How to prove that GOD exists from a scientific point of view?

[AV1611VET]

And than kills himself.

Yup.

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

 

[AV1611VET]

To pay himself for his creation breaking his rules.

Isn't God wonderful?

 

[AV1611VET]

Some of the priests that took confession in our abbey and taught in our school were eventually prosecuted for sexual abuse of the pupils - at around the same time I was there - fortunately, it seems I wasn't suitable material, so I only found out later, when there was a fuss about the church evacuating one to a monastery on mainland Europe, out of reach of English law. So, for my part, I think I'm justified in calling them 'creepy'.

That's fine.

But you can go too far with that and project "creepiness" on to Jesus.

I think the term is: "stereotyping."

 

[dlamberth]

Yup.

John 10:18 No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

Or, God kills Himself to appease Himself because His own Creation did not living up to His high standards.

 

[dlamberth]

That's fine.

But you can go too far with that and project "creepiness" on to Jesus.

I think the term is: "stereotyping."

A person might do so, but that's not something FrumiousBandersnatch was doing.

 

[AV1611VET]

Or, God kills Himself to appease Himself because His own Creation did not living up to His high standards.

How many times are you going to reword this?

 

[AV1611VET]

A person might do so, but that's not something FrumiousBandersnatch was doing.

Would he admit it if he was? would you?

 

[SelfSim]

A person might do so, but that's not something FrumiousBandersnatch was doing.

Nor was I.

 

[SelfSim]

Would he admit it if he was? would you?

Yes .. but that isn't what I originally said.
Its not my fault that God/Jesus/the Holy Sprit/human souls are all mixed up and then apparently separated again and the spirit is (supposedly) 'channelled' during the confessional thing(?) Its just creepy for a kid.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes .. but that isn't what I originally said.
Its not my fault that God/Jesus/the Holy Sprit/human souls are all mixed up and then apparently separated again and the spirit is (supposedly) 'channelled' during the confessional thing(?) Its just creepy for a kid.

For the record I wouldn't know.

I've never been to a Catholic confession.

 

[dlamberth]

How many times are you going to reword this?

I don't know. It's a good question. It's something I've been looking at lately. I find that for myself it puts a lot of things into perspective.

 

[dlamberth]

Would he admit it if he was? would you?

Ya, I would admit it if it were true.
But the way I experience the Heart of Christ is as "Infinite Divine Compassion/Activated".
That's not very creepy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You're not sure it matters?

That's literally the question I've been asking the whole time.

It doesn't matter? Answering the question that I asked you doesn't matter? Why did you bother responding at all then?

Kylie: *Asks question.*

2PhiloVoid: "Oh, the answer doesn't matter for you, so I'm not going to tell you. Luckily, I can make this decision, since, despite having never met you, I can tell what you need to know. And since you don't need to know this, I'm not going to tell you."

Well, since the only thing I am interested in is what Hyers' position is, all that stuff about me doesn't make a difference, does it?

So, you can answer questions, ay?

Well, Kylie, however much I'd like to have a solid, more sensible, more academic level conversation with you, I just get the sense that you're not interested.

Like some 'moderate' historians and archaeologists of Israel's history, Conrad Hyers surmised that Genesis 1 may actually be a Post-Exilic work by the "P" Priestly writers of Israel. If so, this would essentially render the whole of chapter 1 as a moot point.

Is this the kind of thing you wanted to hear from me?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Like some 'moderate' historians and archaeologists of Israel's history, Conrad Hyers surmised that Genesis 1 may actually be a Post-Exilic work by the "P" Priestly writers of Israel. If so, this would essentially render the whole of chapter 1 as a moot point.

Why would that be? Wouldn't the Isrealites still need an origin myth after exile?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Lots of claims, but you don't back any of them up.

What did I post that was subterfuge? What did I poste that was sabotage? How did what I said fail?

It takes time to "back things up." And I didn't say your post was subterfuge. I said that there were other forms of subjective opinions and the ones I listed were illegitimate forms. There are legitimate forms too

As to the point you were making about subjective opinion on the whole, the only thing I said about your progression of thought in that post is that it fails as a deduction. That's all I meant by that. I wasn't trying to allude that subterfuge or sabotage was what you were doing, or are doing.

I'm assuming that your presence on CF is to challenge various Christians because you're actually wanting to know if Christianity has any chance of being true. I have to give you this benefit of the doubt and assume you're being transparent to some extent about this because I couldn't imagine it being otherwise.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Why would that be? Wouldn't the Isrealites still need an origin myth after exile?

Yes, I suppose that if the Moderates and/or the Minimalists are correct, it could be said that the Post-Exilic Israelites still needed an origin myth to buttress their identity as a people against the Persians or Greeks, and others.

But for me, it does make a slight difference as to when and by whom it was written.. If Genesis 1 is only a Post-Exilic product, then I think it can only be seen as a myth rather than as an inspired metaphor or poetic work. I'd prefer it be the latter.

 

[Lost Witness]

the bible is 100% truth,
Anything else and it's calling GOD a Liar,
Such a Person doesn't know GOD.

Being a Christian and making such a statement is done in err and should be repented of and turned away from

 

[SelfSim]

Being a Christian and making such a statement is done in err and should be repented of and turned away from

"Burn 'em at the stake", eh?
Has nothing changed?
Has nothing been learned?

 

[Lost Witness]

"Burn 'em at the stake", eh?
Has nothing changed?
Has nothing been learned?

Why quote me and then say something I clearly didn't say?

 

[YahuahSaves]

A belief is a belief because I can define an objective test for what a belief is. Beliefs can produce the meaning for what's real .. its called Mind Dependent Reality.

Can you put that in a short sentence and actually tell me what the difference is between belief in God and perceived gender identity that opposes the gender a person was born?

I think all human minds display the hallmark (testable) characteristics of self-awareness (identity), regardless of any beliefs in God, or gender orientation preferences. If someone succeeds in completely rejecting one's own sense of individual identity, I don't think an observer could infer the presence of a human mind, in that instance.

Do you understand a believer has their identity in Christ? That means the individual perceptual identity that was moulded and shaped by the world is replaced by our true identity given by God.

Self-identity however, is essential to doing science or believing in God, whereas gender orientation isn't relevant to either. Those are the differences.

How is gender orientation not relevant to self-identity?