Mitt donated 10% to his church

[mvscal]

The believer seeks God out (receives Christ),

What? Orally or rectally?

[Cuda]

that's a bunch of nonsense talk

Oh, for Governent's sake! Does everything have to devolvem into this?

[Van]

The believer seeks God out (receives Christ),

What? Orally or rectally?

Jesus...

[mvscal]

Why do I have to "receive" Jesus? Can't we just shake hands or something? What the fuck?

[Truman]

...They do not know.

You keep saying that, and they're laughing at you.

Of course they know. You are struggling with coming to terms as to how they know.

If you were as firm in your convictions as they are in theirs, then we wouldn't be five pages deep with you still demanding proof. You would accept it, respectfully agree to disagree, and move on.

This.

Is total bullshit.

For someone who seems to fancy himself as quite the wordsmith, you really are failing in this argument. For people like Popetart, it comes down to faith. And as such, it will have no proof. They don’t know, they believe.

They might even believe they know, but that’s also just a belief, not a fact.

Fuck you, you old beat. Failing in this argument? No, I'm not. You're too fucking stupid to understand the argument.

As for it comes down to faith. No, it doesn't.

No matter how hard you try, Goobs, you cannot prove a negative. And you cannot prove poptart wrong.

Their beliefs ARE facts - to them - asshat. Kill yourself.

[poptart]

Right.


Moving Sale and poptart stand behind a 5 ft brick wall outside the Playboy Mansion.


poptart: "WHOA!! Lookie! Naked playmates! Naked playmates!

Moving Sale: "There's no naked playmates in there. You just believe there are naked playmates there."

poptart: "Oh no. They're there. They're there. Trust me."

Moving Sale: NOT! *sob* *gnashing teeth*


Woe to him who can not see.

[Truman]

^^^ worst metaphor ever

Although I respect your right to offer up shit metaphors

So?

Just curious, Scott. What makes you so certain that you're right?

Sayin'. I don't have a dog in in this fight, but lotsa folks are quick to pile on pops, and I hafta wonder why...

[Truman]

I believe it's a shit metaphor beacuse, in his example, he could actually see over the fence as opposed to religion where he only believes he sees over the fence

Again - I'm not bagging on that, only his metaphor

You still don't get it.

pops sees over the fence.

Half-a-dozen of you jokers in this thread struggle to come to terms with this...

[Truman]

He thinks he sees over the fence.

Big difference

No, he DOES see over the fence. That's why you haven't a hope of winning this thread.

The Board plans, pops laughs...

[poptart]

He thinks he sees over the fence.

How are you sure of that?

It's quite a large mistake on your part, imo.

You are automatically discounting the possibility that God DOES exist and that He DOES make Himself known to those who receive Christ.

What I said to Gobbler...


Here is something to consider, Goobs.

God (of the Bible) either exists or He doesn't exist, right?

For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that He does exist.

The believer seeks God out (receives Christ), and God, just as promised, makes Himself known to the believer because He answers the believer. See Hebrews 11:6.

At that point, the believer who has been answered by the living God knows that this God, who DOES exist, really DOES exist.

It's factual to the believer at that point.


Yes, God exists.
Yes, He answers.
Yes, He makes himself known if you simply humble yourself and seek him with the One method.
It is MY testimony that Hebrews 11:6 is indeed true.

Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must
believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.



The stakes are the highest here, so get on the team which has already won.

It's in your court.

[Van]

Yes, God exists.

Maybe, maybe not.

Yes, He answers.

If He does, no human being is aware of it. One can surely delude himself into thinking that what his own mind concocted was actually God speaking to him, but that's as far as it goes.

Yes, He makes himself known if you simply humble yourself and seek him with the One method.

Pure self-serving spin and a baldfaced lie, at that. Setting yourself up as an example of Someone Who Does It Right is pure Pharisee-level arrogance.

That is, unless by the "One method" you mean the ingesting of massive amounts of peyote washed down by a fifth of Wild Turkey....

[Smackie Chan]

The problem here is simply one of semantics; as Bubba mighta said, "It depends on what the definition of know is." In this case, a distinction can be made between "internal" and "external" knowledge, although linguistic purists such as Van will undoubtedly argue that the definition of internal knowledge is faith, that faith and knowledge are mutually exclusive, ergo, there is no such thing as internal knowledge. I use such a term only to try to point out the obvious - that unless agreement can be reached on how words are being used, even if the usage falls outside what would normally be considered "acceptable," this discussion, as all others on this topic, will go on ad infinitum with no resolution. I tend to try to limit usage to generally accepted definitions, but I understand there are reasons for words to be used in ways that sometimes fall outside general usage guidelines.

External knowledge, or as Van would simply put it, knowledge, consists only of those things that can be proven - where concepts and empirical evidence can be demonstrated by one or more people to one or more other people on paper, in a lab, or through observation to show causation or otherwise prove a hypothesis. If it can't be proven, it can't be "known." Pretty simple.

Internal knowledge is a foreign concept to many of us, and a completely illegitimate term to a few. To try to add at least a hint of legitimacy to it, a key distinction needs to be made showing how the relationship between the concepts of faith and knowledge are used by the two "camps" engaged in this debate. The skeptics maintain that the two words are mutually exclusive - that once something can be proven, it no longer is a matter of faith, and that until a belief can be proven, it cannot be known. This differs starkly from how the believers see the world - to them, faith is a prerequisite to attaining "knowledge" of God's existence - you can't "know" without first believing. This "knowledge" is internal in the sense that it can't be proven to anyone else, but there is no other word I'm aware of defined as "a sense of certainty that can't be proven," so their use of "knowledge" to describe that sense is understandable, especially when confined to usage among other believers. They understand. Those of us without faith do not understand, and instead criticize the believers for improper word usage, which technically is valid, but does nothing to bridge the gap in understanding between the two sides.

Look at the quotes below from 'tart & Tru. You'll see that they caveat the use of certain words by confining their definitions to how they're used only among other Christians. While technically the American English language should be consistent irrespective of whether the users are Christian, it's not uncommon for certain communities - professional, religious, cultural, etc. - to use words or phrases that are unique or unconventional outside those communities. To further understanding between the two sides (if that is truly what is desired, which is questionable), it is incumbent upon those of us outside the Christian community to accept that their use of certain words is different than how we use them (and how the dictionary may define them). Sure, we could hold the line and simply browbeat them in an effort to demonstrate they're wrong in how they use the language, but what good would that accomplish?

God DOES exist and that He DOES make Himself known to those who receive Christ

Their beliefs ARE facts - to them

God, just as promised, makes Himself known to the believer because He answers the believer

Jesus Christ rose from the dead and proved Himself to be the Christ is not up for debate in the Christian community. That IS a universal view and it is tangible.
There is recorded evidence that it happened - and we (Christians) all agree on it.

Let's accept that there are differences between how the two sides use certain words, not pass judgment on the relative correctness of the usage, and see if the discussion can advance any further once we've hurdled this obstacle. I'm not optimistic, since I don't think anyone really wants this debate to be settled, but it could be more fun than watching reruns of dead horses being beaten.

[poptart]

to them, faith is a prerequisite to attaining "knowledge" of God's existence - you can't "know" without first believing. This "knowledge" is internal in the sense that it can't be proven to anyone else,

This comes very close to hitting it.


I'm speaking for myself here with this next commentary and people can take it however they like.

In my case, I was once in skeptics corner.
At that time, and looking back now, I was definitely looking right into the fence.

I sought God sincerely ---> and then God let me see over the fence to things I had not seen before.
I see the Truth.


Because it is spiritual in nature, it's a very difficult thing to relay to people, other than to simply relay the Word to them and have them believe it or not.
I will tell you that the peace is quite pleasant.

No, I am not going to (and never have sought to) PROVE anything to you.

But I'd like to tell you that it's my testimony that GOD will verify Himself to you - if you let Him.


The only part of what I quoted you on that I see differently, Smackie, is the part about people not being able to know without first believing.

I think everyone knows, but of course that is jmo.
And people can see Romans 1:18-20 if they are inclined.

But people deny.

While everyone already knows (imo), getting over the fence brings on an entirely different and MUCH deeper level of knowledge that God indeed... IS.
The believer is indeed 'rewarded.'

[Goober McTuber]

Their beliefs ARE beliefs

FTFY.

[Goober McTuber]

Is it bullshit?
Are you sure?

Here is something to consider, Goobs.

God (of the Bible) either exists or He doesn't exist, right?

For the sake of this discussion, let's assume that He does exist.

The believer seeks God out (receives Christ), and God, just as promised, makes Himself known to the believer because the believer believes that He answers the believer. See Hebrews 11:6.

At that point, the believer who believes he has been answered by the living God believes he knows that this God, who he believes DOES exist, really DOES exist in his mind.

It's factual to the believer at that point. But in reality, it's still just a belief.

FTOT.

[Smackie Chan]

I think everyone knows, but of course that is jmo.

That statement could lead to a whole new 10-pg thread. It begs questions such as what knowledge is learned vs. what is innate. If, as you believe, everyone knows of God's existence, it must be assumed that "everyone" includes those who have not been exposed to any knowledge of such a being's existence prior to attaining that knowledge, meaning we're born with it. I don't buy it. If it's true, the only way for anyone to become a non-believer is to deny innate knowledge. I'm sure you believe that is the case, but I don't.

The believer is indeed 'rewarded.'

Of that, I have no doubt. Being a believer is much easier than not being one. The rewards believers enjoy that non-believers don't include:

* A sense of justice. If bad things happen to good people and vice versa during our corporeal existence, believers are assured that all will be made right in the afterlife - the good will be permanently rewarded, while the evil will be eternally punished. Very comforting. We faithless ones are left to console ourselves with "Life ain't fair. Deal with it."

* Immortality. Death isn't final, and in fact leads to bigger & better things. Never having to "die" is pretty reassuring, as is not having to confront the prospect of never being able to see a loved one again. You'll always be able to meet up again "in Heaven."

* No pressure to have to prove anything. To skeptics, the world is full of unknowns, simply because there is so much that can either never be known, or has yet to be proven although it may be someday. Fear of the unknown is real. To the believer, there's no pressure to prove what is "known." You simply equate faith with facts/knowledge, explain the pesky unknowns away as being matters of faith that cannot be proven, and move on in the face of those who demand proof. It's also quite the luxury to be able to use the bible as an authoritative source to back up claims dealing with beliefs, but dismiss it when it doesn't quite fit.

* Power of prayer. Muttering words to an invisible flying spaghetti monster is deemed useless by skeptics. Believers rest comfortably in their "knowledge" that when needed, a prayer could provide them with results unobtainable through more conventional means. It's a nice safety net knowing that something more powerful than humanity might be at one's disposal to help believers get what they want. And when prayer doesn't work, the "God's will" card is always available as a consolation prize.

Going it alone through life, without the comforting benefits of faith, is much tougher. The price of being a non-believer includes doing without the luxuries I cited above and others, which can be mighty steep. But to me, the price of being a believer - which includes willfull dismissal of rational information - is even higher. I "know" this, even though I can't prove it.

[Smackie Chan]

So deceiving oneself is a good thing?

It isn't for me, but for others, the benefits and comforts that accompany the self-deception might be worth it. It's not for me to say what's right for someone else. It's a decision that has to be made by the individual consumer. Different tastes, different strokes, and whatsuch.

[Smackie Chan]

Religion and facts don't mix. Semantics aside...no one knows anything as far as religion goes.

Bring it, bastards.

See, this is the kind of divisive, uncooperative attitude I'm talking about. No stated end game of where this discussion should be leading, no prioritizing of what the significant discussion points should be, just semantic arguments that lead nowhere. I agree with what you're saying, but continuing along this path will lead us back to where we are and always have been - the starting point. We (the non-believers) should take the same approach we would when discussing differences between the language spoken in this country and that spoken in England. It's the same language, but some words (e.g., bloody, pissed, etc.) have different meanings depending on who is using them. We don't say that Brits are wrong when referring to something as bloody even though there's no actual blood involved. We accept their usage, realize it's different from ours, and move forward armed with that understanding. Same with the Christers. They use words like know and facts differently than how you or I use them. So be it. Accept it, understand it, and move on without trying to change them, since you know you'll be unsuccessful.

That being said, what is the goal of conducting these debates? It's a little easier for the Christers to answer this question, since one of their stated missions is to spread the word and convert non-believers. Success for them would be welcoming others to the flock. But do we as non-believers have an opposite but similar objective - to convince the faithful that atheism is the answer? I can tell you that I personally have no interest in doing so. I'm happy to let others believe whatever they choose. Is the goal to teach believers how to properly use the English language? Again, that's not my aim. Or is the goal simply to discuss a subject that is guaranteed to pit two (or more) groups against each other for the sake of spirited (pun intended) debate in hopes that some memorable smack will result, realizing that no one on either side will ever be convinced that the other is right?

I go with the last one.

[Van]

Here is where I always run into a major problem with pop and people of his ilk...

In my case, I was once in skeptics corner.
At that time, and looking back now, I was definitely looking right into the fence.

I sought God sincerely ---> and then God let me see over the fence to things I had not seen before.

It's the way he gives himself undue credit while assigning blame to nonbelievers who haven't been fortunate enough to "receive" God's gift. To him, it's cut and dried: If God hasn't shown Himself to you, it's your fault. Either you aren't asking correctly or you're not truly looking to find Him. Meanwhile, he earned the visit from God because he knew how to get in touch with Him.

Then, when someone takes his advice and attempts to do as he says and still comes up empty, he smugly responds, "You're not doing it right. If you were, He would answer."

For many, that sort of blind arrogance is merely off-putting. For others, it inspires real anger and loathing.

[Moving Sale]

Isn't it 'off putting' or 'off-putting' not offputting?

[Van]

You are correct. It's 'off-putting,' with the hyphen. I'll go back and fix it.

[Smackie Chan]

Here is where I always run into a major problem with pop and people of his ilk...

In my case, I was once in skeptics corner.
At that time, and looking back now, I was definitely looking right into the fence.

I sought God sincerely ---> and then God let me see over the fence to things I had not seen before.

It's the way he gives himself undue credit while assigning blame to nonbelievers who haven't been fortunate enough to "receive" God's gift. To him, it's cut and dried: If God hasn't shown Himself to you, it's your fault. Either you aren't asking correctly or you're not truly looking to find Him. Meanwhile, he earned the visit from God because he knew how to get in touch with Him.

Then, when someone takes his advice and attempts to do as he says and still comes up empty, he smugly responds, "You're not doing it right. If you were, He would answer."

For many, that sort of blind arrogance is merely off-putting. For others, it inspires real anger and loathing.

Why do you let what others say & feel about their beliefs bother you, especially when you've solicited their thoughts? I could somewhat understand being off-put or angered by unsolicited proselytizing or having believers force their ideas down your throat without having been asked. But most of what 'tart & his ilk offer up in this forum are responses to what others have asked of them. Can't see any reason to get the least bit worked up over that even if their answers are 180 degrees out of what you would want them to be.

[Van]

No one would be asking them anything if they hadn't already proselytized.

[Cuda]

Why do I have to "receive" Jesus? Can't we just shake hands or something? What the fuck?

Government is love.


And the Son of Government wants to forgive your sins. Let him embrace you

[Left Seater]

So Mitt donated 10% to his church and Obama wants 10% from all of us:

[War Wagon]

Being a believer is much easier than not being one.

I beg to differ.

As I stated before in this very thread:

It doesn't matter what you believe, what matters is how you behave.

pretty sure Van gave me some shit for that take, but I still think it's true. Belief, in and of itself, won't buy you a cup of coffee. In other trite words, talk is cheap.

[War Wagon]

Here is where I always run into a major problem with pop and people of his ilk...

In my case, I was once in skeptics corner.
At that time, and looking back now, I was definitely looking right into the fence.

I sought God sincerely ---> and then God let me see over the fence to things I had not seen before.

It's the way he gives himself undue credit while assigning blame to nonbelievers who haven't been fortunate enough to "receive" God's gift. To him, it's cut and dried: If God hasn't shown Himself to you, it's your fault. Either you aren't asking correctly or you're not truly looking to find Him. Meanwhile, he earned the visit from God because he knew how to get in touch with Him.

Then, when someone takes his advice and attempts to do as he says and still comes up empty, he smugly responds, "You're not doing it right. If you were, He would answer."

For many, that sort of blind arrogance is merely off-putting. For others, it inspires real anger and loathing.

Not once have I seen 'tart assign blame or take undue credit. Noy once have I seen himcome across as being smug, at least not about his faith. Granted, I haven't read every take he's ever posted, but I think that's just your erroneous perception because obviously, you have an axe to grind with religious folk of any and all stripe

Otoh, your unreasonable dismissal of someone else thoughts, be it religion, music, sports, whatever... IS blindly arrogant from my perspective. And yes, it inspires anger and loathing.

In summation... GFY you preposterously presumptive blowhard.

[Van]

If you truly believed, Wags, then you would know that actions will get you nowhere. Only belief in Christ as your savior will get it done. You can be an axe murderer devotee of Christ and get in, or you can devote your entire life to feeding the poor while being an atheist, Buddhist, Hindu, agnostic, etc., and find yourself turned away at the Pearly Gates. The fact that you think otherwise indicates you're one of those Christians Mgo spoke of: one who hasn't actually read the Bible.

I'll at least give pop that much credit. He knows what the Bible says, and right or wrong he stands by Christ's supposed words.

"Take me as your God and Big Kahuna, or you're toast." - JC, from the Nicholas Cage version of the Bible.

[MgoBlue-LightSpecial]

Being a believer is much easier than not being one.

Absolutely. Being the only known non-believer in your entire family is much harder than joining the rest of the sheep. One time my dad advised me, "You should believe, because why not?" Essentially, he said it's best to believe "just in case." Yeah, that just doesn't work for me. I've got to be all-in, not halfway.

Convince me. Otherwise, I will not let fear dictate what I believe.

[Van]

Not once have I seen 'tart assign blame or take undue credit.

So, you're either blinded by bias or as stupid as ghetto fuck. Take your pick.

Every time he tells someone they haven't asked the right way, and every time you say someone hasn't tried hard enough, you're both casting blame. Every time pop claims that he "humbled himself" and found the "one way" to getting God to pay him a visit, he's taking the credit for it.

If you don't see that, refer back to the above the two options.

Your unreasonable dismissal of someone else thoughts, be it religion, music, sports, whatever... is blindly arrogant from my perspective. And yes, it inspires anger and loathing.

Especially when your insipid takes are summarily taken apart and destroyed, and you have to admit you fucked up again.

Well, that's just too bad. As mvscal loves to point out, stupid is supposed to hurt.

[War Wagon]

Van, that's your understanding of the Bible? That one need only Believe?

I don't read it that way and I've read it cover to cover more than once. I have a King James version sitting on my night stand.

Regardless of what you've heard, been taught, read... I'm pretty sure that on judgement day I'll have to stand before my maker and answer for my actions, or inactions, not for what I believed or didn't believe.

[Van]

Actions will not get you in. Only the acceptance of Christ as your savior will do it. That's what Christ says in the Bible.

If you wanna argue with Him, hey, be my guest. Everyone always loves the dick who shows up at a party and promptly tells the host how he ought to be running it.

[War Wagon]

Every time he tells someone they haven't asked the right way, and every time you say someone hasn't tried hard enough, you're both casting blame.

Go ahead and link me up to these posts where either 'tart or I have done as you claim. Shouldn't take long, if it's as prevalent as you seem to think.

Especially when your insipid takes are summarily taken apart and destroyed

oooh... that's pretty hurtful. Let me know when you get around to doing just that.

[poptart]

Clearly, there is a conflict there. The light of day is provided by the sun. So was the sun created on day 1 or day 4?

But pop says there is no conflict

There is no conflict.
It says the sun was created on day 4 and that's when it was created.

The light in v.3 is Christ, who IS Light. .....

And likewise, satan is the darkness.
If one disputes this, they have not looked into the Bible much at all

pop, I've been looking for confirmation of your interpretation, but gosh I just can't find it.

I've googled "Genesis 1:3 analysis", "Genesis 1:3 interpretation", "Genesis 1:3 Jesus", and "Genesis 1:3 Christ". I've seen many sites that consider "light" in the usual meaning of that word, but none at all that interpret "light" in Genesis 1:3 as Jesus.

But as you say, all those people probably haven't looked into the Bible much at all.

In any event, could you provide a link or two that discusses "light" in Genesis 1:3 as Jesus? Thanks.

The Bible is a VERY simple Book - as well as a VERY deep Book.
As I said once before, I could study it for the next ten years and still be just scratching the surface of what is there.

But simple: There is a darkness (satan) problem. People are captured by it, it brings our suffering, and it ultimately ruins us eternally. God has given us the Light (Christ), which is the only answer for the darkness. Go into the Light.

John 8:12
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he
that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.


The entire Bible, start to finish - every page - has Christ on it.
The whole Book points to Christ - because He alone is our salvation and He is what God knows we need to have and hold onto.

If a person has that recognition, it is easy to see Him everywhere in Scripture.

This is a list of Light Scriptures. http://www.lightburncandles.com/lightscriptures

In the New Testament, Light is abundantly in reference to Christ - because He IS the promised Light which has now come.
Other places in the NT, Light = our salvation, or God's glory and Kingdom.

They are all the same thing, because our salvation, God's glory, and God's Kingdom do not come absent Christ.

In the Old Testament, Light overwhelmingly refers to God's presence, God's safety... and the Light is a SHADOW of the Christ which will come and finish everything.


We're aware of the Trinity - Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
They are all the same thing - GOD - and yet all entities which have 'operations' of their own.

We know from Scripture that one 'operation of Jesus is that of Creator. See Colossians 1:16, John 1:3, John 1:10, 1 Corinthians 8:6, and many others, but let's look closely at Ephesians 3:9.

Ephesians 3:9
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the
beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:

God created all things by Jesus Christ.

So we have the verse in question - verse 3 - the Light that appeared when God said, "Let there be Light."

It is Christ, imo, the Light which chases darkness of v. 2 out.


Many (or most?) in the Christian community DO recognize this Light of v.3 to be... GOD Himself, but don't connect the obvious dots and recognize that it is specifically Christ, Who is Creator and answer for darkness of v.2.

There is also an obvious reason (to me) why the Christian Church is in shambles - and it has to do with losing hold of the ESSENTIAL CORE of the Bible, which is Christ.

My heart is toward reformation of what is essential.

But that is a whole other topic.


This link speaks of the v.3 in question: http://www.generationword.com/notes_for ... is/1_3.htm

Revelation 22:5 – just like light (presence of Jesus Christ) existed before the sun in Gen. 1, at the end in Revelation 22:5 the light continues to shine after there is no sun. Light preceded the sun and also will outlast the sun.



Another: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... hw-mZS0QkQ

From page 2 - The very first recorded utterance of God represented Jesus. “Let there be light.” (Genesis 1:3) God had created the heavens and the earth and the first thing he sent into creation was a picture of his Son in the form of light.


Another: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/s ... en&ct=clnk
When God brought life to chaos, He said, “Let there be light.”(Genesis 1:3)
There is no life without Jesus.


Another: https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=ca ... tjEgMOFzaQ

From the 1st page: "God said, let there be light. And there was light." Genesis 1:3. Jesus is both the Word and the Light.


This link is also good reading on the topic: http://www.all-creatures.org/book/book-creation3.html




Cheers! :)

[poptart]

That statement could lead to a whole new 10-pg thread. It begs questions such as what knowledge is learned vs. what is innate. If, as you believe, everyone knows of God's existence, it must be assumed that "everyone" includes those who have not been exposed to any knowledge of such a being's existence prior to attaining that knowledge, meaning we're born with it. I don't buy it. If it's true, the only way for anyone to become a non-believer is to deny innate knowledge. I'm sure you believe that is the case, but I don't.

Yes, I do think it is the case, with the exception of people (and actually many people) who go through their life and never hear of the God that the Bible declares.

They are 'non-believers' in the God of the Bible not by choice or decision, but by virtue of ... mere circumstance of their location.

Or is it mere circumstance?? :wink:


There is a LOT that could be said about this topic - and I'm not going to go there.

[poptart]

Here is where I always run into a major problem with pop and people of his ilk...

In my case, I was once in skeptics corner.
At that time, and looking back now, I was definitely looking right into the fence.

I sought God sincerely ---> and then God let me see over the fence to things I had not seen before.

It's the way he gives himself undue credit while assigning blame to nonbelievers who haven't been fortunate enough to "receive" God's gift. To him, it's cut and dried: If God hasn't shown Himself to you, it's your fault. Either you aren't asking correctly or you're not truly looking to find Him. Meanwhile, he earned the visit from God because he knew how to get in touch with Him.

Then, when someone takes his advice and attempts to do as he says and still comes up empty, he smugly responds, "You're not doing it right. If you were, He would answer."

For many, that sort of blind arrogance is merely off-putting. For others, it inspires real anger and loathing.

There are perhaps some misunderstandings and misrepresentations in this post.

But at any rate, I apologize if I've come at you with an attitude that was... unfriendly.[/Vogel]

Joke, but yeah, I'm sorry, Van.


Long story short, God (of the Bible) either exists or not.
I'm convinced He does.

So when opportunity presents, and I see people swimming in toxins which are killing them, and I seek to throw them a line.

As I told DC before, I am not any kind of model and I am surely not anything good.
I borrow from Paul and declare that "Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief."

Please look past my own assholishness (werd?), k?


My motivation is only to see good being advanced.



.... and well, maybe to have some fun on the board, also.

[Van]

I still much prefer Tolkein's version of Creation.

:P

[poptart]

Well here is what I believe, and know, but can't prove to others . . .

Inside each of us is a consciousness, beyond the physical. Some call it spiritual, some call it mind, but it is an awareness that goes deeper than our body. "Who is dragging this corpse around?" With a bit of introspection, we can ponder what it is that controls or directs our thinking, our physical movements. It is beyond the physical and I believe it is universal and in each person.

So given this inner energy, beyond physical, how does it manifest? In some, there is denial and no recognition of it. Others sense the spark and have to express it somehow, so usually it is done through whatever kind of "spiritual" or religious teaching into which they happen to be born. Joseph Cambell called it the 100 faces of god. Trouble is, when some folks feel it, through their inherited religion, they think it is the Only way to express it. Example Pops, the mormons, the islamics, etc. Then with that tunnel vision, comes the justification that is ok for me to kill you because you just don't understand the truth. That is very childlike, and a very myopic and sheltered view of the world.

To quote Cambell again: “Every religion is true one way or another. It is true when understood metaphorically. But when it gets stuck in its own metaphors, interpreting them as facts, then you are in trouble.”

So what is the answer? Follow the golden rule, charity, and tolerance of other beliefs. And don't try to make everyone's belief system fit into the same container.

“When you follow your bliss... doors will open where you would not have thought there would be doors; and where there wouldn't be a door for anyone else.”

Can we know it? Yes. Can we prove it to others? Not likely, as it is beyond the physical, whatever It is.

Roach, I'm curious what you do with Jesus Christ.

He came and the declaration is that HE IS GOD and that He is the ONLY way.

A person must make a -yes- or -no- call on this matter.

I've decided yes - and it doesn't mean that I'm mad at anyone or that their view doesn't deserve to be heard.

It's really not possible to say, "Oh, he was a good moral teacher, etc.," because if He was not God Himself, He was either a total fraud or crazy man.

[Van]

pop, since most people in this world don't accept Christ as their savior, primarily because they follow their own religion and may have little or no knowledge of the Bible, you have to understand how ridiculous it sounds whenever you make salvation a reward solely doled out to ardent Christians.

You're never going to convince anyone that upwards of three billion Indians and Chinese are going to hell simply because they subscribe to different faiths. Somewhere along the line, you're going to need to grow up mentally in this regard.

[poptart]

If you want to call something ridiculous and childish, that is your choice.
However I would think that if you were able to step outside your own skin and look objectively at what you have said, some similar words might be uttered.


In this thread you said, "If God answers, no human being is aware of it."


How on earth do you, Van from T1B, know that no person is aware of God's answers?

Where would such ??wisdom?? come from?