1 edit
Originally posted by DragonFriendand how am I to read the testimonials for the people who's lives WEREN'T turned around? How am I to make a fair, unbiased, decision when I only hear testimony from one group? What about the rather large group of people who have been screwed over by the church, should I include them too?
If you want proof, read the books written by those whose lives have been turned around. Read Lee Strobel or Josh McDowell, or ... there's a long list.
Do the research, my friend, that you are so fond of. Find out for yourself, because you simply won't take anybody else's word for it.
DF
[edit; btw, you're confusing 'evidence' with 'proof']
Originally posted by DragonFriendAbsolute rubbish. Most of the people who have turned their lives around in this country will have been christians. This is simply because most people in this country are christians. And christians are incapable of accepting that something might have just happended for no reason, or that it was their own input that caused the change. Christians will naturally be predisposed to attribute the change to the hand of god, as they do with everything they deem benificial. Having all these people claim their life was altered by god proves nothing except that a lot of people believe in god.
I think the best evidence of the existance of God is the change in people's lives when they accept Jesus.
Being a Christian, I've heard many many such stories. I heard another today. A hit man for the mafia (Skeeter) spoke with a gal at a rally and learned that God is willing to forgive him his sins. With some prayer, he was convinced that God had forg ...[text shortened]... an to do what Skeeter (and many others) did if not the love he felt from his creator.
DF
How would you account for atheists who managed to turn their lives around? Are they the only ones who can do so without the helping hand of god?
Originally posted by rwingett1. Because the atheist is still His child, and He loves him.
Why would god help an atheist who doesn't believe in him? If he's going to help wether you believe or not, then why believe?
2. A number of reasons. Proper gratitude, for one - if you receive a gift it's proper you show gratitude towards the person who gave you the gift (whether he asks for it or not). Friendship, for another - believing in God gives you the ability to enter into an intimate relationship with Him. Grace, for a third - believing in God and entering into a relationship with Him opens yourself to the graces needed to be saved.
In summary, belief is for our sake - not His.
Originally posted by lucifershammerYour God is soooooooooooooooo swell. I'm glad he's mellowed out since the Midianite Massacre; what made him turn his existence around??
1. Because the atheist is still His child, and He loves him.
2. A number of reasons. Proper gratitude, for one - if you receive a gift it's proper you show gratitude towards the person who gave you the gift (whether he asks for it or not). Friendship, for another - believing in God gives you the ability to enter into an intimate relationship with Him ...[text shortened]... ens yourself to the graces needed to be saved.
In summary, belief is for our sake - not His.
Originally posted by scottishinnzKeep on track here, Scotty.
and how am I to read the testimonials for the people who's lives WEREN'T turned around? How am I to make a fair, unbiased, decision when I only hear testimony from one group? What about the rather large group of people who have been screwed over by the church, should I include them too?
[edit; btw, you're confusing 'evidence' with 'proof']
You said, "You still have not provided one single real story of this happenning,..."
I provided places where you can get first hand accounts of such events.
To me, first hand evidence that comes from a reliable source is proof. Have you repeated every experiment that you accept as having an accurate output? Or do you weigh the source as part of the proof and simply accept test results from reliable scientists/schools?
DF
Originally posted by DragonFriendNo, I haven't repeated all those experiments. The point is though, if I were so inclined I could. Of course, one cannot even test for the existance of God, and there is nothing other than a book and some circumstantial evidence that he exists. Then you start to base wild, unprovable assertions on your idea. Doesn't make for a very strong case overall....
Keep on track here, Scotty.
You said, "You still have not provided one single real story of this happenning,..."
I provided places where you can get first hand accounts of such events.
To me, first hand evidence that comes from a reliable source is proof. Have you repeated every experiment that you accept as having an accurate output? Or do you weig ...[text shortened]... e as part of the proof and simply accept test results from reliable scientists/schools?
DF
Originally posted by no1marauderHe hasn't "turned his existence around". As I've pointed out in other threads about the Midianite massacre, there is no reason to think that it was a historical incident (in the way it is described). The purpose of that story is to remind the Israelites to stay true to the Law they received, not provide an account for historians.
Your God is soooooooooooooooo swell. I'm glad he's mellowed out since the Midianite Massacre; what made him turn his existence around??
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou glibly stated that it was probably a skirmish that got exaggerated.
As I've pointed out in other threads about the Midianite massacre, there is no reason to think that it was a historical incident (in the way it is described).
Most likely the Midianites (etc) were destroyed, although, as with any ancient conflict, the numbers involved are likely to have been inflated. Kill the men, assimilate the rest--standard method of growing your tribe, used by the early Romans among others. However low the actual body-count may have been, you're still left with what by modern standards would be genocide, however heroic and divinely justified the victorious ancients found their actions.
In this regard, the sole difference between the Israelis and any other aggressive expansionist ancient tribe was their monotheism.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWhich is why I said "in the way it is described".
You glibly stated that it was probably a skirmish that got exaggerated.
Most likely the Midianites (etc) were destroyed, although, as with any ancient conflict, the numbers involved are likely to have been inflated. Kill the men, assimilate the rest--standard method of growing your tribe, used by the early Romans among others. However low the actua ...[text shortened]... between the Israelis and any other aggressive expansionist ancient tribe was their monotheism.
I don't think the actual "ancients" who won that battle thought their actions were divinely justified (not in the sense the story is - for a specific crime). I think that, over time, the victories of the ancient Israelites (now suitably exaggerated) were associated with specific moral/religious virtues (in this case, being faithful to Yahweh) while their defeats were associated with rejection of those virtues.
In other words, the events (once they had become legend) were co-opted to provide the (now well-settled) Israelites moral and religious guidance.