God - A Spirtual Being but why unquestionable?

KarmaZeen said:

I feel like I just kind of get it. See it's all a big kind of gateway that you guys open up when you decide that Jesus is God.

Click to expand...

Yes, we believe in what Jesus was teaching and doing. And one of His teachings was that nobody can come to Father except of through Him [Jesus].

solid_core said:

Yes, we believe in what Jesus was teaching and doing. And one of His teachings was that nobody can come to Father except of through Him [Jesus].

Click to expand...

And we think we know what he meant. We take it as our own explicit verbal declaration although it is probably more of a life conversion and lifestyle commitment. What does "through Him [Jesus] really mean?

Akita Suggagaki said:

And we think we know what he meant. We take it as our own explicit verbal declaration although it is probably more of a life conversion and lifestyle commitment. What does "through Him [Jesus] really mean?

Click to expand...

it means to believe in Him, as explicitly said in the context.

solid_core said:

it means to believe in Him, as explicitly said in the context.

Click to expand...

Like is name is a password?

Akita Suggagaki said:

Like is name is a password?

Click to expand...

No, If you believe in the same person, you do not have to say His name in aramaic, Greek or English. It does not work like a password.

It works as an identifier.

KarmaZeen said:

So some people feel guilty about their sins and need a savior like Jesus to wash them clean of this guilt? I'm having a hard time understanding why believe in this guy so much, or as you believe this God so much.

Click to expand...

Yes another person joining in after you've stop replying.
I hop what I have to say is helpful to you in coming to understand Christianity.
Ok, most Christians don't have blind faith in Jesus. They have looked into the claims made by Christianity, examined the Bible and tested it for reliability etc.

May I suggest that you do the same.
There are several methods, to read Lee Strobes book the Case for Christ.
To read the coldcasechristianity web site.
To find and join an online alpha or Christianity explored course.
Or attend an online church and email questions to the minister.

Both of the first two are where atheists were challenged to investigate the claims of Christianity, one was a lournalist investigating crime and the other a successful coldcase detective.
Both discovered that the evidence for Christianity is compelling.

Tolworth John said:

Ok, most Christians don't have blind faith in Jesus. They have looked into the claims made by Christianity, examined the Bible and tested it for reliability etc.

Click to expand...

I think it is less cognitive than that. More like they read the Gospels and something touches them. they have an encounter with Jesus through the Gospels and it changes them.

It's like

Akita Suggagaki said:

Like is name is a password?

Click to expand...

It's like He is God who became a man so He could die on a cross to pay the penalty for our sin.
To believe in Him means to believe, trust, rely on, have confidence in that message as God's way of forgiving us/you and making us/you fit to spend eternity with Him in heaven.

To believe that message means that you agree with God that you are a sinner who needs to be forgiven and that you accept that when Jesus died on the cross, shedding His blood there, that He did all that God requires to be done for you to be forgiven. Believe it, tell Him you want the pardon that He purchased for you with His blood, and ask Him to give you the new life that only He can give. Read john 6:37.

KarmaZeen said:

I feel like I just kind of get it. See it's all a big kind of gateway that you guys open up when you decide that Jesus is God.

Click to expand...

You will not be convinced of the truth about God if all you do is ask these kinds of questions on a forum.

I didn't just kind of “get it”and then decide that Jesus is God. I “got it” when God convinced me that He, God, is real and that Jesus is God who became a man so He could die on a cross to pay the penalty for my sin; and for your sins too. Your answer can be found in the Word of God, the Bible, in the same way I found the truth about Him.

God says in Jeremiah 29:13, “And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.”

God is saying that if you really want to know Him you will find Him if you earnestly search for Him. He is not hiding from you; you can find Him in His Word. Read it like nothing else in your life is more important than finding the truth about Him.

I suggest the Gospel of John is a good place to start.

Regards,

John

KarmaZeen said:

we really don't know for sure if God exists or not,

Click to expand...

do you agree that a robot with DNA prove design?

KarmaZeen said:

So, I'm kinda a Christian. But Really I notice everyone on this forum just is fooling themselves we really don't know for sure if God exists or not, he is an invisible force. The spirit of the Father the creator and the Son the Healer along with the holy spirit we can embody are real but why do you have blind faith that this stuff is real?

Click to expand...

So what exactly do you want, for a faith to be called not blind?
Please be more specific on, say, do you want a video of God to be recorded in order for Christians' faith not a blind one, or what?

My speculation is, people often say that someone's faith is blind while they don't even have an idea or example on what characteristics to show in order for a faith to be referred to a not a blind faith.

KarmaZeen said:

So, I'm kinda a Christian. But Really I notice everyone on this forum just is fooling themselves we really don't know for sure if God exists or not, he is an invisible force. The spirit of the Father the creator and the Son the Healer along with the holy spirit we can embody are real but why do you have blind faith that this stuff is real?

Click to expand...

To think the world happened by chance
would be pretty far out there.
M

KarmaZeen said:

So, I'm kinda a Christian. But Really I notice everyone on this forum just is fooling themselves we really don't know for sure if God exists or not, he is an invisible force. The spirit of the Father the creator and the Son the Healer along with the holy spirit we can embody are real but why do you have blind faith that this stuff is real?

Click to expand...

There is no kinda Christian, you either are one or you are not.

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

KarmaZeen said:

I'm not Christian. I think I'm content with me believing in God generally, and having a relationship with God and living my life the best way possible. Kudos to all you Christians you are good people.

Click to expand...

You should change your label to something more appropriate. Staff can change the label if you ask them.

KarmaZeen said:

So I'm just gonna reply generally to what I heard here and maybe I'll quote specific posts when I look at this again.

Faith is always "blind", I give you that. To have faith means you believe in the unseen, so every Christian must have faith because it's just one of those matters. I believe in God and being Good but I don't feel like I really need to uphold every single thing in the bible and/or can't question it. I feel for me that Christianity is for me a choice to live righteous but the bible is just a guide. I find it silly how alot of Christians I know talk about not being worldly as well. I like the world and I think Christians should be involved in worldly things like politics, education, media, any profession.

We live in a society now that is post-christian. Seperation between state and church or seperation between state and morality and I think this is silly but I also think it's silly how dogmatic christians are about things based on a book. Do you guys question if the stuff you read is factual, true, legit or do you just trust it because it says so? (Kinda rhetorical unless you actually do - it says we shouldn't what's up with that)

Click to expand...

We have a point to discuss now.

That's a wrong speculation. In contrary faith is the only efficient way for humans to get to a truth of any kind.

Here are the examples on the various kinds of truth;

1) History
You can't evidence history, especially historical individual activities. We can trace a trail of some mass activities which are rare with the sites usually preserved by a fluke. Say, an earthquake destroyed a city then no humans lived on top of its land for thousands of years till now. Then we can examine the trails left to have a speculation on how a society behaved back then inside this destroyed city. This is a fluke as even when an earthquake destroyed a city, humans usually would rebuild it afterwards as a city is built in that location for a reason in the first place, say it has good soil nearby for crops or it's in the trade routes or it's near mines or near a fish-rich sea etc. That drives the rebuilding of the city on top of the same location. It subsequently overrides whatever trails left by the previous city.

Individual activities such as who said what or did what can hardly be traceable. You ate more than 10,000 meals by the age of 31, usually you can't evidence even one out of them. That's what history is regarding to individual activities. So when you try to tell people what you ate last Christmas most likely you can't back that up with evidence. Some said they have photos. First who knows whether that photo is taken on that exact day, perhaps it's a photo of a meal in a previous year. Even date stamps are not accurate. My dash camera often lost track of dates due to powered off for too long. Second, who knows whether you actually ate what the foods shown on the photos, perhaps you just took the photos without actually eating them. Others will have to rely on your tales/testimonies in order to get to the fact about what you ate. Your food contents can only be evidenced when we go back to the time and spot while you are eating, which is out of human capability to do so. People need faith to get to what you ate.

2) Science
Only scientists can have access to the expensive equipment to get to the evidence, say about the existence of black holes. All educated modern humans know for a fact that black holes exist. It means they get to this piece of fact not by evidence, but by the testimonies of our few scientists. We trust that their works are as what they said. Some said there are peer reports for you to examine. But the simple truth is, 99.99% humans don't examine scientists' works such as the peer reports before they know for a fact that black holes exist. They get to this piece of truth by faith instead of by evidence. You know that black holes exist, but you don't have the evidence unless you are one of the scientists professed in researching the black holes.

3) Daily events
We rely on our media to gather situations from eyewitnesses accounts to get to the daily occurrences surrounding the world. We put faith in our media to get to facts, instead of examining any evidence. Physical evidence won't come out of your LCD screen (which is the electronic pixels) or your newspapers (which are a paper with only some human writings on it). You need to go on site if you need evidence. Or else you have to put faith in the reporters and journalists as they are the experts in acquiring information by either themselves witnessed the situation, or by witnesses accounts they deemed reliable. We general folks will have to put faith in what they wrote and reported. You have the right not to believe though, like Trump said, "they made fake news".

4) Future
Humans don't have the ability to get to a future, especially the one advocated after our physical death. Again some argued that our science says nothing about afterlife. Well, 300 years ago our science never said anything about the existence of black holes, it by no means says the black holes didn't exist back then. It only means the existence of black holes was out of the reach of our science back then. Similarly, our today's science has no say because afterlife is out of the reach of today's human science. Basically, our science relies on experiments to confirm a truth. We can't go outside of our 3D space to go to another time-space to do experiments. While long before the emergency of our science, humans already defined that afterlife and the whole spiritual realm don't lie within our living realm. We and our science can't go there to establish experiments to confirm anything. People tried to detect paranormal activities with electronic equipment though.

Unless the dead humans can return to tell us (even so it is in a form of human testimonies the same as claims about the encounters of aliens), the only way left for humans to get to what could possibly lying beyond our physical death is through a God who knows and is willing to tell us. What left is how we can identify the existence of such a God. The next, if such a God has a good reason to hide behind then the only way left for His message to convey is through human testimonies, the same way as mentioned above on how our history, how our science and how our daily news are conveyed. The Bible is formed by those who encountered God then wrote down His words as a testimony for the rest of human kind to believe with faith.

When Trump said that, "You made fake news". What does this mean? It means human testimonies are a two-edge sword. They are a vessel conveying truths for humans to get to, and at the same time they can convey lies. However to humans this vessel remains the only way (only efficient way even if not the only way) for the majority to reach a truth of any kind. It invites faith in order to get to a truth. If you follow Trump to reject all news, you have no truth. Simple as that.

Hawkins said:

2) Science
Only scientists can have access to the expensive equipment to get to the evidence, say about the existence of black holes. All educated modern humans know for a fact that black holes exist. It means they get to this piece of fact not by evidence, but by the testimonies of our few scientists.

Click to expand...

Not exactly, we get this evidence by the findings of scientists that are peer reviewed and scrutinized and then confirmed or falsified by other scientists. If you believe the black holes exist then you believe on a better foundation than that a god exists. There is data to provide sufficient evidence to anyone with a computer and internet access that black holes do exist. You cannot say that is the same kind of faith as in believing in a god without this kind of evidence and scrutiny. Where can I go to get this same evidence and level of scrutiny about a god?

We trust that their works are as what they said. Some said there are peer reports for you to examine. But the simple truth is, 99.99% humans don't examine scientists' works such as the peer reports before they know for a fact that black holes exist. They get to this piece of truth by faith instead of by evidence. You know that black holes exist, but you don't have the evidence unless you are one of the scientists professed in researching the black holes.

Click to expand...

This is just comparing apples and oranges. We have evidence that science has been shown to be the single best reliable method for determining truth than any other method. It is self correcting and converges on truth. That is why when the scientific community believes black holes exist I have a high confidence that they do exist. Faith in a god does not have this demonstrated track record for determining truth. The fact is that science corrects science errors and science corrects faiths errors. There has not been one instance where faith has corrected scientific errors.

If theists had good evidence for their belief in a god they would provide it and faith would not be required. Until then they rely on faith.

Clizby WampusCat said:

Not exactly, we get this evidence by the findings of scientists that are peer reviewed and scrutinized and then confirmed or falsified by other scientists. If you believe the black holes exist then you believe on a better foundation than that a god exists. There is data to provide sufficient evidence to anyone with a computer and internet access that black holes do exist. You cannot say that is the same kind of faith as in believing in a god without this kind of evidence and scrutiny. Where can I go to get this same evidence and level of scrutiny about a god?

Click to expand...

Do you mean to say that all 70 billion people can access scientific equipment to gather evidence of black holes? They can't, unless you don't live in our reality! They don't reach this piece of truth, that is black holes exist by means of using the equipment to gather evidence anyway! They rather rely on believing in the works of the scientists to get to this fact. The fact is conveyed in a form of testimonies from our scientists. In reality, common folks don't read peer reports to get to facts as you suggest.

This is just comparing apples and oranges. We have evidence that science has been shown to be the single best reliable method for determining truth than any other method. It is self correcting and converges on truth. That is why when the scientific community believes black holes exist I have a high confidence that they do exist. Faith in a god does not have this demonstrated track record for determining truth. The fact is that science corrects science errors and science corrects faiths errors. There has not been one instance where faith has corrected scientific errors.

Click to expand...

No, science only works for repeatable events. We have yet to see how science can prove what you ate in you meals a year ago!

Humans rely mostly testimonies to reach a truth, unless you are not living in this reality!

Science is reliable simply because we humans lack the ability to tell a future, if a theory can precisely tell how a pattern repeats predictably, we thus know that it holds a truth. Atheists seldom understand this nature of science. Science doesn't rely on evidence to get to a truth as evidence at any point is not complete! New evidence can appear at any point making it not a reliable way to reveal a truth. Evolution theory has to employ this method simply because we humans don't have the ability to make it repeat, as a repetition may take millions of years to occur. The downside in terms of science is that, ToE can never have predictability and falsifiability required by other science to identify a truth. Atheists seldom understand this scientific concept. To simply put, whatever the theory itself trying to hint, such as animals (you name it) are evolved from single cell organisms, it's never falsifiable.

Moreover, evidence is a scarce source only theoretically exist. Historical events mostly cannot be evidenced. What we can get to what happened long ago is by means of faith in testimonies, especially in terms of individual activities, such as the meals you ate. We can study trails of mass activities though in some occasions.

However our secular education (the 666) fooled modern humans to think that our world is a world of evidence, but in reality our world is a world of testimonies. Humans seldom rely on evidence to reach a truth. Say, you simple tell us what you eat last Christmas, no one will ask for evidence as its unrealistic for humans in majority to keep any evidence of a meal!

If theists had good evidence for their belief in a god they would provide it and faith would not be required. Until then they rely on faith.

If theists had good evidence for their belief in a god they would provide it and faith would not be required. Until then they rely on faith.
If theists had good evidence for their belief in a god they would provide it and faith would not be required. Until then they rely on faith.

If theists had good evidence for their belief in a god they would provide it and faith would not be required. Until then they rely on faith.

Click to expand...

You have misinterpreted the reality. If humans have to back up history with evidence then humans have no history.

God is encountered by humans for them to write Him down in the form of history.

Can you provide the evidence of people encountered by your own grandpa? The only way such a kind of truth can convey is for grandpa to write who he had encountered. If he didn't then it's unreachable by other humans. Science doesn't work in this way. Science/evidence has no bearing in approaching such a kind of truth! Humans rely on testimonies to approach this kind of truth instead. Atheists are brainwashed to think otherwise though!

That said. If the evidence of God can be empirically available, then humans can no longer be savable as by the covenant in place humans can only be saved by faith alone!

Hawkins said:

Do you mean to say that all 70 billion people can access scientific equipment to gather evidence of black holes? They can't, unless you don't live in our reality! They don't reach this piece of truth, that is black holes exist by means of using the equipment to gather evidence anyway! They rather rely on believing in the works of the scientists to get to this fact. The fact is conveyed in a form of testimonies from our scientists. In reality, common folks don't read peer reports to get to facts as you suggest.

Click to expand...

I don't mean to suggest that at all. Most people know that is has been through science and not faith that we have gained better beliefs about reality. To say that believing scientists with a track record of success to ascertain truth is the same as faith in a book or a god that has no track record of truth is sticking you head in the sand.

No, science only works for repeatable events. We have yet to see how science can prove what you ate in you meals a year ago!

Click to expand...

When did I say science can prove what I ate a year ago?

Humans rely mostly testimonies to reach a truth, unless you are not living in this reality!

Click to expand...

Yes, religious do to a great extent. I believe scientific consensus because it has a demonstrable track record. I have a higher confidence in science consensus than a faith in a god that has not track record at all.

Science is reliable simply because we humans lack the ability to tell a future, if a theory can precisely tell how a pattern repeats predictably, we thus know that it holds a truth. Atheists seldom understand this nature of science. Science doesn't rely on evidence to get to a truth as evidence at any point is not complete! New evidence can appear at any point making it not a reliable way to reveal a truth.

Click to expand...

This is a weird way of talking about science. Science never says they are 100% certain about anything. As you said there can be evidence out there that can contradict a hypothesis or even a theory. That does not make scientific "truths" equal to religious truths believed on faith.

Tell me a demonstrated more reliable way to converge on truth than science?

Do we know how to fly by science or religious faith?
Do we know how to vaccines work by science of faith?
Do we know how to remove an appendix by science or faith?
on and on and on.

Evolution theory has to employ this method simply because we humans don't have the ability to make it repeat

Click to expand...

Yes we do. Read up on the science.

, as a repetition may take millions of years to occur.

Click to expand...

May but it can also take only decades or years or days.

The downside in terms of science is that, ToE can never have predictability and falsifiability required by other science to identify a truth.

Click to expand...

Untrue there are countless predictions ToE has made and shown to be true as well as there are many ways to falsify ToE.

Atheists seldom understand this scientific concept. To simply put, whatever the theory itself trying to hint, such as animals (you name it) are evolved from single cell organisms, it's never falsifiable.

Click to expand...

Untrue.

Moreover, evidence is a scarce source only theoretically exist. Historical events mostly cannot be evidenced. What we can get to what happened long ago is by means of faith in testimonies, especially in terms of individual activities, such as the meals you ate. We can study trails of mass activities though in some occasions. However our secular education (the 666) fooled modern humans to think that our world is a world of evidence, but in reality our world is a world of testimonies. Humans seldom rely on evidence to reach a truth. Say, you simple tell us what you eat last Christmas, no one will ask for evidence as its unrealistic for humans in majority to keep any evidence of a meal!

Click to expand...

We believe testimonies that are based on evidence if they are from scientific consensus.

You have misinterpreted the reality. If humans have to back up history with evidence then humans have no history.

Click to expand...

Untrue again.

God is encountered by humans for them to write Him down in the form of history.

Click to expand...

Why should this be trusted as true?

Can you provide the evidence of people encountered by your own grandpa? The only way such a kind of truth can convey is for grandpa to write who he had encountered. If he didn't then it's unreachable by other humans. Science doesn't work in this way. Science/evidence has no bearing in approaching such a kind of truth! Humans rely on testimonies to approach this kind of truth instead. Atheists are brainwashed to think otherwise though!

Click to expand...

It is clear that you don't understand the evidence for evolution and you call me brainwashed.

That said. If the evidence of God can be empirically available, then humans can no longer be savable as by the covenant in place humans can only be saved by faith alone!

Click to expand...

And who's fault is that?