Trailblazer
Veteran Member
but only if the brick wall chose to answer those prayers.But if you believed that brick wall had the power to transform your life, I'll bet you your prayers would be answered.
God is not a short order cook.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
but only if the brick wall chose to answer those prayers.But if you believed that brick wall had the power to transform your life, I'll bet you your prayers would be answered.
Something interesting happened to me some years ago.No, we can't. "By their fruits you shall know them", not by their claims and their words. If someone has a genuine spiritual experience, it shows.
But if you believed that brick wall had the power to transform your life, I'll bet you your prayers would be answered.
If you have some facts on any gods, we're all ears.Nonsense, on both accounts.
But that's not it at all.that a messenger of god is proof of a god, as in a is true because b is true, and b is true because a is true.
*OPTIMISTIC*If you have some facts on any gods, we're all ears.
With all due respect, regardless of your childhood, you landed on your feet. You have five children, a grandchild on the way, a great husband and a useful life helping earthbound spirits cross over to the spiritual world. Did you ever think that God is actually helping you? I did.there came a point in my life when I was finally honest with myself and acknowledged that if there is a God, he obviously has no interest in helping me,
You appear to have been taking her comments too literally.He said, "scientific theory is only concerned with facts,". That is a false statement. Scientific Theories are models of explanation, not statements of facts. That is the first error.
The second error he said was, "there are no facts concerning gods." Whatever does that really mean? There is the fact that people have believed in them. That is a fact. There is also the fact that people have mystical experiences, which may manfiest to them as their particular deity forms. This is also documented and historical facts. Mystical expeirences actually happen. So "there are no facts concerning gods", is already a false statement right there.
So as I said, he was wrong on both accounts. Right?
The fact that people have mystical experiences does not mean that it is a fact that these experiences involved a deity.You appear to have been taking her comments too literally.
And that's the key phrase, "be honest with myself". Christians make a big deal about "Let the Holy Spirit soften your heart and lead you to Jesus" but the opposite is also true, "Let the Spirit of Knowledge' lead you to the truth of the fraudulence of Jesus and Christianity". One has to brace oneself for the repercussions of learning the truth about Christianity and be willing to accept the consequences of their carefully orchestrated Christian world collapsing around them--loss of friends, loss of Church fellowship, fun group outings, get-togethers for dinner, movies, dances, etc. and being completely shunned by their Christian friends who choose to remain in darkness. Those who have to courage to come out of the darkness into the light of truth like yourself, Pepper are to be commended and congratulated.I was disappointed too, because I spent the majority of my life believing in Jesus and God. Like most former Christians I know, it was a real eye-opener for me when I got into researching the authenticity of the Bible and Christian theology. It began with a seed of doubt being planted as I helped my nephew obtain his Master of Theological Studies degree. A seed of doubt was sown while we studied the Bible and Christian theology as part of the requirements to earn the degree. The seed began to sprout during this time, and by the time I completed extensive training in an evangelistic ministry, it had grown into a fully flowering plant. I had read the Bible cover to cover several times before I began to help my nephew, but this was the first time I had read it with the intent to authenticate it. I read it without the influence of other Christians telling me what I should or should not believe about it. I suppose you could say that I read the Bible in a different light, which completely changed my perspective on it and made me to question everything I believed as a Christian. I tried to ignore all of my doubts for a long time, but I eventually reached a point where I couldn't. I realized I had to be honest with myself, and that's when I began to reevaluate what I believed as a Christian. This ultimately led to my decision to finally stop believing in God and renounce my Christian faith.
Let's clear up a potential misunderstanding here, Wind. One yes/no questions please and then I'll get to the rest of your post:Excellent! You have now proven my point. The very fact that Ehman acknowledges these things, yet he rejects this notion that Jesus never existed, proves my point! Thank you.
As I said, citing that fact does not mean that Jesus never existed. Yet that is what you claim. Bart Ehrman, as a secular, non-religious, agnostic scholar, an expert in the field unlike you, accepts that Jesus did really exist, despite there not be any external secular sources who cite him. In other words, that is not the only reason for accepting Jesus was a real person, that does not entail drinking the Kool Aid of religious faith. If you want to understand his basis for why he believes he existed, and folks like Price and other mythicists are wrong, read his books.
Additionally, scholars that I refer to who offer sound reasons for why Jesus did exist historically, outside the realm of a matter of religious faith, accepting for secular historical reasons, I'd direct you to my favorite author, and the one of the top scholars on the historical Jesus, and co-founder of the Jesus Seminar (which conservative and fundamentalist groups hate), read John Dominic Crossan.
As I said, your citing there are no external references, is not a valid basis for denying Jesus ever existed. That is a fringe, and not well supported opinion among both religious and secular scholars. Have I made my point now?
Right, because we can't determine there is anything that exists outside of nature. The funny thing is that if a God exists it would be subject to examination, but thus far God/gods are in the category of imaginary beings.I said scientists do not study things that are outside of nature.
You didn't explain what was trascendent, so I made the point that science does move humanity from ignorance to knowledge, which is transcendent in a real way.That is what I meant by they don't "examine" the transcendent.
Because gods are in the same category as other imaginary characters, like the Tooth Fairy, and they aren't subject to science either. Does that make the Tooth Fairy special? No, and nor are gods. There is a lot of cultural power in the popularity of gods, but being objective means understanding why this is, and dismissing it. It's related to the fallacy of argument by popularity. Critical thinkers follow the evidence, and reason based on what the evidence dictates.That was my precisely chosen wording. And that is accurate. Science cannot, nor does deal with questions about the existence of God.
Sure, is there an article on disproving the Tooth Fairy? Or does it limit its question on beliefs that only adults have? This article isn't anything a critical thinker would need to read because we understand what the answer is. The article is written for believers who might have reasoning skill, but not apply it to their religious belief.Don't want to take my word for it? How about from the National Academy of Science? Does science disprove the existence of God? - The Science Behind It.
"Science doesn’t have the processes to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science studies and attempts to explain only the natural world while God, in most religions, is supernatural."
Is there anything really more to argue here?
Notice you aren't mentioning supernatural beings here, but things that humans value whether religious or not. Then you mention purpose and God as if these are real things. If we humans have any purpose then it is what we have decided for ourselves. To assume a God, and a purpose via a God, is nothing more that a guess, there are no facts. This is why science can't examine these, the lack of facts. Humans believe all sorts of irrational things and science can't invesigate the imagined. Science can't study the biology of Mickey Mouse. Don't you want to know how Mickey talks? Of course you do, we all do, and science can't explain it to us. Science sucks, right? But science can examine why people believe in a God, or many gods, or if they believe we have a purpose on earth, and it does. There is a large body of work that explains why people are religious and believe in ideas that are not fact-based.Science works towards discovery what is true about the processes of nature. It does not for instance deal with questions of value and meaning. It does not deal with matters of beauty. Nor does it deal with the big questions such as the purpose of life, or if there is or is not some God behind it all. Those questions are outside of the role or abilities of science to address. You don't use a wrench to write a sonnet or compose a symphony.
I wrote "Theologians and philosophers do work to keep old assumptions and beliefs alive", so in what way have they expanded our understanding of the world and our place in it? I notice your following sentences don't explain any success in this. Even your comment here admits they "seek to expand". So again, I assert the religious and even most philosophy works to maintain a status quo. I will admit that philosophers do tend to think and write to the current issues and problems, like the dilemma of AI. We have to concede they are speculating and predicting outcomes, not explaining things via facts.Not necessarily true at all. Many seek to expand and grow our understandings of the world and our place in it.
I am not sure what theists have to offer that isn't tradition. I dated a girl some years ago that went to a progressive church and I went with her to witness it myself. It was more like a school talent show than traditional church services. I think they are working to keep people and families engaged, but the messages are the same. It's nothing I wasn't aware of myself. Frankly the messages are so basic that I would have been surprised if anyone there didn't know then already, but going to church is a traditional act, and the theater of it is a way to make it more entertaining.What you are talking about are traditionalists, not philosophers or even theologians necessarily. Besides that, you have traditionalists in the sciences as well who fight against new ideas in science and work to keep the old assumptions alive as well. Don't lay that at the feet of religion. People are people are people, and you find those same attitudes existing in all disciplines.
I never claimed it was all about conservatism. And I just noted my exverience with a progressive church. Conservative Christianity in the USA is the only area of Christianity that is growing, all others are losing members. Religion is a business and they need to generate revenue like any other business. That they are tax exempt is something I find problematic when they get involved in politics.You are mistaking religion as being the sole place you find conservatism. The reality is you have progressives there as well.
Satan could have easily used the Serpent as a ventriloquist uses his dummy. Satan being like a behind-the-scenes puppet master.Do you believe the Bible's claims that there was a talking serpent, a talking donkey, and a man who spent three days inside the stomach of a big fish?
I am wondering how you know the soul is immortal ( death proof ) _____________________No mortal can live forever on earth since the physical body is subject to death and decomposition.
Mortal humans will live forever in Heaven since the soul is immortal.
The old King James at Psalm 83:18 B does Not say God's name is Truth, but surely God's name (YHWH) stands for Truth ( religious truth )"There is but this one God, and his name is Truth."
UB 131:1.3
The soul that sins dies means that the soul that sins will not have eternal life. Eternal life is a state of the soul that is close to God.I am wondering how you know the soul is immortal ( death proof ) _____________________
Certainly Not from the Bible because the Bible teaches that the soul that sins dies - Ezekiel 18:4,20
There is no need for a resurrection of the physical body since the soul does not die after the physical body dies.If the soul was immortal there would be No need for a resurrection. The living do Not need a resurrection
The FACT that the physical body is mortal is what causes death and decomposition.What causes the physical body to be subject to sickness and death/decomposition _____________
According to the Bible sin causes spiritual death . No sin would equal No spiritual death. No spiritual sickness equals No spiritual death.According to the Bible sin causes death . No sin would equal No death. No sickness equals No death.
Adam and Eve were offered everlasting life ( live forever ) on Earth is a false belief that came about from a misinterpretation of Bible verses.Mortals Adam and Eve were offered everlasting life ( live forever ) on Earth
Angels are offered everlasting life ( live forever ) in Heaven. Angels are also mortals.
There is no being called Satan. Satan in the Bible symbolizes the lower evil nature of man.Sinner Satan will be destroyed by Jesus according to Hebrews 2:14 B
Earth is a stepping stone to Heaven because it is preparation for Heaven.Earth is Not a stepping stone to Heaven, but Jesus chose some to governing in Heaven with him. People like those of Luke 22:28-30; Daniel 7:18
God original and still permanent purpose for mankind is everlasting life on a beautiful paradisical Earth as described in Isaiah 35th chapter.
Angels are holy beings who are on Earth and in Heaven.Angels were never dead humans to be resurrected to Heaven.
Angels were created in Heaven and Heaven is the home for angels.
Earth is the home for humans while they are living in a physical body, but after humans die their bodies decompose and go back to the Earth and their soul (spirit) returns to God.Humans were created on Earth and Earth is the home of humans - Psalm 115:16
Something interesting happened to me some years ago.
I had been a lifelong atheist, and quite content with it. Then I conducted an experiment where I prayed, kind of into nowhere, and asked "god" if it existed and wanted to, to respond to me. I phrased it a respectfully and put no limits on what the response should be, or how quickly it should appear. To my great surprise, I received a "sign" that was totally convincing to me.
That started me on a "conversation" with whatever it was I had contacted. I realized that I had no reason to think it was any of the accepted "god forms" from any of the established religions. I joined a Christian church, on its urging, and continued my studies there. I found that none of the supernatural beliefs of the church (the Trinity, resurrection and so on) made any sense to me. I did arrive at a picture of something similar to what I think you are describing, a formless "something" that existed under and within everything.
Some time later, the whole thing faded away, and I lost interest in it. I concluded that the ability of the human mind to fool itself is close to limitless. It seems I had something missing from my life and wanted it badly enough to create remarkable illusion.
Now, I have returned to my atheism, but with a sense of peace having replaced whatever it was that drove me to conducting the experiment in the first place. I no longer seem to need to understand everything, and will drift gently to the end of my life, not far off now, with the satisfaction of knowing that I looked into a mysterious place and found it empty.
Scientific theory is a body of facts, and if a given fact turns out to be false it is ejected from theory.He said, "scientific theory is only concerned with facts,". That is a false statement. Scientific Theories are models of explanation, not statements of facts. That is the first error.
The second error he said was, "there are no facts concerning gods." Whatever does that really mean? There is the fact that people have believed in them. That is a fact. There is also the fact that people have mystical experiences, which may manfiest to them as their particular deity forms. This is also documented and historical facts. Mystical expeirences actually happen. So "there are no facts concerning gods", is already a false statement right there.
So as I said, he was wrong on both accounts. Right?