would be disproving that we even exist on the planet.

Until next time...
Carlita

 

[Serenity7855]

Evening folks
Okay. I will take a shot at this. How do I disprove the plan God has for Christians and God's plan of redemption? There are two (or more) sides to answer this question.

1st. Religion/faith is prooved by individual experiences not historical facts. Abraham and Moses had testimonies of what God told them. Moses did not hear Gods chosen people who had passed on such as Abraham. Yet, he wrote their events and so forth. So religion is testimony and experience.

As such, it cannot be disproved. For example, a person comes to Christ and says "I want you Christ to be my Lord and Savior." So, the Holy Spirit fills her heart, and (to protestant point of view), she is saved. No one else "knows" the validity of her salvation but she and God. We can tap dance of whether her "salvation" is pure or is it psychological (which in some cases, it could mimic that, I'll say), but we cant disprove it.

Another example: I am not an atheist. I practice Nichiren Buddhism and paganism. Nichiren Buddhist believe in the mystic law (aka Holy Spirit). However, the source of the Law does not come from outside ourselves (God coming in); it comes from inside our selves ("God" coming out). No one can disprove that Nichiren Diashonin, Joe Smith, or I did not have a revelation that we, are in fact, Buddhas and have a clear nature to live life as a Boddhissatva of the Earth. We just "Know."


Religion/faith is just that: "We just know; its my experience; I seen it myself." It isn't "Moses saw the burning bush yesterday and I saw it today, so Joe Smith on the other side of the world can prove we saw the same bush in two different time periods not just by our testimonies but by his 'objective' studies."

Religion is not an objective subject. That's why philosophers, philosophize and theologists theologize... if they found concrete answers, those two words wouldnt exist anymore. They'd be just "Facts."

So, I think it is very contradictive to ask to disprove anyone's faith regardless of who or what it is in because its very personal. We impersonalize our faiths so much that to disprove it would be disproving that we even exist on the planet.

Until next time...
Carlita

I can see that you have thought this through, so my short response makes me feel guilty for perhaps misleading you. I am only to aware that religion cannot be disprove, for the same reasons as you have given here. I am not asking for anyone to disprove Christianity, I am asking for anyone to find any irregularities in the plan of redemption that might render it void of any credibility. To find anything that does not fit, there-by, making it illogical to a point where it in untenable or unworkable. I cannot do it so by issuing the challenge to no believers to do will either demonstrate that a 6000 year old plan is leak proof and therefore entirely plausible, or a total fairy tale. That is my agenda. Thus far I see no likelihood of anyone coming close. The more plausible and air tight the plan, the greater the probability that it exists.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The proof is within, the evidence is the conviction of the person.

There is plenty of evidence that then backs it up. Two thirds of the world for one. Of the third that is left, it is only a small percentage daft enough to say that there is no God. Stupid position really when you can't prove it. .. Blessed is the one who does not condemn himself by what he approves.

What you have is spiritual blindness...sorry, that is the way it is. Most people who understand arguments are seen as being right and not wrong, as in the case with this one.

No you have no evidence. Also 2/3 of the world is no longer true.

God and everything people attest to only comes from a persons mind and mouth and absoulty nowhere else. There is nothing you can ever do about it. The universe remains silent and indifferent.

 

[savagewind]

No you have no evidence. Also 2/3 of the world is no longer true.

God and everything people attest to only comes from a persons mind and mouth and absoulty nowhere else. There is nothing you can ever do about it. The universe remains silent and indifferent.

What is the universe which remains silent? Are we not a part of the universe? We make a lot of noise. Basically you and people who hear our testimonies but reject it all are calling us liars.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Do you really believe that one can be converted to Christianity by just reading the bible? It is not that easy.

I was a Christian for over thirty years. The Bible was and is the nexus for the entire faith. Conversions are based on Biblical writings themselves. Unless Christianity is trying something new.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What is the universe which remains silent? Are we not a part of the universe? We make a lot of noise. Basically you and people who hear our testimonies but reject it all are calling us liars.

No. I don't think your lying. In fact I Im familiar with the personal sincerity. You are correct by saying "we" because it directly points to the undeniable fact that human beings are the only source of the entirety of the religion and contents.

It's true we are infact the universe yet there is the distinction of embellishments and fabrications to what is direct and obvious.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It's called spiritual discernment and is the grace of God. Don't feel so hard done by if you have not received it.

No. Not hard done. ;0)

I went through it all. I just later regarded it as being embellishment of direct reality through our senses and mind. It's just a interpretation of human experience.

 

[McBell]

I can see that you have thought this through, so my short response makes me feel guilty for perhaps misleading you. I am only to aware that religion cannot be disprove, for the same reasons as you have given here. I am not asking for anyone to disprove Christianity, I am asking for anyone to find any irregularities in the plan of redemption that might render it void of any credibility. To find anything that does not fit, there-by, making it illogical to a point where it in untenable or unworkable. I cannot do it so by issuing the challenge to no believers to do will either demonstrate that a 6000 year old plan is leak proof and therefore entirely plausible, or a total fairy tale. That is my agenda. Thus far I see no likelihood of anyone coming close. The more plausible and air tight the plan, the greater the probability that it exists.

Here is one for you to arbitrarily dismiss:
God creates 613 rules and regulations that with his being all knowing, he knows that man will fail to obey.
He then sends himself to the mortal realm to die for mankinds inability (which being all knowing he already knew) to follow the 613 rules and regulations.

God set man up to fail from the get go.

Let the apologetics begin!

 

[Bunyip]

It is drawn from evidence. You can't belive in something you don't know.

Sure you can Robert. You believe in god, but do not know.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I can see that you have thought this through, so my short response makes me feel guilty for perhaps misleading you. I am only to aware that religion cannot be disprove, for the same reasons as you have given here. I am not asking for anyone to disprove Christianity, I am asking for anyone to find any irregularities in the plan of redemption that might render it void of any credibility. To find anything that does not fit, there-by, making it illogical to a point where it in untenable or unworkable. I cannot do it so by issuing the challenge to no believers to do will either demonstrate that a 6000 year old plan is leak proof and therefore entirely plausible, or a total fairy tale. That is my agenda. Thus far I see no likelihood of anyone coming close. The more plausible and air tight the plan, the greater the probability that it exists.

Thank you for understanding and the clarification. The only couple of commonly themes that may disprove the redemption plan is whether or not God exists. If the other side doesn't believe in the source, it's hard to disprove anything that source does (if I'm saying that right).

I don't believe God's plan for redemption because I know that the actions I do will have spiritual consequences. If we are inline with our nature (Buddha nature), the redemption is within our soul rather than from God. So, Id probably disprove it by saying we all humanity have one foundation, and that is life--that life, however we chose to live it--depending on how we live, is our source of redemption. So, basically, a Christian being redeemed by God and a Buddhist being redeemed by his own nature are both valid. They are just disproved because they don't agree with each other.

If I still missed your question, I probably don't have a good answer. I don't know if you can disprove something you don't believe in. If there are other people who answers your question, I'll take a peak.

Thanks
Carlita

 

[nazz]

To find anything that does not fit, there-by, making it illogical to a point where it in untenable or unworkable. I cannot do it so by issuing the challenge to no believers to do will either demonstrate that a 6000 year old plan is leak proof and therefore entirely plausible, or a total fairy tale. That is my agenda.

Oh please. Whatever your agenda is it is clearly not that. I'll take this back up with you if and when you demonstrate a real desire to put your beliefs to the test.

 

[Skwim]

Serenity7855: "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.

Skwim: Satisfy me that keeping others from his big plan of salvation---either by not reveling it to them or sending incompetent messengers to explain it---qualifies as a marvelous work.

Serenity7855​

Utter silence​

("Okay, I'm stumped")

Skwim:​

"I am sooo good!"​

 

[Serenity7855]

Here is one for you to arbitrarily dismiss:
God creates 613 rules and regulations that with his being all knowing, he knows that man will fail to obey.
He then sends himself to the mortal realm to die for mankinds inability (which being all knowing he already knew) to follow the 613 rules and regulations.

God set man up to fail from the get go.

Let the apologetics begin!

This is yet another fallacious piece of doctrine that is putting religions in such a precarious position within our society. You err in forgetting that God is perfect, but he is not a magician who can shed his perfection and then take it back up again. It is doctrine like this that is destroying religions. It creates pseudonyms for religion like leprechauns, unicorns and the spaghetti monster, which are used to define Christianity. So, yes, I can arbitrarily dismiss it on the grounds that what you are saying is simply not true

 

[Sapiens]

This is yet another fallacious piece of doctrine that is putting religions in such a precarious position within our society.

Hallelujah!

You err in forgetting that God is perfect, but he is not a magician who can shed his perfection and then take it back up again.

You forget that there is no god to worry about being perfect or imperfect at any given moment.

It is doctrine like this that is destroying religions.

If only we were all so lucky.

It creates pseudonyms for religion like leprechauns, unicorns and the spaghetti monster, which are used to define Christianity.

No, they do not define Christianity (except as you cause such definition to occur), they mock Christianity by exposing its core fallacy ... all you got is a book and as Tim Minchim says, "You can't be good without a Good Book 'cos it's good and it's a book."

So, yes, I can arbitrarily dismiss it on the grounds that what you are saying is simply not true

Maybe, but you'd still be wrong.

 

[Robert.Evans]

No, that's all you have. Maybe you ought to stop looking in the mirror.

No, that's all YOU have. We have intelligence. it is you that has luck and chance... your magic

 

[Robert.Evans]

And you have the argument from ignorance. Maybe you ought to stop appealing to logical fallacies.

How can you in your wildest dreams think that saying complicated thing need some form of intelligence to form them is a fallacy. It would seem to be a logical answer until proved otherwise, which it has not been.

 

[Robert.Evans]

It's not a conscious process, it's a chemical one. Maybe you ought to look up a basic primer on how chemical bonds work.

So chemical processes, which you call natural, did it. Sounds like luck to me. No intelligence involved. You see your magic now? How did the processes arise to make the chemicals to make the DNA etc? Come on, tell us.

 

[Robert.Evans]

You're the one who asked how it "knew" how to do things, implying you think it is a conscious process. If you want to rid yourself of your ignorance of basic biology, go read a book.

Doesn't explain where all those things come from though does it. You look at a few dominoes falling over, and don't stop to think of what started the process off. It appears that the paper bag on the head is used at that point... haha

 

[Robert.Evans]

Your emotional response aside, since it is entirely irrelevant, all you are doing is making pronouncements, not observations. You wish you had something better, you have no actual knowledge that such a thing actually exists. Wishful thinking is nothing to be proud of.

What is known is within us. It is you that does not have it, that is why you do not understand this argument. Being ignorant is not something to brag about.