• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

  • CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.

How does one come to believe something?

jonesdon

Active Member
Jan 16, 2006
122
8
✟22,902.00
Faith
Christian
=== To ALL: OK. From post #187,step 1, I proceed to step 2. I kept this 1st step simple -- to which atheists (but, esp. anti-theists) can't answer or respond. To this 1st post (negative reasons for no God), I could add, positively, a belief in the concept of a God provides personal comfort & social order -- from experience & observation. You can refute this, but, not my perspective (and that of 70% of Americans). Yes, you can chose both no-God and to be negative.

So, with atheists & anti-theists left in the dirt (their destiny), I proceed, w step 2, to the skeptics -- the seekers. agnostics, humanists, etc. -- having accepted that the God-solution is, or could be, good for America and that the concept is real & exists. BTW: America's history & tradition bares this out. Not perfect, but good w higher goals & motivation. To wit (of most recent): Brokaw's "Greatest Generation".

Given the above, the God concept seems worthy of belief, which means, to have confidence in something not proveable by science. Allowing belief (via the pragmatic "proof") in the God concept provides insight into the metaphysical -- partly physical & partly spiritual OR items not understood by science. This provides answers (or insights) to such questions as the origin of the universe & and the deeper purpose of it all (incl. us)!

BTW: I see science & theology (evolution & creation) as compatible as well as complementary -- as was done in the Renaissance!

More on additional evidence or "proof" next. So, for skeptics, w an open mind, who really want to learn, I say "try it, you'll like it"!
 
Upvote 0

Colter

Member
Nov 9, 2004
8,711
1,407
62
✟107,801.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about God. All right, here is how I feel about God.

If when you say God, you mean the bloodthirsty tyrant of Israel (Isaiah 34:2-7), the wrathful being who calls himself “jealousy” (Exodus 34:14), the source of all evil, anguish and misery (Amos 3:6; Lamentations 3:38; Isaiah 45: 6-7), the sender of evil spirits (Judges 9:23, Samuel 16:14, 18:10) who engages in deliberate deceit (Ezekiel 14:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11), the champion of war (1 Samuel 15:2-3), the enabler of rape (Exodus 21:2-7, 20-21; Leviticus 25:44-46; 2 Samuel 12:11-19; Numbers 31:32-35), and the murderer of children (Numbers 31:17-18), then certainly I am against him.

But if when you say God you mean the protector of the meek (Matthew 5:5), the voice of the outcasts (Luke 15:1-31), the champion of the poor and marginalized (Matthew 6:1), and the sponsor of peace and forgiveness (Matthew 5:9), then certainly I am for him.

This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.

Well that's a keeper!
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
If your god is of no significance, then your question is answered. It doesn't matter. ...

===== RESP: 1) OK, so you STILL refuse to answer my simple Q (Is God or no-God a better choice? Based on post #187). -- Davian says "If your god is of no significance, then your question is answered. It doesn't matter." [What do you mean "IF"? By my 1st post #187, obviously, my God (not god) is significant to me. Given my comments there, you don't think so?
You have given me no reason to think so.
i.e. Your didn't really answer my question abt. YOUR view. P.S. And, if God is not significant, then what are you doing on this blog? ]
This forum? While gods do not appear to be of significance, the believers of gods have access to or in our government, our education systems, and have access to my children. While I do not encounter this much in real life, I come here to learn about religionists.
2) And, obviously, you don't care about our American society or way of life. -- Davian says "Not being from your country, no." [This explains much! Your country (or world) is messed up,
I am from Earth. Yourself?
so you're trying to mess up America now? Sad! ;-( ]
My forum posts are messing up the United States of America? I had no idea I wielded such power. :)
3) You are stuck in your own world! Sad! ;-( Davian says "Indeed. I call it "reality". You are all welcome to visit!" [Smart answer. But, when are you to answer my Qs? God or no God? Then, we'll talk "reality". By the way (again) Is a concept a reality?]
Define "God".
4) I guess no answer is your answer. Davian says "At least until you can show your god to be of significance." [OK. We're done. You (still) can't answer my Qs and/or respond as to why my "significance" points in post #187 are no good. Just saying "insignificant" is a cop-out w/o saying why.]
Because you have yet to define "God" in a manner that would show that it is of significance.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
===== REPLY: I refuse to get ahead of ourselves (myself) -- their diversionary tactic so far. But, w/o an answer to my first, basic Q (God or no God best for America?), I'm ready to move on to my next step -- ignoring atheists & anti-theists -- to the seeker, agnostics, humanists, etc.
Ignoring those that disagree with you. That's progress.
 
Upvote 0

bhsmte

Newbie
Apr 26, 2013
52,761
11,792
✟254,941.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
=== RESP: The one that most American believe in -- like "In God we Trust", ya know? BTW: I don't know what your seeking, but atheist or anti-theist is a better faith for you. You're off my "reasonable" list. No more of your games.

Can you give us a description of this God, that can be tested against reality?
 
Upvote 0

jonesdon

Active Member
Jan 16, 2006
122
8
✟22,902.00
Faith
Christian
Can you give us a description of this God, that can be tested against reality?

= == RESP: NOPE! As I said, not until you answer my Qs. Meanwhile, not expecting any answers from you atheists, I'm moving on (see post #382). You need not resp. as you have not passed step 1 yet.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
=== RESP: The one that most American believe in
Are you suggesting that reality be put to a vote? The protestations of the religionists aside, that god does not seem to have done much of anything lately.
-- like "In God we Trust", ya know?
Look, it is Libertas, the Roman goddess, on US currency:
picPresRev.jpg

BTW: I don't know what your seeking,
Accurate descriptions of reality.
but atheist or anti-theist is a better faith for you.
Neither of those are "faiths".
You're off my "reasonable" list. No more of your games.
Good gracious. I had no idea that you would take me off of your "reasonable" list. How do I make amends?


:)
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
=== RESP: The one that most Americans believe in -- like "In God we Trust", ya know? BTW: I don't know what your seeking, but atheist or anti-theist is a better "faith" for you. You're off my "reasonable" list. No more of your games.
See post #390.
 
Upvote 0

Wayne R.

Active Member
Jun 5, 2015
49
7
74
✟22,714.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
My friends, I had not intended to discuss this controversial subject at this particular time. However, I want you to know that I do not shun controversy. On the contrary, I will take a stand on any issue at any time, regardless of how fraught with controversy it might be. You have asked me how I feel about God. All right, here is how I feel about God.

If when you say God, you mean the bloodthirsty tyrant of Israel (Isaiah 34:2-7), the wrathful being who calls himself “jealousy” (Exodus 34:14), the source of all evil, anguish and misery (Amos 3:6; Lamentations 3:38; Isaiah 45: 6-7), the sender of evil spirits (Judges 9:23, Samuel 16:14, 18:10) who engages in deliberate deceit (Ezekiel 14:9, 2 Thessalonians 2:11), the champion of war (1 Samuel 15:2-3), the enabler of rape (Exodus 21:2-7, 20-21; Leviticus 25:44-46; 2 Samuel 12:11-19; Numbers 31:32-35), and the murderer of children (Numbers 31:17-18), then certainly I am against him.

But if when you say God you mean the protector of the meek (Matthew 5:5), the voice of the outcasts (Luke 15:1-31), the champion of the poor and marginalized (Matthew 6:1), and the sponsor of peace and forgiveness (Matthew 5:9), then certainly I am for him.
That's a comment I can respect. I have a different perspective and understanding of the Old Testament than yours, but if I had your perspective I would certainly agree with your conclusion ("I am against him").
Let me get this out of the way for the sake of discussion: I can't speak for all Christians, but as for me and those thousands I'm familiar with, actions like those of the Popes of the Dark Ages are sins against both man and God and they will be held accountable. Any subjugation by religious leaders, Christian or not, has nothing to do with Christ or His teachings. "Religion" isn't the problem, what man does with it is. It can be a motivator for good or an excuse for evil (just one of many), and we see both throughout history to the extremes. So what do we do about it? You may have heard the poem The Six Blind Men And The Elephant. Each blind man touching a different part of the elephant and coming to different conclusions of what the elephant is, then arguing about who was right. Had they adopted a student/servant mentality rather than a teacher/master mentality they could have all had a better understanding of the elephant. If the elephant is truth, reality, etc., we just might get a better perspective of it through discussion in mutual respect leaving bigotry aside. I will discuss with anyone who is willing to DISCUSS, not argue. The elephant is huge and we are very limited in perspective, however, maybe we can help each other understand it to a greater degree. I've never had issues doing so with atheists, but antitheists are impossible to talk to and I've never met one yet that didn't hesitate to be repulsive and I have no interest in the least in respecting that. You don't sound like an antitheist from this post, if your wondering how a Christian can follow the one you are "certainly for", as I also am, yet reconcile that with the one you are "certainly against", I'll try to help. I don't know everything, I know my perspective, it doesn't invalidate yours, but it is different. Can we do this with open minds?
This is my stand. I will not retreat from it. I will not compromise.
 
Upvote 0

Truly1999

Newbie
Jan 23, 2013
285
113
England
✟31,882.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Labour
Hi, I have interacted with Christians but do not understand some of the language that is used. I read the scriptures to some depth before attempting to go to any church, mainly because of the distances and cost involved.
After reading the Bible what confronted me in the Christian Church was not expected. There are so many versions and they all seem to think their Church is correct. There is also a lot of sickness and the spiritual presence and belief in God is weak. The doctrine is incorrect and the true gospel is not being taught. There needs to be a big clean out because without it no change will take place.

Following Jesus is not something superficial it is actually having His nature. This is very gentle and the Eternal Father indwells with some power. It is difficult to comprehend how hard in the heart a rebellious human is until the complete experience is taken on. There needs to be a complete transformation as written in scriptures but not understood.

How does a Christian accept Jesus into their lives and follow Him as their savior each day?
Hi, I have interacted with Christians but do not understand some of the language that is used. I read the scriptures to some depth before attempting to go to any church, mainly because of the distances and cost involved.
After reading the Bible what confronted me in the Christian Church was not expected. There are so many versions and they all seem to think their Church is correct. There is also a lot of sickness and the spiritual presence and belief in God is weak. The doctrine is incorrect and the true gospel is not being taught. There needs to be a big clean out because without it no change will take place.

Following Jesus is not something superficial it is actually having His nature. This is very gentle and the Eternal Father indwells with some power. It is difficult to comprehend how hard in the heart a rebellious human is until the complete experience is taken on. There needs to be a complete transformation as written in scriptures but not understood.

How does a Christian accept Jesus into their lives and follow Him as their savior each day?

Jesus told his disciples that he had to go and be with his Father but would send another, the Holy Spirit, who would show them how to live their lives as the Father wants.

Belief comes through hearing the Word of God, ie the Bible, being spread by Christians. However, Christians are expected to pray. In fact, Christians are told in the Bible that anything is possible through prayer, through having a pure heart, through sincerely wanting to see people saved. All too often, Christians refuse to accept their responsibilities for people accepting Jesus or not accepting Jesus.

Some people accept Jesus into their lives as a result of a spiritual experience or encounter with God. However, most people accept Jesus after a friend has shared their testimony and friendship for a while and then invite their friend to an evangelistic event aimed at interested and individuals. The evangelist will give an "altar call" at the end of the meeting, and appeal to those who want to accept Jesus to come to the front where people will pray with them.

Once a person has made that decision to follow Jesus, their contact details are taken and someone will arrange to help them follow up on that decision. At this one-to-one, the senior church member will chat about their new heavenly family, the encouragement in developing faith through house groups/small groups, importance of developing a daily quiet time praying to God, talking with Jesus, listening to God, reading his Word.

After regular help, support and encouragement from the church, and learning to have fun in God's presence, there is an open invitation made to be baptised, just as Jesus's disciples were, through total immersion. I have to admit, my faith was cemented forever when I made a public declaration through total immersion baptism.

I hope this has partly answered your question. I hope I haven't gone off at a tangent and waffled on and on.
 
Upvote 0

lumberjohn

Active Member
Oct 23, 2006
111
29
✟22,906.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

Obviously, my post was somewhat tongue in cheek, a reworking of Noah Sweat’s 1952 speech, “If by whisky . . .” But it does, in a certain respect, reflect my position. It also demonstrates how absurd it is to try to answer a question about how one feels about God without knowing the assumptions of the person asking the question.

I do not believe in God as he is typically described. The concept is so vague and undefined as to be incoherent, and I can’t wrap my head around an incoherent concept. It might be more accurate to say I don’t get to the point of believing or not believing because no one has clearly defined what I should be believing in. The idea remains indeterminate.

I know I am against pretty much everything the Old Testament God Yahweh seems to be about. That is a coherent concept and a very disturbing one at that. The character of Yahweh is a violent, brooding bully that tortures and kills people for petty reasons. There is nothing about this character I find respectable or inspiring.

It is difficult to reconcile this God with that of the New Testament, especially when we are told that God is timeless and unchanging. Nevertheless, to the extent people associate God, based upon the New Testament texts, with qualities I think of as positive, such as love and compassion for others, I can respect that. While I still may not believe in this God, this is at least a concept I can get behind.

The problem is that I rarely find anyone that can fully separate the two – one that can focus solely on the positive while renouncing the negative. Find me the church that openly renounces the God of the Old Testament, the horror of Hell, and the tribal teachings that marginalize those of different genders, races, and beliefs, and you will find a kindred spirit.
 
Upvote 0

Truly1999

Newbie
Jan 23, 2013
285
113
England
✟31,882.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Labour
Regarding a "clean out", I used to think that but then I reflected more on something Jesus said about sifting the wheat from the chaff, or pulling up the weeds that choke the good seed. In pulling up the weeds, you will uproot the good seed. It is best to let the Father sift the wheat from the chaff at the end of the world. There have been occasions, though, when the Holy Spirit has "fallen" on a church congregation and the church has become aware of how it has sinned against God, and out of this there has been "refreshing" and "renewal".

I think that some of the newest divisions created in the Church is an expression of the Holy Spirit moving in the Church. There is a need for Christians to recognise that they must leave their particular denomination in order to obey God and join this new movement of the Holy Spirit. Sadly, many Christians are so set in their ways that they miss this new blessing. Yes, they remain true Christians and they will be blessed. However, at times God wants to bless his people with so much more, and people need to be in the right place at the right time in order to be able to receive that special blessing. But, God provides us with many opportunities throughout our walk.
 
Upvote 0

Wayne R.

Active Member
Jun 5, 2015
49
7
74
✟22,714.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
If you have studied biology, you will know that there were not always cats, or zebras, or penguins. We have no record of such creatures in the early fossil history or any other source. We begin to have evidence for them just when evolutionary theory predicts we would -- once sufficiently distinct species developed through natural selection. Their features are, in each case, modifications of features of earlier species, built upon the genetic scaffolding of their ancestors.

Evolutionary theory can show the mechanism by which many of the changes occurred that led to these species. In many cases, it can show how these changes occurred. It allows us to systematically trace the development of species on a timeline. The theory could be disproven easily by showing just one thing out of place on that timeline. But it never has been.

No alternate theory has ever accounted for this evidence. The most creationists can do is to claim that the underlying evidence is unreliable. But if that is the case, why does that same evidence continue to allow us to make such accurate predictions? Why does the same evidence used to support evolution, for example, also support all modern medicine? If you trust any medicine you have taken in the last fifty years, you are confirming that this evidence is indeed reliable. The entire field of genetics represents a confirmation of evolutionary theory.



And it is safe to say that you never will. Evolutionary theory predicts no such thing. It does, however, predict that given the right environmenal conditions, small genetic changes will occur from generation to generation that will, over time, result in significant recognizable changes. If you doubt this, just look at the wide array of dogs created through selective breeding. Creationists attempt to dismiss such evidence by manufacturing a rhetorical distinction between "microevolution" and "macroevolution." But that is like acknowledging that wind can erode rock, but refusing to believe it can ever change the shape of the rock. Given enough time "microevolution" must necessarily lead to "macroevolution."
There are holes in both, what some seem to accept as the traditional creationist understanding, and also in evolution. The "tradition creationist understanding seems to believe there can not be change in a species and all species were created as is today, yet scripture certainly confirms change in species, such as breeding for that specific purpose.
On the other hand, we know "knowledge" comes through experience. How does a bee with a brain smaller than a pinhead know right from birth how to communicate direction and distance of food sources in a dance that modern man can't figure out? That's intelligence written in DNA. How did a caterpillar learn to die to what it is and recreate itself as a whole new creature? Evolution doesn't account for these and should have eliminated them.
 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married
There are holes in both, what some seem to accept as the traditional creationist understanding, and also in evolution. The "tradition creationist understanding seems to believe there can not be change in a species and all species were created as is today, yet scripture certainly confirms change in species, such as breeding for that specific purpose.
On the other hand, we know "knowledge" comes through experience. How does a bee with a brain smaller than a pinhead know right from birth how to communicate direction and distance of food sources in a dance that modern man can't figure out? That's intelligence written in DNA. How did a caterpillar learn to die to what it is and recreate itself as a whole new creature? Evolution doesn't account for these and should have eliminated them.
Does mainstream science need to be wrong for your beliefs to be true?
 
Upvote 0

lumberjohn

Active Member
Oct 23, 2006
111
29
✟22,906.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
There are holes in both, what some seem to accept as the traditional creationist understanding, and also in evolution. The "tradition creationist understanding seems to believe there can not be change in a species and all species were created as is today, yet scripture certainly confirms change in species, such as breeding for that specific purpose.
On the other hand, we know "knowledge" comes through experience. How does a bee with a brain smaller than a pinhead know right from birth how to communicate direction and distance of food sources in a dance that modern man can't figure out? That's intelligence written in DNA. How did a caterpillar learn to die to what it is and recreate itself as a whole new creature? Evolution doesn't account for these and should have eliminated them.

You might be interested in this.

http://io9.com/why-honeybees-are-a-strange-example-of-darwinian-evolut-1538074226
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,302
✟190,302.00
Faith
Seeker
==== RESP: 1) One answer, the God that is know by most on this blog/thread by believer or non-believer. Else, the non-believers wouldn't have a subject to attack!
I don´t recall attacking a God.
I am politely asking you what you mean when saying "God", so that I know what it is you want to discuss with me (and which you apparently expect me to attack, once you have answered the question).


2) Just answer my Qs -- Is God or no-God best for American society?
I can´t answer it before I know what your keyterm is supposed to mean.
And, does a concept exist?
A concept exists in the mind.

3) I agree. As fallible humans, such value qualifiers are subjective. But, we have a concept of greatest (or smallest), as in math/calculus & physics, that, just, works!
Sorry, but I have never seen a calculation operating with "greatest". But I am not a math expert, I confess.
Now, what´s that math to do with anything, anyway? Let´s for argument´s sake assume the concept "greatest" were indeed an operational concept in math. What is that supposed to clarify in regards to the questions at hand?
 
Upvote 0