05 Nov 11
Originally posted by Suziannenot necessarily. proof negates faith of 'existence' but that's not an important distinction for a god, especially the bible god and his enormous ego. it's rather a pathetic concept to depend on faith for somethings existence. the ancient hebrews had no such fantastical notions. to them, god was a physical entity that appeared onto the tribes and made itself known by the alleged wonders it worked... crushing babies skulls, crumbling walls, drowning chariots (but not iron chariots, god has no power over iron chariots) and whatnot.
There is NO proof of God, independent or otherwise.
Proof negates Faith.
God does not need proof. He's doing just fine without proving Himself to you. The onus is on you to believe or not. Plenty of people on this earth have all they need to believe, without proof.
Belief after proof means nothing. Belief before proof means everything. That's what Faith is.
faith rather is to be placed in his ability. such faith of course is unwarranted since god hasn't displayed any of his ability, at least not for 2000 years or so, ever since he died.
05 Nov 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritEvery time I consider renouncing my faith and going back to being all comfy-cozy in my disbelief, head-in-sand... a post like yours reminds me of who I could then look forward to becoming.
not necessarily. proof negates faith of 'existence' but that's not an important distinction for a god, especially the bible god and his enormous ego. it's rather a pathetic concept to depend on faith for somethings existence. the ancient hebrews had no such fantastical notions. to them, god was a physical entity that appeared onto the tribes and made ...[text shortened]... hasn't displayed any of his ability, at least not for 2000 years or so, ever since he died.
Thank you for bolstering my faith and God bless you.
05 Nov 11
Originally posted by bbarrYou wont be judged if you are an atheist. Live and die and permanant death.
Then it would be epistemically arbitrary which God you believe in. There is no evidence for this God, that God, your God, their God... If there is no evidence either way, then there is nothing that weighs in favor of belief in any God over any other God. And yet we are judged, in the Christian tradition, on having faith in the right God... Sounds lik ...[text shortened]... l consequences, and certainly not something any God that is minimally just would have a part in.
05 Nov 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelYes, that is right. My God is defined by the word of truth, the Holy Bible.
Golly gosh!!!
You seem to be making my point, one of them anyway.
Firstly they dont claim to be worshipping the God of the Holy bible (hindus and muslims, that is)
Secondly, without using an independent source to prove your god, you cannot claim to have the correct definition.
Religion is much like politics over here,(and over there if I'm no ...[text shortened]... a few words to answer, should be no problems for an erudite poster such as yourself.
05 Nov 11
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999Point is it's hardly relevant to the part of the world I reside in. When the bible was written Australia might as well have been seen as another planet, if it was known of at all.
Not in this day and age. Google it 🙂
Which brings me to another strange point concerning the bible which is: Wasn't the bible written in a time when the Earth was still thought to be flat? Do you think that there may have been a priviliged group, an elite if you will, that knew more about the world and of other planets,etc. that withheld the information on purpose to control the uneducated masses?
Surely if the bible was inspired by the truth of a christian God and not of just men making stuff up, then "God" would've at least told those prophets or whoever that the Earth was spherical and that we were not at the centre of the universe,etc. Any ideas/explanations on this subject would be welcome.
05 Nov 11
Originally posted by VoidSpiritJesus fined tuned the definiton of the God of the Old Testament. He changed
actually, the god the muslims worship more closely represents the god of the bible as found in the original (old) testament. it's the christian god that doesn't jive with the original god of the bible. the jesus character completely turned it around and went off on a tangent.
nothing only fulfilled.
05 Nov 11
Originally posted by SuzianneAs has been demonstrated on this forum conclusively before, it is possible to have faith based on reason and logic. I should know because that is the sort of faith I practice daily. You could call them 'educated guesses', I suppose, but dont get lost in the words, this is a topic for practice , not to debate/argue/mull over.
There is NO proof of God, independent or otherwise.
Proof negates Faith.
God does not need proof. He's doing just fine without proving Himself to you. The onus is on you to believe or not. Plenty of people on this earth have all they need to believe, without proof.
Belief after proof means nothing. Belief before proof means everything. That's what Faith is.
05 Nov 11
Originally posted by karoly aczelThe legitimate son of Abraham was named Isaac.
Who was Abrahams son again?
Genesis 21:2-3
So Sarah conceived and bore a son to Abraham in his old age, at the
appointed time of which God had spoken to him. Abraham called the
name of his son who was born to him, whom Sarah bore to him, Isaac.
05 Nov 11
Originally posted by RJHindsyou keep telling yourself that. the truth is that he fulfilled nothing and completely redefined the god of the OT creating something fully alien to what the jews knew of their god.
Jesus fined tuned the definiton of the God of the Old Testament. He changed
nothing only fulfilled.
05 Nov 11
Originally posted by sumydidis BS a part of your faith, or is that a personal luxury?
Every time I consider renouncing my faith and going back to being all comfy-cozy in my disbelief, head-in-sand... a post like yours reminds me of who I could then look forward to becoming.
Thank you for bolstering my faith and God bless you.