Evidence of miracles.

[Opdrey]

It depends on your sincerity.

Well, then, it's good that someone gets blamed. And it's good that it's not the all-knowing, all-seeing, perfect being beyond all of space and time.

I hope you'll see that this is a serious question. You (and many others on here) are SO CERTAIN of all that you know. You KNOW God. You KNOW what God wants. You EXPERIENCE God's love all the time and every day. Even when things go badly you feel comforted by God.

This may come as a complete surprise to you but not everyone has your experience of God. And before you go making more comments that indicate others are doing it wrong (implying that YOU are doing it right) perhaps it would be worthwhile to remember that not all people are exactly like you.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, then, it's good that someone gets blamed. And it's good that it's not the all-knowing, all-seeing, perfect being beyond all of space and time.

I hope you'll see that this is a serious question. You (and many others on here) are SO CERTAIN of all that you know. You KNOW God. You KNOW what God wants. You EXPERIENCE God's love all the time and every day. Even when things go badly you feel comforted by God.

This may come as a complete surprise to you but not everyone has your experience of God. And before you go making more comments that indicate others are doing it wrong (implying that YOU are doing it right) perhaps it would be worthwhile to remember that not all people are exactly like you.

Your attempts to reduce everyone to the status of "seeker" is noted.

You're projecting.

 

[NBB]

How long must one look for God? What if God doesn't appear to exist to them? Do they then simply "fake it until they make it"? Is God OK with people who worship him even if they have no idea if he is real or not?

I am not asking to be mean or nasty, but the key here is for some of us we haven't found sufficient evidence that God exists. Certainly not in the way you clearly feel. It is quite easy for you worship God and praise him, but if someone simply fails to experience God as real then worshiping and praising is just going through the motions.

I have always struggled with the concept that, as you said, finding God is the only real thing in all of existence. But God set the rules presumably. Why would he then "hide" from some but be so "obvious" to others?

Are some simply created to be damned?

When some people say Jesus changed their lifes in their testimonies they mean it,some of them were drug addicts, thiefs, adulterers, and used violence against their family whatever, and were incorregible, some now are preaching the gospel and left vices and bad life behind and now they are happy, when they were at the very bottom and nobody could help them, and probably thought life was not worth it anymore, they looked up to God for help, and he didn't dissapoint, Jesus can turn your life 180 degress no matter what you have done.
Some people think they don't need God, that can be a problem, or that they will accept the gospel later in life, sometimes it can be too late.

God can be found, people need to believe in the gospel thats it, "everyone that calls his name (with faith in him) shall be saved"
But "without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." bible.
"and is the will of God that nobody perish, but all come to repentance"
"God is ordering every man in every place to repent, because he set a day when he will judge the world with justice"
"for every man sinned and is far away from the glory of God",
"Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life" "everyone that comes to him he will not reject".
"what we can do to be saved?" "believe in Jesus, and you and your family will be saved"

 

[Opdrey]

When some people say Jesus changed their lifes in their testimonies they mean it,some of them were drug addicts, thiefs, adulterers, and used violence against their family whatever, and were incorregible, some now are preaching the gospel and left vices and bad life behind and now they are happy, when they were at the very bottom and nobody could help them, and probably thought life was not worth it anymore, they looked up to God for help, and he didn't dissapoint, Jesus can turn your life 180 degress no matter what you have done.
Some people think they don't need God, that can be a problem, or that they will accept the gospel later in life, sometimes it can be too late.

None of that is in dispute. But there are still many people who EARNEST seek God but fail to find him. Even Mother Theresa had a "dark night of the soul".

But "without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him." bible.
"and is the will of God that nobody perish, but all come to repentance"
"God is ordering every man in every place to repent, because he set a day when he will judge the world with justice"
"for every man sinned and is far away from the glory of God",
"Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life" "everyone that comes to him he will not reject".
"what we can do to be saved?" "believe in Jesus, and you and your family will be saved"

The thing I find fascinating about attempting actual religious conversations with the truly devout is that it almost never results in an actual conversation but rather the truly devout often resort to just laying out a catechism of some sort, some creed chanted almost from a gut-instinct. None of it feels like a "conversation" but rather just being preached at by a "preaching machine".

I mean no offense, but surely you must understand that simply repeating "love God, seek him! You will find him! Jesus! Good!" that it won't necessarily be an actual conversation. It kind of feels like an automated on-line assistant.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I mean no offense, but surely you must understand that simply repeating "love God, seek him! You will find him! Jesus! Good!" that it won't necessarily be an actual conversation. It kind of feels like an automated on-line assistant.

The digital assistants are getting quite lifelike.

 

[Opdrey]

Your attempts to reduce everyone to the status of "seeker" is noted.

You're projecting.

I did no such thing. I just hoped to inform you that not all are like you.

I am curious, though, why you are so terrified of having a conversation with someone who might disagree with your view of God. It seems on here that you are just more interested in telling people how they are wrong and simply assuming you are right in all things.

Pluto? No one can change your mind...because you know all.

Science? You aren't a scientist but you sit in judgement of when science is "good" or "bad", a "blessing" or a "curse".

The nature of God? Well, hands down, ONLY YOU and your particular sect of Christianity know the TRUTH. Anyone who dares try to lure you into a serious conversation will be met with simple one-off comments that indicate you couldn't care less what others may think.

It must be a blessing to be seated at the Right Hand of the Father.

 

[Opdrey]

The digital assistants are getting quite lifelike.

Gah...not where I work. I WISH they would. Maybe the company I work for can't afford training for the Turing Test.

 

[AV1611VET]

I mean no offense, but surely you must understand that simply repeating "love God, seek him! You will find him! Jesus! Good!" that it won't necessarily be an actual conversation. It kind of feels like an automated on-line assistant.

Sincerity's a drag, isn't it?

 

[AV1611VET]

It must be a blessing to be seated at the Right Hand of the Father.

That was uncalled for, wasn't it?

 

[Opdrey]

Sincerity's a drag, isn't it?

I have no doubt of the poster's sincerity, it just seems like every other extremely pious person's answer to every question. It kind of feels like the person is doing the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting a chant they memorized to avoid having to hear anything that forces them to consider anything outside of their faith.

It's like talking to you in a way. You don't ever seem to really process others' input but you are quick to inform them how you are right. That's not a conversation.

I think that many people of faith fall into two camps: one that fears actually thinking about their faith and one that sees literally no reason to consider other peoples' views as having anything like a tiny bit of value.

 

[Opdrey]

That was uncalled for, wasn't it?

No.

 

[Astrid]

He may be wrong in believing in YEC who knows. But everyone else that discard God is wrong in the worst possible way, not only they ignore that God is still up there and made us, also that the only thing that matters in this life is finding Him, everything else passes away and is not of comparable value.

I am aware of that opinion.
Obviously, it is not something I accept, any more than
that I risk eternal torment for not believing in "Allah"
and, - horrors- exposing my hair in public thus tempting men
to Lust.

If you are good with intellectual dishonesty in the name / defense of
your religion, that could bear re examination.

In the case of " flood", it bears directly on evidence for miracles.

For lo, if presented as true, only the most gross, wholesale
rejection, denial of a vast body of research in all the " hard"
sciences can square it with the bible account.

I will leave it to you if you want the triumph of anti intellectual
unreason for your country.

As for " spiritual" matters, the flood is a story for whatever
purpose. Who knows.

But if you take it literally you are saying God is the most
horrific mass killer imaginable.
We have animal cruelty laws, a higher compassion and moral
sense, by far.
Not to mention the drowning children, whose parents cannot
save them.

If, SINCE the story is not true, WHAT is someone doing
when they say it is?
Make a list! Its pretty bad.

 

[Astrid]

This thread is for discussing evidence not your apriori beliefs.
On the ark there is no evidence. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

So Why do you disagree with forensic pathologists on samples you have never seen, and you would not be able to interpret them even if you had?

Still evading, and trying to put it off on me.

That " absence of evidence" bit is such a crock.
Pathetic.
Kinda like evading- evading that way.

 

[NBB]

None of that is in dispute. But there are still many people who EARNEST seek God but fail to find him. Even Mother Theresa had a "dark night of the soul".



The thing I find fascinating about attempting actual religious conversations with the truly devout is that it almost never results in an actual conversation but rather the truly devout often resort to just laying out a catechism of some sort, some creed chanted almost from a gut-instinct. None of it feels like a "conversation" but rather just being preached at by a "preaching machine".

I mean no offense, but surely you must understand that simply repeating "love God, seek him! You will find him! Jesus! Good!" that it won't necessarily be an actual conversation. It kind of feels like an automated on-line assistant.

Thing is we came to Jesus because the bible exists, everything Jesus did and the discples that is so important, too important, if it would be lost and bible would not exist i don't know how people would get to know God. Its a very important book and the base for today church doctrine with also the Holy spirit.
So if you disregard preaching and the bible, i don't know if you are sincerely looking at the posibility of God and gospel being true. After all the bible is christianity summarised in a book basically.

What you want to talk about anyway? There is no scientific evidence, the evidence you have is that the world is in order, good stuff complicated things, don't build themselves alone, with beauty, music, science and spirituality, some atheists would prefer to believe in aliens and multiverse rather than God, evolution can't create intelligence and consciosness, humans with thousands of year of science can't come close to that, by far, and evolution playing mutation dice could do better now? i was cured of intrusive thoughts by God among other things, and also experienced some nice experiences with God that left me no doubt at all of his existence. There are thousands of testimonies of people who would say the same.
About if someone is meant to be damned, i cited scripture, what else i am going to do. I was not given special revelation from God in this aspect or soemthing. And my opinion can be wrong.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think that many people of faith fall into two camps: one that fears actually thinking about their faith and one that sees literally no reason to consider other peoples' views as having anything like a tiny bit of value.

Which camp is Jesus in?

 

[AV1611VET]

and, - horrors- exposing my hair in public thus tempting men to Lust.

Scalpers?

(And FYI, "lust" isn't a proper noun.)

 

[AV1611VET]

That " absence of evidence" bit is such a crock.

That "crock" is an antimetabole, often attributed to Carl Sagan.

 

[NBB]

I have no doubt of the poster's sincerity, it just seems like every other extremely pious person's answer to every question. It kind of feels like the person is doing the equivalent of sticking their fingers in their ears and chanting a chant they memorized to avoid having to hear anything that forces them to consider anything outside of their faith.

It's like talking to you in a way. You don't ever seem to really process others' input but you are quick to inform them how you are right. That's not a conversation.

I think that many people of faith fall into two camps: one that fears actually thinking about their faith and one that sees literally no reason to consider other peoples' views as having anything like a tiny bit of value.

Imagine Moses in the mountain near God, and someone says to him, consider he doesn't exist please because not everyone is like you, well, christians may not have that kind of encounter with God so close, but they did have their little experiences with him too, the gospel is not about belief only, is God acting and changing lives.

 

[Mountainmike]

Opdrey
Two recent statements of yours.
“ it is clear you are not familiar with standard science-reference protocol”
“It's OK to admit you don't understand abiogenesis or biochemistry very well”
You know nothing about me, but are happy to insult: I would never dream of doing the same. I will challenge only on what you write.
Do you want a conversation or not?

Your assertions on Fatima and the shroud are not substantiated by the facts. On Fatima I made my stance clear. Many optical phenomena manifest the sun, are real, show movement and are localised, from rainbows to Aurora , from mirages to the light of Venus but they are not a direct image of sun.

The sun did not have to move to be seen to move in an objective sense. Rainbows are real and very subjective. I can’t say what caused Fatima. I can say beyond reasonable doubt it was real, localised, physical , not mass hypnosis or autosuggestion, as you would know of you read the underlying evidence. Nor did it blind those watching.

But here is the important issue - it was extraordinary, never repeated before or since and happened at the day and time prophesied. That makes it impossible for science to explain. Not the phenomenon, the prophecy of it.

The shroud dating really was a disgrace, and brings shame on those involved.. It demonstrates how many scientists lose all objectivity around religious phenomena. They even fiddled their results for publication as FOI , to get logbooks have proved. The shroud is very old, nobody knows how to fake it, it is the shroud of a crucified man.

So, if you treat with respect, I will give you respect and might even repeat -yet again - some of the places you can find what I said.

if you would like to apply Occam’s razor to Eucharistic miracles but do so only CONSISTENTLY with the science and facts , I would be fascinated to see how your conclusions differ to those of the pathologists.

I honestly would be VERY interested to see these forensic studies you keep vaguely mentioning. I assume these are the ones that found transsubstantiation to be a real physical thing (?)

You seem to go out of your way to avoid actual citations.

I honestly would be VERY interested to see these forensic studies you keep vaguely mentioning. I assume these are the ones that found transsubstantiation to be a real physical thing (?)

You seem to go out of your way to avoid actual citations.

 

[Opdrey]

Opdrey
Two recent statements of yours.
“ it is clear you are not familiar with standard science-reference protocol”
“It's OK to admit you don't understand abiogenesis or biochemistry very well”
You know nothing about me, but are happy to insult: I would never dream of doing the same. I will challenge only on what you write.
Do you want a conversation or not?

I would be glad to. You don't seem to be doing so.

On Fatima I made my stance clear. Many optical phenomena manifest the sun, are real, show movement and are localised, from rainbows to Aurora , from mirages to the light of Venus but they are not a direct image of sun.

The sun moving TOWARD the earth and dancing around in the sky would NOT be local. By definition.

The APPEARANCE to an observer could be local. And if it simply the appearance of movement of the sun it would be easily explained as an error by the observer.

The shroud dating really was a disgrace, and brings shame on those involved.. It demonstrates how many scientists lose all objectivity around religious phenomena. They even fiddled their results for publication as FOI , to get logbooks have proved. The shroud is very old, nobody knows how to fake it, it is the shroud of a crucified man.

And yet you never cite anything. You just decree someone did something you don't like.

So, if you treat with respect, I will give you respect and might even repeat -yet again - some of the places you can find what I said.

I tend to respect those who have the respect for their audience to support their claims.

if you would like to apply Occam’s razor to Eucharistic miracles but do so only CONSISTENTLY with the science and facts , I would be fascinated to see how your conclusions differ to those of the pathologists.

You keep talking about pathologists. I have no idea what you are referring to. Do you actually have anything substantial you can cite? Just the reference.

You do a LOT of dodging. And then demand "respect" for it.