I just don't *want* to believe!

redleghunter said:

If you can identify ova on the chart please let me know.

Click to expand...

I looked through the chart, and it doesn't even have a word for egg or anything like an ova. Not sure why you didn't look through it yourself, seeing as it isn't that many words.

redleghunter said:

I was pointing out "seed" because it's there for us to see clearly. No underlying agenda here. Just offering some interesting information.

Click to expand...

But the fact that sperm is so obvious kinda makes it pointless to bring up that ancient people were aware of it. I've read the bible, dude, I know ancient Hebrews knew about sperm. But I am also aware that the bible doesn't give any insights about conception that are ahead of its time.

redleghunter said:

If you want the perspective of Torah Sinai covenant Hebrews on fertility one only needs to read Exodus 23:25.

Click to expand...

Are you sure this was the part of the bible you wanted to quote?
Exodus 23:25
"And ye shall serve the Lord your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee."

Or did you want to actually direct me to Exodus 23:26 ?
"There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfill."

If that's what you intended to direct me to, fyi, there's not a single human population spared entirely from infertility, and infertility doesn't correlate with theism or atheism at all.

SkyWriting said:

Yup...You said it in exactly the right words:

Click to expand...

You seem not to understand the process. You look for evidence to support your beliefs, and if you don't find it, or instead find evidence for something else, you change your beliefs. I assumed that last part would be obvious but evidently it wasn't.

Now, try one more time: do you have any evidence for your claim that people believe only what they decide to believe? Or is this just something you decided to believe?

Apologetic_Warrior said:

I believe a believer can backslide into such depths of sin, as to be deceived about their status with God, however in time God is faithful to bring them back into the fold. The experience for the believer is as if they fell away, but the reality in Heaven is, the prodigal has come home.

Click to expand...

So that's a NO?

Tolworth John said:

Yes you are right and no you are wrong.
Talking about how something evoluved has nothing to do with how the universe begain.
But if evolution believing atheists are unable to explain how the universe begain, just how valid are their ideas about evolution.
If God created the universe, then he also created live and if he created life he created life without using evolution.
So being able to explain why everything brgain is important.

Click to expand...

They didn't understand it way back when I said it, I would venture to say they won't believe it now.

But were both right.

I don't want to believe the nonsense filling this thread, unfortunately the evidence is in plain sight.

Southernscotty said:

Nothing created nothing. Makes sense ???

Click to expand...

Who said anything about "nothing created nothing"? I don't see that phrase anywhere in my post. Did you mean to quote someone else and quoted me by mistake?

Southernscotty said:

I believe my God said create and bang it happened so that is my big bang theory

Click to expand...

Umm, good for you?

JIMINZ said:

So that's a NO?

Click to expand...

Indeed, sanctification is the evidence of salvation, not salvation in and of itself. The righteousness that comes by faith is the righteousness of Christ imputed to the believer, it is not a righteousness that can be added to or taken away from or improved upon, and it comes from God. So no, a true believer whom God saves is sealed for the day of redemption, and I cannot go along with the idea, which behind it, is God ever ready to change His mind to undo what He has done, as though He did not already know the beginning from the end. Why would God save someone, only to remove His work? Based on their performance or lack of? Where is the grace and mercy in that? Isn't it interesting though, how God saved me while I had been trained in the Assemblies of God, and held firmly to Assemblies of God teachings? And held them firmly for many years as I am not the type to bounce from Church to Church from one set of teachings to another, I can be very stubborn minded and the odds of me changing were stacked against me, not many of my life's experiences would influence me towards Calvinism. Anyway sorry for rambling on and going off the topic and not being more brief.

Apologetic_Warrior said:

So no, a true believer whom God saves is sealed for the day of redemption.

Why would God save someone, only to remove His work? Based on their performance or lack of? Where is the grace and mercy in that?

Click to expand...

That's ok, I agree with you for the same reasons you said.

PsychoSarah said:

I looked through the chart, and it doesn't even have a word for egg or anything like an ova. Not sure why you didn't look through it yourself, seeing as it isn't that many words.


But the fact that sperm is so obvious kinda makes it pointless to bring up that ancient people were aware of it. I've read the bible, dude, I know ancient Hebrews knew about sperm. But I am also aware that the bible doesn't give any insights about conception that are ahead of its time.


Are you sure this was the part of the bible you wanted to quote?
Exodus 23:25
"And ye shall serve the Lord your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee."

Or did you want to actually direct me to Exodus 23:26 ?
"There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfill."

If that's what you intended to direct me to, fyi, there's not a single human population spared entirely from infertility, and infertility doesn't correlate with theism or atheism at all.

Click to expand...

I guess you missed the point. Sperm cells are microscopic. Don't think Moses had one of those back then.

Perhaps I'm being naive, but why wouldn't someone want to believe what is actually true? I can understand disagreeing on what is or isn't true, especially in regard to things which cannot be demonstrated one way or the other, such as religious faith claims. But when it comes to objective, observable reality--why would someone not want to accept the actual, real, objective world?

I say this in part just as a Christian. In Martin Luther's letter to his friend Philip Melancthon he writes,

"If you are a preacher of mercy, don't preach an imaginary mercy, preach real mercy. And if it is real mercy, then you must bear real, not imaginary, sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners."

To which I would add that if, as a Christian, I believe in the claims of the Christian religion, and believe the Gospel, then I am compelled to believe in the real world, not an imaginary one. If the Word became flesh in real history, and if I believe the calling of Jesus is for real people in the real world, then I am compelled by my religion to be part of the real, actual, world. If Christianity is being professed in an imaginary world, then it is an imaginary religion, with an imaginary message, about imaginary things, and the entire enterprise is meaningless duff, as though we're just children sitting around playing church. And that, of course, is all very fine if one isn't a Christian. But I am one, and I believe I should take my religion seriously enough to be religious in the real world--not an imaginary one.

-CryptoLutheran

ViaCrucis said:

Perhaps I'm being naive, but why wouldn't someone want to believe what is actually true? I can understand disagreeing on what is or isn't true, especially in regard to things which cannot be demonstrated one way or the other, such as religious faith claims. But when it comes to objective, observable reality--why would someone not want to accept the actual, real, objective world?

Click to expand...

So the born again Christian, who's life has been turned upside down and changed from darkness to light is not an evidence that is observable in the actual, real, objective world? The existence of thousands of MSS are not actual, real, objective evidence for religious faith claims? I must be misunderstanding because it seems as though you're saying that there is an objective world that can be interpreted autonomously through the senses without question, but matters of theonomous faith cannot be demonstrated and yet the Christian life should be a demonstration of a living sacrifice, a lamp on a hill to use observable allegory. That matters of faith are riddled full of doubt and question, while an assumed autonomy without even questioning the reliability of the senses or the facilities which make predication possible are beyond all doubt? Well well then, never-mind the effects of the fall on the heart of mankind, which Jeremiah 17:9 states "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?" and never-mind Paul where he states in Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” We can't be too sure about faith though, despite what David wrote in Psalms 19:1 "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork." In your question, you use the word "actual" but what is actual if we are stuck with assuming the relativism of an assumed autonomous mind? Nevertheless I feel foolish for even asking such a question because my question assumes meaningful shared communication through language and though my use of may be fallacious, still laws of logic are assumed in the process, but how can the autonmous man account for them? It's not as though they are objective observable reality that we could detect them through the five senses. Observing them in practice, is remarkably similar to observing the born again Christian in practice. Christian martyrs are the ultimate example of an observable faith, and it is not natural or in the normal every day realm of life that such faith is demonstrated.

Finally, consider the miracles of Christ, most of them were performed in cities where people refused to even believe the miracles, despite the fact they were observable. Jesus was actually the Messiah, but most refused to believe the truth, even when he proved it before their very eyes! Why? Gets back to the above.

sfs said:

You seem not to understand the process. You look for evidence to support your beliefs, and if you don't find it, or instead find evidence for something else, you change your beliefs. I assumed that last part would be obvious but evidently it wasn't.

Now, try one more time: do you have any evidence for your claim that people believe only what they decide to believe? Or is this just something you decided to believe?

Click to expand...

You stated it perfectly:

"people actually look for evidence or arguments to support their beliefs"

Click to expand...

and you don't like it so you are waiting for me to confirm your beliefs that you hold.

That’s called confirmation bias by the way. And is a sure sign that you’re not using the scientific method to get your answers but basing them on personal prejudice

ViaCrucis said:

Perhaps I'm being naive, but why wouldn't someone want to believe what is actually true? I can understand disagreeing on what is or isn't true, especially in regard to things which cannot be demonstrated one way or the other, such as religious faith claims. But when it comes to objective, observable reality--why would someone not want to accept the actual, real, objective world?

I say this in part just as a Christian. In Martin Luther's letter to his friend Philip Melancthon he writes,

"If you are a preacher of mercy, don't preach an imaginary mercy, preach real mercy. And if it is real mercy, then you must bear real, not imaginary, sin. God does not save those who are only imaginary sinners."

To which I would add that if, as a Christian, I believe in the claims of the Christian religion, and believe the Gospel, then I am compelled to believe in the real world, not an imaginary one. If the Word became flesh in real history, and if I believe the calling of Jesus is for real people in the real world, then I am compelled by my religion to be part of the real, actual, world. If Christianity is being professed in an imaginary world, then it is an imaginary religion, with an imaginary message, about imaginary things, and the entire enterprise is meaningless duff, as though we're just children sitting around playing church. And that, of course, is all very fine if one isn't a Christian. But I am one, and I believe I should take my religion seriously enough to be religious in the real world--not an imaginary one.

-CryptoLutheran

Click to expand...

Both.
God is Spirit.

redleghunter said:

I guess you missed the point. Sperm cells are microscopic. Don't think Moses had one of those back then.

Click to expand...

And your point would be...? If people never had an interest in viewing things smaller than we can normally see because they just assumed what was there, we'd have missed out on so much. Of course, if Moses had access to an all knowing being, he should have had the capacity to learn so much more about the world than anyone else despite the lack of tools like a microscope.

But again, I have been giving a warning against complacency the entire time. No matter how certain you feel about your conclusions about an afterlife, etc., it is not an excuse to view the matter as pointless to look into further. It is our desire for knowledge that drives us to produce the tools by which we can obtain it. Note how the people of the past often made up conclusions satisfy themselves rather than admit ignorance. "Oh, the volcano is erupting? A god must be angry." Alas, those types of conclusions never really helped anyone, and if they become deeply ingrained in faith, they can make scientific progress more difficult.

-

ViaCrucis said:

But when it comes to objective, observable reality--why would someone not want to accept the actual, real, objective world?

Click to expand...

Cognitive dissonance. It's uncomfortable to be confronted with information that contradicts a previously-established belief. And in a lot of cases, adapting one's worldview to such information isn't necessary.

PsychoSarah said:

But again, I have been giving a warning against complacency the entire time. No matter how certain you feel about your conclusions about an afterlife, etc., it is not an excuse to view the matter as pointless to look into further. It is our desire for knowledge that drives us to produce the tools by which we can obtain it. Note how the people of the past often made up conclusions satisfy themselves rather than admit ignorance. "Oh, the volcano is erupting? A god must be angry." Alas, those types of conclusions never really helped anyone, and if they become deeply ingrained in faith, they can make scientific progress more difficult.

Click to expand...

Don't know what the above has to do with an interesting historical fact of early language.

But ignorance is not constrained to the ancients. It comes in many forms no matter the worldview.

dysert said:

I've been thinking a lot about the whole evolution/creation thing and as a result I recently learned something about myself. I was thinking, even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where nothing became something, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where non-life gave rise to life, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that irreducible complexity is not an issue with evolution, etc., the fact of the matter is, I still wouldn't accept the theories being taught by the evolutionists. Why? Because I simply don't want to believe it.

This realization has made me wonder if there might be others (on either side of the fence) who refuse to believe something just because they don't want to? Since it's true for me, I imagine it's true for others, too. (It's rather liberating to learn something about yourself.)

Click to expand...

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the OP...However, I will note Christianity is not based on a blind faith. YHWH has revealed Himself throughout human history in the OT and NT manifesting Himself in the new birth.

dysert said:

I've been thinking a lot about the whole evolution/creation thing and as a result I recently learned something about myself. I was thinking, even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where nothing became something, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that there was a moment in the past where non-life gave rise to life, and even if someone could 100% prove to me that irreducible complexity is not an issue with evolution, etc., the fact of the matter is, I still wouldn't accept the theories being taught by the evolutionists. Why? Because I simply don't want to believe it.

This realization has made me wonder if there might be others (on either side of the fence) who refuse to believe something just because they don't want to? Since it's true for me, I imagine it's true for others, too. (It's rather liberating to learn something about yourself.)

Click to expand...

Of course there are people who deny evidence that contradicts a personal faith belief, we see it on CF all the time.

To some, accepting evidence that their personal faith belief is incorrect, is simply too painful for them to accept. Therefore, they build psychological defense mechanisms, to protect their belief at all costs.

Dave-W said:

Absolutely. We believe what we choose to believe; often even in the face of strong evidence to the contrary.

Click to expand...

Not really.

We reach beliefs, based on a complex set of circumstances that are really not a choice, like picking something from a menu.

Each person has their own unique psyche and life experiences, which determine what their mind can reconcile as believable.