Are Morals Relevant?

[George the Intercessor]

This response appears patently false. If I've honestly never received any contact or a response from such a stated God, in which I prayed to for over 30+ years, how am I able to 'honestly' assume this agent actually exists???

Even more-so, how would one 'honestly' state they love this unverified agent above and beyond anything else?

You are also false, when you state one does not have the ability to love others, without loving 'God,' unless you are redefining the conceptual human invented word 'love'.

love - 'an intense feeling of deep affection' (or) 'feel a deep romantic or sexual attachment to (someone)'. - google.com

Furthermore, couldn't any opposing religion, in which you most likely fully reject, also use faith with as much veracity as you use it? So is faith really an objective meter-stick for truth in any real capacity?

And again, my OP stands... Morals are irrelevant (according to scripture). Unless again, the definition of morality is redefined drastically to now mean - 'without belief/faith, you cannot get into heaven.'

I'm not saying that no one can love, but without God it is impossible; in response to your misunderstanding, God increases the capacity of one's ability to love. There's nothing wrong with loving God above anyone; in fact, God loves all humans in an infinite degree, so what would be the point in loving all humans than God since everyone is loved so much by God?

 

[George the Intercessor]

This response appears patently false. If I've honestly never received any contact or a response from such a stated God, in which I prayed to for over 30+ years, how am I able to 'honestly' assume this agent actually exists???

Even more-so, how would one 'honestly' state they love this unverified agent above and beyond anything else?

You are also false, when you state one does not have the ability to love others, without loving 'God,' unless you are redefining the conceptual human invented word 'love'.

love - 'an intense feeling of deep affection' (or) 'feel a deep romantic or sexual attachment to (someone)'. - google.com

Furthermore, couldn't any opposing religion, in which you most likely fully reject, also use faith with as much veracity as you use it? So is faith really an objective meter-stick for truth in any real capacity?

And again, my OP stands... Morals are irrelevant (according to scripture). Unless again, the definition of morality is redefined drastically to now mean - 'without belief/faith, you cannot get into heaven.'

Truly, I tell you, your concept of love is fallacious. Love is flawless in benevolence; it does no evil; otherwise, God wouldn't have used the term "love" in the two greatest commandments. Genuine faith is based on evidence. Having faith motivated by love is equivalent to acting moral; trusting and partnering with the source of all goodness (that being God) is truly upright.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm not saying that no one can love, but without God it is impossible; in response to your misunderstanding, God increases the capacity of one's ability to love. There's nothing wrong with loving God above anyone; in fact, God loves all humans in an infinite degree, so what would be the point in loving all humans than God since everyone is loved so much by God?

This addressed absolutely nothing, from my reply; so I will grant the same in return.

 

[cvanwey]

Truly, I tell you, your concept of love is fallacious. Love is flawless in benevolence; it does no evil; otherwise, God wouldn't have used the term "love" in the two greatest commandments. Genuine faith is based on evidence.

Tell that to the 9K children whom starve to death daily, the children who die of cancer, the many who are repeatedly raped, etc... Just for starters....

Many of which pray to God and receive no response. Turning a blind eye is not 'love' (in the eye's of those whom profess intercessory prayer valid). If you saw your small child wandering the busy streets, would you only observe, or intervene? Under your assessment of 'logic', you would observe, while myself, on the other hand, would intervene. So I guess a skeptic, whom 'loves' their child, would not intervene in such a case.

And talk about fallacious! Your definition of the word faith is severely self invented, unfounded, and unsupported. This is proven by the fact that any religion can appeal to faith, with the same level of 'veracity' as yours

Example:

You see many pray in a Christian church and claim they receive a response.

You see many pray in a Muslim Mosque and claim they receive a response.

How might one validate which group is correct?.?.?.?.....?.?.?.?

 

[George the Intercessor]

Tell that to the 9K children whom starve to death daily, the children who die of cancer, the many who are repeatedly raped, etc... Just for starters....

Many of which pray to God and receive no response. Turning a blind eye is not 'love' (in the eye's of those whom profess intercessory prayer valid). If you saw your small child wandering the busy streets, would you only observe, or intervene? Under your assessment of 'logic', you would observe, while myself, on the other hand, would intervene. So I guess a skeptic, whom 'loves' their child, would not intervene in such a case.

And talk about fallacious! Your definition of the word faith is severely self invented, unfounded, and unsupported. This is proven by the fact that any religion can appeal to faith, with the same level of 'veracity' as yours

Example:

You see many pray in a Christian church and claim they receive a response.

You see many pray in a Muslim Mosque and claim they receive a response.

How might one validate which group is correct?.?.?.?.....?.?.?.?

I knew you would include that into your argument. It's the duty of humanity to edify those on earth. I know few people who are moved by God to feed, teach, etc. kids who are in need. Even if children have died, especially by starvation, they're in the care of Christ and His servants.

Well, technically the dictionary invented their definition of faith. Also, the famous John Lennox concludes that faith is based on evidence, so I didn't what you assume "self-invent" the description of faith. Of course, faith can be misused, but also properly used.

My intercessions for others has worked, including prayers for myself.
I don't depend on church individuals for my faith in prayer; if they have a miracle in their life, good for them, but if they lie, they achieve nothing.
You don't know what I have experienced.

 

[cvanwey]

I knew you would include that into your argument. It's the duty of humanity to edify those on earth. I know few people who are moved by God to feed, teach, etc. kids who are in need. Even if children have died, especially by starvation, they're in the care of Christ and His servants.

I think you missed my point entirely. My point is that if God is perfect 'love', God would not sit idly by, while people pray to Him while He watches and does nothing about it. The only argument you could pose would be 'freewill' on earth; but freewill does not apply to the victim in such cases. Or maybe you could try and argue that God wanted such people in heaven. But why the prior torture, agony, and continuous suffering prior to such conclusions? What lesson in theodicy are such children going to gain to starve for weeks, months, years? What lessons in theodicy are raped children going to learn prior to heaven?

There exists no logical answer, while in the same breath, claiming a perfectly just and omnibenevolent God. Now if you are claiming another deity, that's maybe an entirely different story, left for other questions...

Well, technically the dictionary invented their definition of faith.

As I already eluded to prior, that words are are conceptual to describe a scenario, subject, or topic. We just so happen to already have defintions for 'faith', and it does not fall under the definition you are trying to 'shoe horn' in there.

Also, the famous John Lennox concludes that faith is based on evidence, so I didn't what you assume "self-invent" the description of faith. Of course, faith can be misused, but also properly used.

Oh pardon me... John Lennox defines it this way....? I didn't realize John Lennox was the authority on 're-defining' words? Maybe I should see what 'Sam Harris' has to say on the matter? You can now also add conformation bias to the list, along with the others I previously noted (self invented, unfounded, and unsupported).

How about, instead, looking at the conceptual definitions and applying the evidence accordingly? There's a thought...

So again, if an opposing religion used 'faith' as their primary meter-stick for 'evidence' and 'truth', how might one determine if such a claimer is correct/incorrect?

So I again ask you... A Muslim claims a response in prayer, and states it is validated by 'faith'. How might you conclude such a claimant is false, while strictly using faith? - (since you seem to think faith is a valid form of evidence)? Using faith, how does it work for Christianity above other religions?

My intercessions for others has worked, including prayers for myself.

So do the opposing religions whom claim the same. But another question also remains... Are your prayers answered consistently, reliably, and is there a way to test the results? Or is it instead, random, and when God does not answer, you invoke an excuse of some sort?

I don't depend on church individuals for my faith in prayer; if they have a miracle in their life, good for them, but if they lie, they achieve nothing.

You have again completely missed my point...

A Muslim prays in their church, uses faith, and claims to receive an answer. A Christian does the same, using the exact same method. How might one go about concluding the truth, while using 'faith' alone for both the Christian and non-Christian????

You don't know what I have experienced.

Of course I don't. I've never claimed to. But just remember many also have anecdotal claims, whom also believe in a differing God than you

 

[George the Intercessor]

I'm not saying John Lennox is an authoritative figure who gets to "redefine", but he does make a valid point in what he's trying to describe.

I didn't consider that faith is a form of valid evidence, but someone has genuine faith when pursuing and finding that evidence for such a thing, and coming into agreement with it.


My prayers actually helped someone's grandfather from dying; and he was glad his father didn't die. Also he was not a Christian.
Another one of my prayers caused peace in a family group that had problems with someone within that family. Now this person is learning to love his own family.
I could give you a list of my prayers, but in the end, you won't believe. Unless I somehow got you to perceive it for yourself. Would that satisfy you, or will you still be skeptical?

Also, you say you prayed to God for thirty years? If you don't mind me asking, what were you praying for? I hope you'll be willing to tell me.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Tell that to the 9K children whom starve to death daily, the children who die of cancer, the many who are repeatedly raped, etc... Just for starters....

Why do you continually reject and resist the Savior Jesus - the only hope for eternal life and forgiveness of sins ?
Because mankind is full of wickedness and sin overflowing ?

Is that a good reason to continually reject the only truth that can save you or can save anyone else ?
Just because most men continually reject Jesus - you want to be with them !?

 

[George the Intercessor]

I think you missed my point entirely. My point is that if God is perfect 'love', God would not sit idly by, while people pray to Him while He watches and does nothing about it. The only argument you could pose would be 'freewill' on earth; but freewill does not apply to the victim in such cases. Or maybe you could try and argue that God wanted such people in heaven. But why the prior torture, agony, and continuous suffering prior to such conclusions? What lesson in theodicy are such children going to gain to starve for weeks, months, years? What lessons in theodicy are raped children going to learn prior to heaven?

There exists no logical answer, while in the same breath, claiming a perfectly just and omnibenevolent God. Now if you are claiming another deity, that's maybe an entirely different story, left for other questions...



As I already eluded to prior, that words are are conceptual to describe a scenario, subject, or topic. We just so happen to already have defintions for 'faith', and it does not fall under the definition you are trying to 'shoe horn' in there.



Oh pardon me... John Lennox defines it this way....? I didn't realize John Lennox was the authority on 're-defining' words? Maybe I should see what 'Sam Harris' has to say on the matter? You can now also add conformation bias to the list, along with the others I previously noted (self invented, unfounded, and unsupported).

How about, instead, looking at the conceptual definitions and applying the evidence accordingly? There's a thought...

So again, if an opposing religion used 'faith' as their primary meter-stick for 'evidence' and 'truth', how might one determine if such a claimer is correct/incorrect?

So I again ask you... A Muslim claims a response in prayer, and states it is validated by 'faith'. How might you conclude such a claimant is false, while strictly using faith? - (since you seem to think faith is a valid form of evidence)? Using faith, how does it work for Christianity above other religions?



So do the opposing religions whom claim the same. But another question also remains... Are your prayers answered consistently, reliably, and is there a way to test the results? Or is it instead, random, and when God does not answer, you invoke an excuse of some sort?



You have again completely missed my point...

A Muslim prays in their church, uses faith, and claims to receive an answer. A Christian does the same, using the exact same method. How might one go about concluding the truth, while using 'faith' alone for both the Christian and non-Christian????



Of course I don't. I've never claimed to. But just remember many also have anecdotal claims, whom also believe in a differing God than you

And by depriving God away from the existence equation, one deprives the only hope and our only solution to these very problems. If there is no after life, then we all die anyway. If there is no after life, then the bringing of justice doesn't come to anyone. Not to the child who starved to death, or the one who took lives by means of hatred.

 

[cvanwey]

I'm not saying John Lennox is an authoritative figure who gets to "redefine", but he does make a valid point in what he's trying to describe.

Your post from #285 "Also, the famous John Lennox concludes that faith is based on evidence."

I didn't consider that faith is a form of valid evidence, but someone has genuine faith when pursuing and finding that evidence for such a thing, and coming into agreement with it.

I have no choice but then to also pose actual opposing quotes, from Bertrand Russell specifically (as his appear be-fitting to the specific nature of this topic):

'"Where their is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

(or)

"If your belief is based on faith, you will resort to force either in the form of persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young."

Faith is believing in spite of opposing evidence. Faith is belief in place of direct evidence. Faith is choosing to ignore evidential accounts, in spite of the opposing evidence. Faith is pretending to know the unknown. Faith appears to be the antithesis of evidence, for all intensive purposes.

Now if you want to resort to the words 'hope' and trust', then go for it. I have no problem with that.... Such words seem to be more in line with what you are suggesting.

My prayers actually helped someone's grandfather from dying; and he was glad his father didn't die. Also he was not a Christian.
Another one of my prayers caused peace in a family group that had problems with someone within that family. Now this person is learning to love his own family.
I could give you a list of my prayers, but in the end, you won't believe. Unless I somehow got you to perceive it for yourself. Would that satisfy you, or will you still be skeptical?

I am only skeptical because I've heard many opposing anecdotal testimonials, whom also claim results in prayer (while praying to a differing God). So why is yours confirmed, but theirs was JUST COINCIDENCE????? You can't BOTH be correct, unless both Gods exist. Please account for such observed occurrences, in which you have yet to do in several responses now.

Also, you say you prayed to God for thirty years? If you don't mind me asking, what were you praying for? I hope you'll be willing to tell me.

I prayed for all the same things you do/did, most likely. I was a hardcore believer for decades, and possessed a presuppositional bias that God was listening. However, as soon as I started to compare my claims against heard and attested opposing religions, whom used the same exact form in prayer validation and stated the same conclusions, I was at a severe impasse:

1. More than one God is out there answering prayers...

(or)

2. I was rationalizing 'answered prayer', when the event actually concluded in my favor, while ignoring the misses.

A pretty eye opening dichotomy, I must say

 

[George the Intercessor]

Your post from #285 "Also, the famous John Lennox concludes that faith is based on evidence."



I have no choice but then to also pose actual opposing quotes, from Bertrand Russell specifically (as his appear be-fitting to the specific nature of this topic):

'"Where their is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence."

(or)

"If your belief is based on faith, you will resort to force either in the form of persecution or by stunting and distorting the minds of the young."

Faith is believing in spite of opposing evidence. Faith is belief in place of direct evidence. Faith is choosing to ignore evidential accounts, in spite of the opposing evidence. Faith is pretending to know the unknown. Faith appears to be the antithesis of evidence, for all intensive purposes.

Now if you want to resort to the words 'hope' and trust', then go for it. I have no problem with that.... Such words seem to be more in line with what you are suggesting.



I am only skeptical because I've heard many opposing anecdotal testimonials, whom also claim results in prayer (while praying to a differing God). So why is yours confirmed, but theirs was JUST COINCIDENCE????? You can't BOTH be correct, unless both Gods exist. Please account for such observed occurrences, in which you have yet to do in several responses now.



I prayed for all the same things you do/did, most likely. I was a hardcore believer for decades, and possessed a presuppositional bias that God was listening. However, as soon as I started to compare my claims against heard and attested opposing religions, whom used the same exact form in prayer validation and stated the same conclusions, I was at a severe impasse:

1. More than one God is out there answering prayers...

(or)

2. I was rationalizing 'answered prayer', when the event actually concluded in my favor, while ignoring the misses.

A pretty eye opening dichotomy, I must say

That is a description of "blind faith". The term "faith" means trust in something.

I pray differently than other people. I will listen for what God wants me to intercede for. I find prayer to be more of a dialogue with God, than a monologue. And this will be hard for you to believe, but my encounters with God were very potent, to a point that even my brother became a witness to it. And God would occasionally manifest supernaturally whenever I engaged in sincere prayer or worship.

Unfortunately, I may not be able to show you such observed occurrences. I think even if I tried, you may not consider. I hope to be able to do so one day.

Maybe Muslims unknowingly pray to God, and God answers their prayers if it's not selfish. If a Muslim prayed to God to reveal Himself to them, then they might receive a response, depending if they're really sincere. That might be why some Muslims claim to see Jesus.

 

[cvanwey]

Why do you continually reject and resist the Savior Jesus

First and foremost, this response has absolutely no baring or basis upon the observation of mine you quoted, (i.e.) which eludes to how a claimed all 'loving', omnipresent, and all just God would sit idly by, and watch thousands a day pray for their end in suffering, while even praying directly to Jesus earnestly and sincerely, and receive nothing in response. And I then also asked how a small child receives lessons in theodicy, by being repeatedly raped, only later to be murdered much later, while the child is praying to Jesus for intervention, and receives none. Neither you, nor the one whom the question was posed, wants to touch this observation. And I know why.... So instead, you attempt to instill fear, as if this would be some measure of 'truth'. Meaning, if I reject your claimed believed deity, then I fry in absence of God, or other...

But now to directly address your question....

First, you are assuming that I think Jesus does in fact for sure exist, and that I just choose to instead rebel. I'm first trying to make sense of such a concept, and have been unable to, despite decades of inquiry. So even assuming Jesus does exist, I cannot make any sense of the many claims and concepts in Christianity, as they appear contradictory within scripture. Hence, some of my topics posed. (i.e.) Are morals even relevant? Well, they appear not to be (as Belief is not a moral construct to morals). Which then only raises more logical questions...

But I will answer your direct question in a way, which more than fulfills such a question posed:

The Jews reject Jesus because Ezekial 37 (ingathering of exiles, rebuilding of the temple), Isaiah 11:9-10 (the knowledge of God will fill the world in the first century), Daniel 12:2 (resurrection of the dead), Isaiah 2 (world wide peace), etc.... (These are not my reasons, but theirs, so do not debate me on these claims specifically, just telling you 'some' reasons why Jews do not). The reason I'm giving you a Jewish response is to make a specific point. Which is.... Someone from any opposing religion, in which you reject, could just as easily claim that you know their specific God exists, and then ask why you deny it. So quite frankly, giving you a generic blanket rejection answer, from the majorative Jewish perspective appears just as relevant

It's not that I 'reject' Jesus. Like I've stated many times now, I prayed for decades, and received nothing in response. If you wish to then just claim that I was never a 'true Christian', go for it. It's old news if you do.

But thanks....