Disobedience has consequences.

[oi_antz]

I'm proving the point that disbelief relies on the parameters of what you find believable and isn't just a switch you turn on and off.

It is actually. I switch between literal and non-literal belief of Genesis as needed.

 

[oi_antz]

The flames are invisible and smokeless, so you cannot see them. Do you believe me?

This is ridiculous. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say something like this?

 

[LostMarbels]

So using this do you think its reasonable to believe in a deity?

As the definition states; empirical Prof is provided by personal experience, experimentation, and is separate from the scientific method. So for a person who understands the word of God, and can stand in their faith, the bible has very real, measurable, and prescribable results one can experience.


I say blind faith is a farce, and not biblical. Faith is a learned behavioral trait, or sometimes it can be a conditioned response. I have learned to live my life, patterned after the bible expectant of known results to my endeavors. I have learned to be more faithful as God has shown me he will in fact respond exactly as his word says he will to any given situation. You learn faith. Then you intact it by reason of knowing what is expected for any given result. I know God is real, because I can see the "fruits" or results of my faith in God.


Another point for me is Christ's authority. There is no God that can come against the authority of Christ. Jesus's authority is absolute, and unchanging, therefore it is not only testable, it also becomes a constant to which variables may be tested. Once a person comes to understand, and accept a truth, they gain the wisdom of knowing that truth, and if they remain steadfast, will not be fooled. So, by being a Christian, we understand what is truth concerning God, and his creation. So when people speak in certain ways we are able to discern what is true, and is false, because God is constant and unchanging. That give us true assurance in Christ that no other God can provide.

I also have never been able to accept the scientific community to denounce the bible in ignorance. They have been able to explain how all existence has come from nothing is possible, and yet claim all existence coming from something, namely God, is a fairy tale. Scientifically speaking you cannot judge something as false without it being observed and tested. So you would first have to understand Christianity, as it presents it's self, and then you would be able to correctly study it.

As for how I know? For me personally it is the immutability of God's laws, and constraints, such as the laws of physics. I've always know immutable as not subject or susceptible to change. God's will is not an object any more than the laws of physics are. We are not talking about an immutable "object" here, as in a static unchangeable constant. 2+2=4 is an immutable constant for example. God's will being kind of like the laws of physics, they can be acted upon yet they do not change. Lets take gravity for example. Gravity on the moon differs from what we observe here on earth, but that dose not change the law of gravity itself. Point being even with different ways of observation, means of measurement, and varied results concerning gravity; that does not in fact change the immutability of the law of gravity. We, as mankind can therefore act upon the forces of gravity to produce proscribed and measurable results in accordance to our understanding of gravity. Such as flight for example. We had to understand gravity to learn how to overcome it. We can not, nor will we ever be able to force gravity to comply to our train of thought, or methods of reasoning. We must relate to gravity as it presents itself. Then we can only the respond to it's immutable traits. We can not add or take away from gravity. Only act upon its traits. This is the same for the will of God. God's will is immutable, but we can act upon it. We are not however influencing God, or changing his will any more than flight changed the influence of gravity.

This gives us the ability to experiment with the will, and word of God in order to gain empirical proof of his existence. The word "empirical" is not equated to "tangible".

For example: if you pick up a stone, outstretch your arm, and drop the stone to the ground; you now have empirical proof that gravity exists. "Empirical" proof is based on observation and personal experience of said means. That having been said, you must have a personal relationship with God and his word in order to have an personal experiences to prove his existence. God reveals to those who ask, seek, and pray. God will not prove his existence to the proud, arrogant, and sign seekers needing God to prove himself worthy of worship.

This is why some forms of disbelief are disobedience. Some disbelieving people have no evidence to back up their claim; neither by experimentation or personal experience. They simply refute wholesale with out looking into the matter.

 

[LostMarbels]

I do not recall including any such qualifier.

The flames are invisible and smokeless, so you cannot see them. Do you believe me?

What is your quantifier? Variables and constants to be tested?

Well scientifically speaking, both options are possible. Yes and no. Without empirical proof depicting the validity of either claims of fire, or of no fire both must be possible. It would even be prudent to deduce that one or both situations may be occurring at the same time. Without observance of said means, empirical proof, or foreknowledge of the nature of this fire, all options are possible and valid until proven other wise.

 

[hiphopopotomus]

As the definition states; empirical Prof is provided by personal experience, experimentation, and is separate from the scientific method. So for a person who understands the word of God, and can stand in their faith, the bible has very real, measurable, and prescribable results one can experience.


I say blind faith is a farce, and not biblical. Faith is a learned behavioral trait, or sometimes it can be a conditioned response. I have learned to live my life, patterned after the bible expectant of known results to my endeavors. I have learned to be more faithful as God has shown me he will in fact respond exactly as his word says he will to any given situation. You learn faith. Then you intact it by reason of knowing what is expected for any given result. I know God is real, because I can see the "fruits" or results of my faith in God.


Another point for me is Christ's authority. There is no God that can come against the authority of Christ. Jesus's authority is absolute, and unchanging, therefore it is not only testable, it also becomes a constant to which variables may be tested. Once a person comes to understand, and accept a truth, they gain the wisdom of knowing that truth, and if they remain steadfast, will not be fooled. So, by being a Christian, we understand what is truth concerning God, and his creation. So when people speak in certain ways we are able to discern what is true, and is false, because God is constant and unchanging. That give us true assurance in Christ that no other God can provide.

I also have never been able to accept the scientific community to denounce the bible in ignorance. They have been able to explain how all existence has come from nothing is possible, and yet claim all existence coming from something, namely God, is a fairy tale. Scientifically speaking you cannot judge something as false without it being observed and tested. So you would first have to understand Christianity, as it presents it's self, and then you would be able to correctly study it.

As for how I know? For me personally it is the immutability of God's laws, and constraints, such as the laws of physics. I've always know immutable as not subject or susceptible to change. God's will is not an object any more than the laws of physics are. We are not talking about an immutable "object" here, as in a static unchangeable constant. 2+2=4 is an immutable constant for example. God's will being kind of like the laws of physics, they can be acted upon yet they do not change. Lets take gravity for example. Gravity on the moon differs from what we observe here on earth, but that dose not change the law of gravity itself. Point being even with different ways of observation, means of measurement, and varied results concerning gravity; that does not in fact change the immutability of the law of gravity. We, as mankind can therefore act upon the forces of gravity to produce proscribed and measurable results in accordance to our understanding of gravity. Such as flight for example. We had to understand gravity to learn how to overcome it. We can not, nor will we ever be able to force gravity to comply to our train of thought, or methods of reasoning. We must relate to gravity as it presents itself. Then we can only the respond to it's immutable traits. We can not add or take away from gravity. Only act upon its traits. This is the same for the will of God. God's will is immutable, but we can act upon it. We are not however influencing God, or changing his will any more than flight changed the influence of gravity.

This gives us the ability to experiment with the will, and word of God in order to gain empirical proof of his existence. The word "empirical" is not equated to "tangible".

For example: if you pick up a stone, outstretch your arm, and drop the stone to the ground; you now have empirical proof that gravity exists. "Empirical" proof is based on observation and personal experience of said means. That having been said, you must have a personal relationship with God and his word in order to have an personal experiences to prove his existence. God reveals to those who ask, seek, and pray. God will not prove his existence to the proud, arrogant, and sign seekers needing God to prove himself worthy of worship.

This is why some forms of disbelief are disobedience. Some disbelieving people have no evidence to back up their claim; neither by experimentation or personal experience. They simply refute wholesale with out looking into the matter.

That is not how I see God at all.my God is not a personal God at all.To him we are just sheep and part of a flock which needs to be controlled for some reason that is only known to him.
Personal experience can mean the difference between believing in something or not but does that really mean much?
I have a friend who steadfastly believes in homeopathy because "it works for me".Which is perhaps true but only because of placebo effect.
Believing for its own sake can be beneficial to the individual but is it that what God is really about?

 

[LostMarbels]

That is not how I see God at all.my God is not a personal God at all.To him we are just sheep and part of a flock which needs to be controlled for some reason that is only known to him.
Personal experience can mean the difference between believing in something or not but does that really mean much?
I have a friend who steadfastly believes in homeopathy because "it works for me".Which is perhaps true but only because of placebo effect.
Believing for its own sake can be beneficial to the individual but is it that what God is really about?

Gravity is a bunch of strings holding us down, and inertia is when two systems are in thermal equilibrium respectively with a third system, they must be in thermal equilibrium with each other.

Some things just don't sound right when you truly understand truth about them.

I did not write what I wrote to sidetrack the OP but to answer a question that was asked. I will rehash the point: some times unbelief is a conscious choice and has consequence. Disobedience is willful and has consequences.

 

[oi_antz]

To him we are just sheep and part of a flock which needs to be controlled for some reason that is only known to him.

He makes enough known to us, for example:

‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes for the old order of things has passed away.”

 

[Davian]

What is your quantifier? Variables and constants to be tested?

Well scientifically speaking, both options are possible. Yes and no. Without empirical proof depicting the validity of either claims of fire, or of no fire both must be possible. It would even be prudent to deduce that one or both situations may be occurring at the same time. Without observance of said means, empirical proof, or foreknowledge of the nature of this fire, all options are possible and valid until proven other wise.

I said, qualifier.

Do you believe me or not? Can you choose to believe me, at least for the next 5 minutes or so? I hope it is not too cold where you live. Be sure to grab a few of your cherished belongings on your way out. Children too, if you have any.

 

[LostMarbels]

I said, qualifier.

Do you believe me or not? Can you choose to believe me, at least for the next 5 minutes or so? I hope it is not too cold where you live. Be sure to grab a few of your cherished belongings on your way out. Children too, if you have any.

Ok... your point?

I'm trying to see where your going with this. The only thing I can think of is some parallel where Christianity is some wacky story to scare peeps into believing without any real evidence?

What does this have to do with the OP?

 

[Skavau]

Ok... your point?

I'm trying to see where your going with this. The only thing I can think of is some parallel where Christianity is some wacky story to scare peeps into believing without any real evidence?

What does this have to do with the OP?

That's exactly how many Atheists would perceive Christianity to be, yes. The threat of being tortured for not believing a certain way.

 

[LostMarbels]

That's exactly how many Atheists would perceive Christianity to be, yes. The threat of being tortured for not believing a certain way.

This part of my point. It is of the most absolute of importance to point this out that we cannot remain on topic.

"There is a point where one can become willfully ignorant. They simply do not want to believe and brush it aside without ever even looking into a matter."

I was trying to show how disbelief can be a conscious decision. That is it.

A person can willfully decide not to believe, and even engage in actions knowing they will never believe such foolishness. At that point the said individual has made a conscious choice to refute and/or disbelieve.

And to as why I'm on this line of conversation is because unbelief can be disobedience. Even an act of out right defiance and refusal. And to the OP disobedience-has-consequences. So some forms of disbelief can have consequences.

Please take the time to scroll back and go over some of my posts. I think I made a good point that I honestly do not want to retype.

Honestly, thanks.

 

[Davian]

It is actually. I switch between literal and non-literal belief of Genesis as needed.

This is ridiculous. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say something like this?

Irony Meter - Heavy Duty

• Davian
• Feb 19, 2015

 

[Skavau]

This part of my point. It is of the most absolute of importance to point this out that we cannot remain on topic.

"There is a point where one can become willfully ignorant. They simply do not want to believe and brush it aside without ever even looking into a matter."

You have no way of knowing that every single Atheist or even substantial numbers of Atheists do this. Even if this was a trend worth nothing, willful ignorance does not command torture. One can be stubborn and deliberately so but that does not warrant good reason to torture them.

A person can willfully decide not to believe, and even engage in actions knowing they will never believe such foolishness. At that point the said individual has made a conscious choice to refute and/or disbelieve.

And to as why I'm on this line of conversation is because unbelief can be disobedience. Even an act of out right defiance and refusal. And to the OP disobedience-has-consequences. So some forms of disbelief can have consequences.

The argument made is that disobedience or disbelief should *not* have consequences.

 

[Davian]

Ok... your point?

Why can you not believe me when I tell you that your home is on fire? Can you not simply choose to do so?

I'm trying to see where your going with this. The only thing I can think of is some parallel where Christianity is some wacky story to scare peeps into believing without any real evidence?

I think you see my point more clearly than you would like to admit.

What does this have to do with the OP?

The OP implies that belief is a conscious choice. Our little thought experiment here says no.

 

[LostMarbels]

You have no way of knowing that every single Atheist or even substantial numbers of Atheists do this.

Please, be patient..... I do not want to have to restate my case every time someone else joins the conversation. A question was asked and that was part of my answer. It was not directed at anyone. Please scroll back and read my posts, or ask a question. But I am not being accusatory to anyone. Please understand you may misunderstand my intentions. Thanks.

The argument made is that disobedience or disbelief should *not* have consequences.

No personal accountability?

 

[Skavau]

No personal accountability?

We do not arrest people for what they think. In most instances we do not arrest people for disobedience. Only in the military can one actually be arrested for that and even then in many circumstances they can be vindicated if they had good reason.

Any country that institute thought-crime into its legislation is commonly referred to as totalitarian and generally contains traits anathema to modern first-world democratic nations.

 

[LostMarbels]

Why can you not believe me when I tell you that your home is on fire? Can you not simply choose to do so?

I think you see my point more clearly than you would like to admit.

The OP implies that belief is a conscious choice. Our little thought experiment here says no.

I was wondering when you were going to set the trap.

As I stated earlier. My house may very well be on fire. I have no way to prove or disprove the fires existence.

What is your quantifier? Variables and constants to be tested?

Well scientifically speaking, both options are possible. Yes and no. Without empirical proof depicting the validity of either claims of fire, or of no fire both must be possible. It would even be prudent to deduce that one or both situations may be occurring at the same time. Without observance of said means, empirical proof, or foreknowledge of the nature of this fire, all options are possible and valid until proven other wise.

How can I know without testing and observing it?

What is your means of testing this fire?

 

[LostMarbels]

We do not arrest people for what they think. In most instances we do not arrest people for disobedience. Only in the military can one actually be arrested for that and even then in many circumstances they can be vindicated if they had good reason.

Any country that institute thought-crime into its legislation is commonly referred to as totalitarian and generally contains traits anathema to modern first-world democratic nations.

“President Obama's action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

I think you need to do some reading. http://www.christianforums.com/thre...around-one-thing.7769222/page-7#post-64053085

If you honestly think were not being watched for what our political and religious beliefs are you need to take a look.

 

[LostMarbels]

But other than that... why do you believe there should be no consequences?

 

[oi_antz]

Irony Meter - Heavy Duty

• Davian
• Feb 19, 2015

Eh? Can you please explain why you think this is ironic?