Faithless a Choice?

[pearl]

I think that growing out of Christianity is growing up.

No, that's giving up.

 

[ppp]

No, that's giving up.

Giving up on a specific thing is not giving up on everything. Did you mean something specific, or were you intending to make such a broad and vague statement?

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Okay. The Bible contains prophecy - that is there are events written in advance, or things foretold, or predicted to happen. The prophecies in the Bible have been fulfilled exactly as prophesied.
I'll get to the specifics later, but just as a starter I want to get your position on this.
Do you deny that the Bible contains prophesies? Do you consider this to be false? On what basis?

The Bible only contains prophecies of events after the fact. It does not contain failed prophecy. It selectively choose things that they believe have happened. Or things that have not yet happened.
As proof of anything, prophecy always fails miserably

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

It is based on, or founded on evidence, which does not contradict what is proven.
It is sound, even where there is no proof, of which there are many things that cannot be proven.
I cannot prove that I will be breathing tomorrow, but I do have faith in the evidence that will be the case.

No, you have faith (hope) that, that may come about.
One day you will be wrong.
This is certain.

Faith is always about the uncertain or unprovable.
It is usually a mixture of hope and wishful thinking.

 

[nPeace]

I eagerly await your list.
But I also wonder about the claims shown false, eg,
young Earth, talking snakes, making women out of ribs.

A short list...
A reliable source of truth
Unchanged and up to date
Biblical figures unambiguously identified
Historically Accurate

There are other things "evidenced in reality" which you don't accept, or believe, but because you dismiss them, that doesn't make them any less reality.
For example... Spirituality; the influence of spirit, and its effects; higher beings... etc.

Young earth? Does the Bible say how young the earth is? No.
Talking snakes? One single account mentioned a serpent in conversation with Eve. That one account does not mention that serpent again, apart from God's condemnation on the serpent. The Bible identifies the serpent as the Devil and Satan - opposer, and deceiver. The voice behind the serpent was an angel.
Similar to Balaam's donkey. An angel was speaking - not the donkey.
Even if one were to argue that they actually spoke, no details are given as to how they did, so that's really a non issue, since no one can reasonably argue that it cannot be done.
What is so hard to believe about making a human from a rib? Say it could be done scientifically, would you not believe it? Why then do you think it cannot be done by a "super-intellect"?

Your argument hasn't worked on this heathen.
While I don't know everyone, I've never met IRL an atheist
who converted to a religion. But the believers (especially
ex-Catholics & ex-Jews) who became atheists...they abound.

What do you mean by my argument has not worked?
If you mean, you are not convinced by my argument, which really it is not an argument, but a fact, you are reinforcing the OP - that people can see clear evidence, but choose to deny it.
You don't have to know everything for it to be true. If someone in Taiwan said hailstones the size of a man's fist fell, you don't need to see it, for it to be real.

There are people that have been raised in non-religious households, who became Atheists, and later became religious.
Again, people who deny this, do so by choice. They basically take figurative blinders and put them on, so they would remain blind... because they choose to.
I am not trying to convince you to be anything though, in case that's what you meant by 'argument hasn't worked'.

 

[nPeace]

I wonder if the "hate God" idea arose, ie, from a believer
who suffered in life, leading to rejecting their faith.
A lifelong atheist would have no reason to had their God.
I actually have more feelings of hatred toward Voldemort.
He seems more real.

I don't wonder that because it is written in a reliable book that that's not the case.
People say they have reason to hate God, because they have reason to believe God is... based on reason.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Notice what you said. "I would need some serious convincing."
Consider, now the question. What would be some serious convincing? In other words, what would convince you?
Lightning bolts coming out of his hands, Or something else?

Well, I don't know. Do you think displays of electricity from the hand could be done technologically? Could it be done via a 3d hologram? Maybe through a cgi projection?

What would it take for you, evidence wise, to believe that Thor was real?

Things happen, and people dismiss them with a wave of the hand, and attribute them to some unexplained phenomenon. It is a choice.

What people accept and reject has 100% to do with what you already have in your epistemological toolset. If you believe things can happen, it's because you've already decided they can.

Now, you can switch out tools if you think other ones work better (get you closer to your understanding of reality), but ultimately, when you decide something, it's because you already have that understanding or have come to that understanding.

Where's the choice?

Actually, the texts I use, says two things that confirm that.
1)
"The reason why they were not able to believe is that again Isaiah said: “He has blinded their eyes and has made their hearts hard, so that they would not see with their eyes and understand with their hearts and turn around and I heal them.”

2)
That is why God lets a deluding influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie, in order that they all may be judged because they did not believe the truth but took pleasure in unrighteousness.

Did you notice... They did not want to see, hence God did not allow them to see, but let them be deluded, into believing what they wanted to believe - the lie.

Alrighty, then.

Do you have any evidence to back this up outside of the bible? If I were to read you a verse from a different holy text, would you accept it? Why would you accept it, or reject it? Is it because their god made it in your heart to accept or reject what was written in that holy book?

The choice comes in the person deciding in their heart ...that's key.... deciding in their heart that the very thing is foolishness, and so, they would not see, because God withholds their ability to see.

Why would he want that?...

People of flesh will never understand this, because it's a spiritual matter.
Unless one has that, it is impossible to grasp these thing, or even understand clearly what I am conveying here. It is as though I am speaking Japanese to one completely clueless of the language.

You know, I was a die hard christian for 5/6ths of my life. I'm not as ignorant on these things as you seem to think I am.

I understand you though - clearer than you understand yourself.

How would you feel if I told you that? Do you not see the arrogance? I don't even know what to say to you...

Paul explained it this way...
For who among men knows the things of a man except the man’s spirit within him? So, too, no one has come to know the things of God except the spirit of God. Now we received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit that is from God, so that we might know the things that have been kindly given us by God. These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, as we explain spiritual matters with spiritual words. But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?” But we do have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2:11-16)

I'm not sure if you got that, but that's it.
Jesus said, "Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need..." (Matthew 5:3)
Do you even understand what that means.
The physical man will never get it, because such a man only sees the physical - not that he cannot "see" the spiritual, because he can... if he wants to - that is, if his heart is opened - humble (God then grants him). However, he chooses not to. It's a choice... based on his heart - his innermost thoughts and desires.
I can choose to close my mind too. It's called closed-mindedness.

In the same book of John, Chapter 12, it mentions some of the things that people could observe, but then their reaction to these things, demonstrated their choice. You can read from verse 9 to 19, and see what I mean.

Yah, I think I'm done. This is fruitless.

 

[stvdv]

Why does the world lack faith? Is it because there is lack of evidence, hence disbelief?
According to the Bible, No. This is not the case. To the contrary.

Faithless a Choice?

My Faith is very clear in this. We should never underestimate the power of Self Effort

Karma of tomorrow can be effectively counteracted by Self Effort of Today

Lack of Faith today, results from Lack of Self Effort yesterday

 

[nPeace]

@Audie
(Genesis 6:9) . . .This is the history of Noah.. . .

(Genesis 6:11-13) 11 But the earth had become ruined in the sight of the true God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 Yes, God looked upon the earth, and it was ruined; all flesh had ruined its way on the earth. 13 After that God said to Noah: “I have decided to put an end to all flesh, because the earth is full of violence on account of them, so I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth.

(Genesis 6:17-21) 17 “As for me, I am going to bring floodwaters upon the earth to destroy from under the heavens all flesh that has the breath of life. Everything on the earth will perish. 18 And I am establishing my covenant with you, and you must go into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And bring into the ark two of every sort of living creature in order to preserve them alive with you, a male and a female; 20 of the flying creatures according to their kinds, the domestic animals according to their kinds, and all creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive. 21 For your part, you are to collect and take with you every kind of food to eat, to serve as food for you and for the animals.”

(Genesis 7:18-24) 18 The waters became overwhelming and kept increasing greatly upon the earth, but the ark floated on the surface of the waters. 19 The waters overwhelmed the earth so greatly that all the tall mountains under the whole heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose up to 15 cubits above the mountains. 21 So all living creatures that were moving on the earth perished - the flying creatures, the domestic animals, the wild animals, the swarming creatures, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 So He wiped every living thing from the surface of the earth, including man, animals, creeping animals, and the flying creatures of the sky. They were all wiped off the earth; only Noah and those with him in the ark survived. 24 And the waters continued overwhelming the earth for 150 days.

The Bible says this account is history. Not allegory. Not myth.
The Bible says the waters covered the whole earth, including the all the tall mountains. I guess everyone knows what all means.
The Bible says all flesh, including all animals on dry land died.
I believe the Bible.

Is there something more you need, or can you provide that proof now.

 

[Audie]

@Audie
(Genesis 6:9) . . .This is the history of Noah.. . .

(Genesis 6:11-13) 11 But the earth had become ruined in the sight of the true God, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 Yes, God looked upon the earth, and it was ruined; all flesh had ruined its way on the earth. 13 After that God said to Noah: “I have decided to put an end to all flesh, because the earth is full of violence on account of them, so I am bringing them to ruin together with the earth.

(Genesis 6:17-21) 17 “As for me, I am going to bring floodwaters upon the earth to destroy from under the heavens all flesh that has the breath of life. Everything on the earth will perish. 18 And I am establishing my covenant with you, and you must go into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And bring into the ark two of every sort of living creature in order to preserve them alive with you, a male and a female; 20 of the flying creatures according to their kinds, the domestic animals according to their kinds, and all creeping animals of the ground according to their kinds, two of each will go in there to you to preserve them alive. 21 For your part, you are to collect and take with you every kind of food to eat, to serve as food for you and for the animals.”

(Genesis 7:18-24) 18 The waters became overwhelming and kept increasing greatly upon the earth, but the ark floated on the surface of the waters. 19 The waters overwhelmed the earth so greatly that all the tall mountains under the whole heavens were covered. 20 The waters rose up to 15 cubits above the mountains. 21 So all living creatures that were moving on the earth perished - the flying creatures, the domestic animals, the wild animals, the swarming creatures, and all mankind. 22 Everything on dry land that had the breath of life in its nostrils died. 23 So He wiped every living thing from the surface of the earth, including man, animals, creeping animals, and the flying creatures of the sky. They were all wiped off the earth; only Noah and those with him in the ark survived. 24 And the waters continued overwhelming the earth for 150 days.

The Bible says this account is history. Not allegory. Not myth.
The Bible says the waters covered the whole earth, including the all the tall mountains. I guess everyone knows what all means.
The Bible says all flesh, including all animals on dry land died.
I believe the Bible.


Is there something more you need, or can you provide that proof now.

For a simple one of many, polar ice deeply predates any possible bible flood date.

 

[SigurdReginson]

For a simple one of many, polar ice deeply predates any possible bible flood date.

Plus there are a few living things that predate the supposed biblical flood, such as the pando clone colony.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biblical 'reasons' are so silly, aren't they? Transparently agenda-driven. Reading the Bible in reference to non-believers is kin to asking a Ford salesman his opinion of the Toyota salesman. Same vulgar level.

The Bible has some truly insightful passages in it. Wish its treatment of atheism and non-belief rose above the level of mudslinging.

Does anyone recall the name of the Dutch theologian who said, "Atheists are our natural allies because they ask the right questions"? I recall the quote but not the author.

The Bible is not alone in what I call defensive verses. The authors knew that they were peddling hokum and had to find a way to protect their holy book. Ironically a book that has a Commandment against bearing false witness against others bears false witness against others itself.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't wonder that because it is written in a reliable book that that's not the case.
People say they have reason to hate God, because they have reason to believe God is... based on reason.

Hating God is silly. But it is the Christians who usually make the false claims that others hate God. For example an atheist will often point out that the God of the Old Testament is a vile and evil character. That is not "hating God". That is a mere recognition of how a character in a fictional book is presented. Using @Revoltingest 's example of Voldemort, pointing out that he was evil and power hungry would not be hating him. A story often needs a villain. And there will be fans that hate the villain. Adults tend not to feel that way and can appreciate the villain as part of the story.

 

[nPeace]

For a simple one of many, polar ice deeply predates any possible bible flood date.

What about polar ice polar ice predating the Biblical flood prove there was no global flood?

Plus there are a few living things that predate the supposed biblical flood, such as the pando clone colony.

How does a few living things predating the Biblical flood prove there was no world wide flood?

 

[nPeace]

I eagerly await your list.

I really was eagerly looking forward to your response after I provided the list. Now I have provided it, I am hearing nothing from you about that list.
Don't you have anything to say?

 

[Revoltingest]

I really was eagerly looking forward to your response after I provided the list. Now I have provided it, I am hearing nothing from you about that list.
Don't you have anything to say?

I was distracted.
But today is a new day, & you gave me a reminder.
I'll go check it out.

 

[Audie]

What about polar ice polar ice predating the Biblical flood prove there was no global flood?


How does a few living things predating the Biblical flood prove there was no world wide flood?

I'd think it obvious that ice floats, and would not be there if flooded.

 

[Revoltingest]

I really was eagerly looking forward to your response after I provided the list. Now I have provided it, I am hearing nothing from you about that list.
Don't you have anything to say?

This link....
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-no1-2020-jan-feb/bible-reliable-source-of-truth/
....is filled with opinion, nothing objective.
For example, claiming that the writers were truthful isn't verifiable.
And as a deliverer of science because it says the Earth is suspended
upon nothing? This doesn't mean much, nor does it excuse the
many claims that conflict with science, eg, a recent world wide flood,
parthenogenesis of humans, reanimation of dead humans, talking
snakes, & biblical logicians calculating the age of the Earth being
10k years or so.
The other links try the same approach, ie, taking a translation of
a translation of poetic language to adapt to comport with some
scientific thinking, but ignoring conflicts.
Such reasoning is bias confirming, but not convincing to those
who don't already believe.

 

[SigurdReginson]

How does a few living things predating the Biblical flood prove there was no world wide flood?

Hmmm... Actually, you have a point. It's not proof of anything.

I do find it unlikely that a flood on a global scale intended to wipe out all living animals on land and rip out vast swaths of earth and stone into the canyon formations we see today wouldn't also level forests or destroy shallow root clone colonies like pando.

Then again, pando did survive the ice age. It didn't have to ever contend with flooding since there's little precipitation up where it's located, though.

But ultimately, it being unlikely pando would have survived a global flood is just my opinion.

How old do you reckon the world is, though?

 

[nPeace]

I'd think it obvious that ice floats, and would not be there if flooded.

The ice on Antarctica isn't floating very far. It's still in Antarctica... floating.

This link....
https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/watchtower-no1-2020-jan-feb/bible-reliable-source-of-truth/
....is filled with opinion, nothing objective.
For example, claiming that the writers were truthful isn't verifiable.
And as a deliverer of science because it says the Earth is suspended
upon nothing? This doesn't mean much, nor does it excuse the
many claims that conflict with science, eg, a recent world wide flood,
parthenogenesis of humans, reanimation of dead humans, talking
snakes, & biblical logicians calculating the age of the Earth being
10k years or so.
The other links try the same approach, ie, taking a translation of
a translation of poetic language to adapt to comport with some
scientific thinking, but ignoring conflicts.
Such reasoning is bias confirming, but not convincing to those
who don't already believe.

Your post is full of opinions... nothing objective.
For example, the fact that the writers were honest is not just a claim.
The writers included details about their own serious failings.
Textual critics use certain criterion in examining ancient "historical" writings.
There is for one, the Criterion of Embarrassment, and for another, there is the Criterion of multiple attestation.
For these, I refer to earlier writings than Jesus. For example, there are accounts in the Bible, which are attested to by outside sources, from Assyrian annuls, and (I think Babylonian - speaking under correction). I linked these in a post somewhere, but now racking my brain to remember a key word that will help me locate it.
If you want that information, to confirm what I am saying, just let me know, and give me a few days to find it.

However, if you make the claim that we cannot use any document of the past, to evaluate their authenticity, then the entire ancient history should be erased - Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian, etc., because they wrote things about themselves, and their activities, and they are generally accepted.
Also, the claims made about fossils are made by people looking at these - which have no writing on them, and which don't say anything - and coming to conclusion on what they interpret.
So, I would think if you are going to accept one, and dismiss the other, them I'm entitled to that too... in all fairness.

The Bible stated a clear fact - the earth hangs on nothing... It did so 3,500 years ago, at a time when people described the earth as floating on water or being carried by a giant tortoise. Some 1,100 years after the book of Job was written, people continued to believe that the earth could not just hang in midair; it had to have something to rest upon. Only in 1687, Isaac Newton published his work on gravity and explained that the earth is held in orbit by an invisible force. This scientific milestone confirmed what the Bible had stated more than 3,000 years earlier!

How could anyone know what Job knew back then?
The evidence suggests what was written nearly 2,000 years ago... (2 Timothy 3:16) . . .All Scripture is inspired of God . . . (2 Peter 1:21) . . .For prophecy was at no time brought by man’s will, but men spoke from God as they were moved by holy spirit.
This is why the Bible seems way ahead of its time, on these matters.

It is the same with prophecy. The reason the Bible writers could write of events in advance of them occurring, is due to the fact that they were not writing according to their will, but God spoke by them.
Many of the events, and real people in the Bible have been confirmed, by extra-Biblical sources.
The evidence is there for one to see clearly.

You claimed the Bible isn't exactly loaded with claims evidenced in reality. I told you that's not true. I showed you that's not true.
Shifting one's gaze away to talk about what one does not understand, or what one does not find evidence for, is just demonstrating what the OP says.
It's really ones choice to deny it.

What the Bible says has nothing to do with "biblical logicians". So I have to wonder why you saw the need to mention that. Was that supposed to be a distractions - "lets look away from the evidence and focus on what people claim."?
The global flood conflicts with science? Are you sure? What science is that? I'll like to see it, please.
If you are referring to beliefs and opinions. Perhaps it does, but I'll have to see what you have in mind.

Hmmm... Actually, you have a point. It's not proof of anything.

I do find it unlikely that a flood on a global scale intended to wipe out all living animals on land and rip out vast swaths of earth and stone into the canyon formations we see today wouldn't also level forests or destroy shallow root clone colonies like pando.

Bare / bear in mind that a global flood would not level the land. Every part of the earth wouldn't be erosive.

Then again, pando did survive the ice age. It didn't have to ever contend with flooding since there's little precipitation up where it's located, though.

But ultimately, it being unlikely pando would have survived a global flood is just my opinion.

Yes, I was thinking you were making assumptions.
I had to look up Pando, since this is the first time I ever heard the word, to be honest.
Pando is a clonal colony of Populus tremuloides (quaking aspen) trees in south-central Utah, United States, that is estimated to be several thousand years old, possibly as much as 14,000 years. Unlike many other clonal "colonies", the above-ground trunks of these trees remain connected to each other by a single massive subterranean root system.

Pando's long term survival is uncertain due to a combination of factors including drought, human development, grazing, and fire suppression....
In areas of Pando lacking adequate protective fencing, grazing animals have prevented Pando from developing enough young stems to fully replace existing older stems as they die.

So can Pando die? Has it? Could it have survived the flood? Some questions we cannot answer, but all things are possible... with God.
How did they estimate the age of this organism though... do you know?
You might find this an interesting read - Pando (tree) : Age of Range Estimate.

Something to consider too, is that seeds grow in the earth. A flood does not make seeds unproductive. Root systems can remain in the eart too, depending on how destructive the water is. Water isn't tsunami like at all levels / heights.
We can't know every detail about the flood, since there was no camera recording... only what's given in the Bible, but we don't want our mind to run wild.

What are your thoughts on what is said in this article - Did a Comet Cause the Great Flood?

How old do you reckon the world is, though?

Beats me. I don't go by the assumptions of scientists. Nor do I agree with the Young Earth Creationist.
Going by the Bible, without even considering science, I can see that the earth is very old.
First, the Bible tells us, that God created the earth, and then gradually made everything right before life could exist on it, and it needed to be prepared for man who would arrive much later.
Just by the reading alone, one can see a slow gradual process. Unlike what some Creationist say, as though by magic, God spoke, and whoosh - something happened... Blam!
That's unrealistic, and it's not the picture I see when I read the account.
Even when dry land appears, I see a graduate process. The lifting of the waters; the grass and other vegetation growing... Everything was a gradual process.
So I see many many years.
Man arrive quite late too... Very long after a great deal of animal life.
I think reading the Bible should be done with an open mind and heart, and with care.