What if you KNEW there was a God.

[ether-ore]

According to scripture, faith is blind. Hebrews 11.1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction OF THINGS NOT SEEN.

Just curious... which version of the Bible did you quote from. I ask because I think wording makes a difference. The KJV for that passage : "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Thus, the interpretation is more at; the things that are unseen are evidenced by the testimonies of those authorized to speak for God... His prophets. So, rather than putting the emphasis on the false notion that faith is blind, it is supported by the evidence of eyewitness testimony as well as the testimony of the Holy Ghost which is given to those who follow Christ to comfort them in their trials.

 

[Bunyip]

Just curious... which version of the Bible did you quote from. I ask because I think wording makes a difference. The KJV for that passage : "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Thus, the interpretation is more at; the things that are unseen are evidenced by the testimonies of those authorized to speak for God... His prophets. So, rather than putting the emphasis on the false notion that faith is blind, it is supported by the evidence of eyewitness testimony as well as the testimony of the Holy Ghost which is given to those who follow Christ to comfort them in their trials.

Where does it say that? It doesn't say any such thing?
The KJV makes no reference to 'evidenced by the testimony of others authorised to speak for God' in that passage. Sheesh mate, don't add stuff to the bible and pretend it was in there.

 

[ether-ore]

Where does it say that? It doesn't say any such thing?
The KJV makes no reference to 'evidenced by the testimony of others authorised to speak for God' in that passage. Sheesh mate, don't add stuff to the bible and pretend it was in there.

It's a matter of interpretation. Your version says "conviction", the KJV says "evidence". I am merely interpreting what that evidence is. I don't see how it can be anything else. From my perspective, and coupling it with what I know about scripture (being someone who actually believes in it), nothing else qualifies as evidence of things not seen except the testimony of those who have seen. Faith itself is not that evidence. Faith is the product of that evidence.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

How would your life be affected if video evidence was found of Moses parting the red Sea; Jesus walking on water; God using his own finger to write the ten commandments. And furthermore that video was brought to you by Jesus himself with Adam, Noah, Abraham with a few cherubim and some trumpets for good measure.

If this happened, how do you think it would change you? Do you think you would start praying, stop lying, cease from pride and lust? Would you go preach the gospel? Would your political views change?

What I'm actually asking is, honestly speaking, how much of what you do, think and say that is contrary what the bible teaches - ten commandments, beatitudes etc. - is because of your uncertainty about the existence of God and the accuracy of the bible and how much of it is a result of you simply not being willing to live your life differently?

Assuming I kept my optimistic demeanor I'd keep acting as I always had; thinking of natural ancient aliens before any super-natural gods. Thinking pessimistically, I'd ask god WTF his problem is in making so many people suffer?

In summery, the more evidence of god...the more evidence god is a prick!

 

[Bunyip]

It's a matter of interpretation. Your version says "conviction", the KJV says "evidence". I am merely interpreting what that evidence is. I don't see how it can be anything else. From my perspective, and coupling it with what I know about scripture (being someone who actually believes in it), nothing else qualifies as evidence of things not seen except the testimony of those who have seen. Faith itself is not that evidence. Faith is the product of that evidence.

By 'interpreting' you mean 'adding a whole pile of stuff that isn't actually there'.

 

[Altfish]

How would your life be affected if video evidence was found of Moses parting the red Sea; Jesus walking on water; God using his own finger to write the ten commandments. And furthermore that video was brought to you by Jesus himself with Adam, Noah, Abraham with a few cherubim and some trumpets for good measure.

If this happened, how do you think it would change you? Do you think you would start praying, stop lying, cease from pride and lust? Would you go preach the gospel? Would your political views change?

What I'm actually asking is, honestly speaking, how much of what you do, think and say that is contrary what the bible teaches - ten commandments, beatitudes etc. - is because of your uncertainty about the existence of God and the accuracy of the bible and how much of it is a result of you simply not being willing to live your life differently?

I certainly wouldn't start worshipping it.
I'd want to ask ....

• Why are you so jealous?
• Why was the book(s) you wrote so ambiguous?
• Why were your commandments so poor and didn't include slavery and protecting children?
• Why didn't you tell us about germs?
• Where've you been for the last 2000-years?
• Which god are you?

 

[ether-ore]

By 'interpreting' you mean 'adding a whole pile of stuff that isn't actually there'.

You know... I think this topic requires a thread of its own... See you there.

 

[Bunyip]

You know... I think this topic requires a thread of its own... See you there.

If you 'interpret' by adding stuff that isn't there - you can make anything say anything.

 

[ether-ore]

If you 'interpret' by adding stuff that isn't there - you can make anything say anything.

It's under the heading of theological concepts.

 

[JoStories]

As I have stated elsewhere; I find it curious that atheists reject the concept of faith, when (unless they have performed all science themselves) they are taking it on faith that those who have... have got it right. It appears to me, whether atheists like to admit it or not, that they are exercising faith in science or scientists. Empirical science by itself comes up short in explaining anything concerning the eternal nature of the soul.

There are people who are atheists who are not steeped in science. Some may be philosophers, or any other field. You make an erroneous assumption that all atheists depend solely on science, which is not true. Maybe they simply don't see subjective evidence as proof and it IS subjective. There is simply no objective proof of God. I believe in God but I will be the first to say that it is not something I can prove. It would be hubris to state it was objective when it simply is not.

 

[ether-ore]

There are people who are atheists who are not steeped in science. Some may be philosophers, or any other field. You make an erroneous assumption that all atheists depend solely on science, which is not true. Maybe they simply don't see subjective evidence as proof and it IS subjective. There is simply no objective proof of God. I believe in God but I will be the first to say that it is not something I can prove. It would be hubris to state it was objective when it simply is not.

I agree, and never have claimed that there is proof of God. I'm not sure that I will go so far as to say that it is not objective considering what the definition of subjective is. If one can eliminate the notion that such evidence is indeed subjective, then by process of elimination, the only thing left is objective. It is not subjective because I did not come up with the idea and neither did anyone who is now living. We only consider the probability of God because of the writings of people who claim to have seen God. Their collective testimony is sufficiently coherent, cohesive and corroborative that I think the label of its being objective can with confidence be applied. Since it is a matter of faith, I think it not likely that it can be considered hubris. I consider that it would only be hubris if I claimed knowledge when I actually had no such knowledge.

I will admit that I believe that atheists restrict themselves to the empirical since that is the only thing for which proof can be provided. Atheists eschew the concept of faith (even while exercising it in the believed proofs of others), so, yes, in general, I think my assessment is accurate.

 

[JoStories]

You mentioned before that you determined what religion was right for you based on their "answers" concerning people's souls. Where did you get the idea that you have a soul to begin with? The existence of a soul seems to be the center of your belief system, did you come to this belief before excepting your current religion or after? What is your belief in the existence of souls based on if souls exist beyond our five senses? If you can't verify something exists, how do you know it exists?

Answering for myself only, I would ask you if you are limited by your five senses? Do you believe that there is nothing beyond your five senses? What if you are proven wrong? I ask this because there are some researchers (controversial to be sure) who argue that at death, the body is reduced in weight by a certain amount of nanograms, arguing that that COULD be indication of a soul. And keep in mind they are factoring in bodily fluids and the like. Do I believe that? I don't know, to be honest. What I do know is that our understanding of ourselves and the universe is expanding almost daily, Who is to say that at some point in the future, this may not be proven?

 

[JoStories]

I agree, and never have claimed that there is proof of God. I'm not sure that I will go so far as to say that it is not objective considering what the definition of subjective is. If one can eliminate the notion that such evidence is indeed subjective, then by process of elimination, the only thing left is objective. It is not subjective because I did not come up with the idea and neither did anyone who is now living. We only consider the probability of God because of the writings of people who claim to have seen God. Their collective testimony is sufficiently coherent, cohesive and corroborative that I think the label of its being objective can with confidence be applied. Since it is a matter of faith, I think it not likely that it can be considered hubris. I consider that it would only be hubris if I claimed knowledge when I actually had no such knowledge.

I will admit that I believe that atheists restrict themselves to the empirical since that is the only thing for which proof can be provided. Atheists eschew the concept of faith (even while exercising it in the believed proofs of others), so, yes, in general, I think my assessment is accurate.

I would disagree with you. You accept anecdotal evidence because it fits your paradigm. This is not to say that that is a bad thing. It just is. But anecdotal evidence could come from many sources. For example, we have myriad myths and anecdotal stories of Egyptian lore. Do you reject that and if you do, why because it is just as probable as the stories of Christendom. If one accepts the lore of one group, they reject other groups as not 'fitting' what they wish to believe. That begs the question of why someone is accepting one thing and rejecting the rest simply because it does fit. Example: I accept the validity of The Buddha. Can I prove that The Buddha was correct? No. Simply no. Anymore than you can prove Jesus and those stories. In my research, I looked into mysticism. Are you aware of the similarities between ALL faiths and the stories of their mysticism? I am now. It cannot be dismissed out of hand. Therein lies the problem, IMO.

 

[JoStories]

It's a matter of interpretation. Your version says "conviction", the KJV says "evidence". I am merely interpreting what that evidence is. I don't see how it can be anything else. From my perspective, and coupling it with what I know about scripture (being someone who actually believes in it), nothing else qualifies as evidence of things not seen except the testimony of those who have seen. Faith itself is not that evidence. Faith is the product of that evidence.

But you see, therein lies the problem for many. The changes in wording are or rather can be incredibly diverse and completely change the meaning of a passage. Conviction does not imply evidence. And in fact, conviction in this sense is a verb versus evidence, a noun. The two are not synonymous at all.

 

[viole]

I agree, and never have claimed that there is proof of God. I'm not sure that I will go so far as to say that it is not objective considering what the definition of subjective is. If one can eliminate the notion that such evidence is indeed subjective, then by process of elimination, the only thing left is objective. It is not subjective because I did not come up with the idea and neither did anyone who is now living. We only consider the probability of God because of the writings of people who claim to have seen God. Their collective testimony is sufficiently coherent, cohesive and corroborative that I think the label of its being objective can with confidence be applied. Since it is a matter of faith, I think it not likely that it can be considered hubris. I consider that it would only be hubris if I claimed knowledge when I actually had no such knowledge.

Did those prophets write all those things at the same time and independently? Or were they aware of what their colleagues wrote?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Desert Snake]

But you see, therein lies the problem for many. The changes in wording are or rather can be incredibly diverse and completely change the meaning of a passage. Conviction does not imply evidence. And in fact, conviction in this sense is a verb versus evidence, a noun. The two are not synonymous at all.

Evidence is a noun?

 

[viole]

But you see, therein lies the problem for many. The changes in wording are or rather can be incredibly diverse and completely change the meaning of a passage. Conviction does not imply evidence. And in fact, conviction in this sense is a verb versus evidence, a noun. The two are not synonymous at all.

Conviction is a verb?

Ciao

- viole

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If as you propose, that Christ would appear to someone who had not yet repented and was therefore still in their sins; that would not be a joyful meeting, because that individual would remain and die in their sins

Maybe it's my "sin" talking, but this seems like transparent excuse-making.

It also seems to contradict the idea that God is all-powerful.

I've heard a number of atheists make an argument that goes something like this: even if I can't say what would convince me of god's existence, any god worth his salt would know what it would take and would be more than capable of making this happen. This mrans that either:

- no gods exist, or
- any gods that exist don't care about converting me to whichever religion is their favourite.

This argument seems reasonable to me. How do you feel about it?

 

[ether-ore]

I

I would disagree with you. You accept anecdotal evidence because it fits your paradigm. This is not to say that that is a bad thing. It just is. But anecdotal evidence could come from many sources. For example, we have myriad myths and anecdotal stories of Egyptian lore. Do you reject that and if you do, why because it is just as probable as the stories of Christendom. If one accepts the lore of one group, they reject other groups as not 'fitting' what they wish to believe. That begs the question of why someone is accepting one thing and rejecting the rest simply because it does fit. Example: I accept the validity of The Buddha. Can I prove that The Buddha was correct? No. Simply no. Anymore than you can prove Jesus and those stories. In my research, I looked into mysticism. Are you aware of the similarities between ALL faiths and the stories of their mysticism? I am now. It cannot be dismissed out of hand. Therein lies the problem, IMO.

I find it interesting that you refer to the evidence I cite as merely anecdotal. As a contrast, I'd like to point out that the words of scientists are accepted as objective because what they say is presented for "peer review". In other words, it is corroborated by others. The various prophets have a kind of peer review as well. It just has the shape of each one individually presenting the same information. People who subscribe to what scientists say will claim that what is presented is objective because it has been peer reviewed. I likewise accept what the prophets say as objective because of the agreement they have among themselves. Some seem to want to claim that there is collusion between what is being reported among the prophets or at least there is a perpetuation of a fraud for the sake of control. I don't see in the record any justification for such claims.

I admit to the similarities that exist between religions. There is indeed much good in all of them. The question is however, just how close does each come to representing the mind and will of God... it being a matter of degrees. Let's use your example of Buddhism. The Buddha (a good man of fine example) never claimed to be a god or even to represent such a being. Those kinds of additions came later (depending on which faction of Buddhism we're talking about). The Buddha's efforts were to suggest a way of life (a religion) based on his investigations and experiences. Even so, there is an absence of corroboration to the one and only original source material. There is no agreement with other figures on a par with the Buddha to validate what he said relative to any god. Buddhism does not for me provide a credible answer to the questions of why we are here, where we came from or what will happen to us after this life is over.

You ask if I accept ancient lore from other sources? This will give you my answer... I believe that Christianity originated from the time of Adam and that other forms of lore are corruptions of what has existed from the beginning. You remember the story of Cain and Able and how it was that God accepted Able's sacrifice and not Cain's? Cain tried to sacrifice vegetables, whereas Able sacrificed a lamb without blemish. There is a symbology there which should be obvious. It is the same symbology which God gave to Moses which represents the sacrifice of the Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. Christianity was known to Adam.

 

[viole]

I
Some seem to want to claim that there is collusion between what is being reported among the prophets or at least there is a perpetuation of a fraud for the sake of control. I don't see in the record any justification for such claims.

As long as a collusion, or a reinforcing follow up, is possible than this should stilt be rationally preferred to an actual testimony about a God. A supernatural event should be considered such only when all other alternatives are more supernatural than the event they try to describe. A collusion is less supernatural than a God, and should be, therefore, be rationally preferred.

Ciao

- viole