there being God.makes no sense without
I now understand that faith needs to not only be accepting the idea, but faith needs to include actual contact . . . union . . . connection with God, so we experience Him in His love. And our Apostle Paul does say we need "faith working through love," in Galatians 5:6. And the Bible gives us various revelation and commands about personally sharing with God in His love and leading, and how He personally corrects and matures us to become like Jesus.needs to be accepted by faith
He proves Himself in us, if we are getting the best kind of proof.not a genie who has to show up and prove his existence to you
Our character has so much to do with if and how we are capable of believing and trusting and obeying Christ.You must genuinely want a relationship with him if you want to see him in your life
I accept and trust what I find to be God giving me things. And what helps a lot is how God in us actually does what His word means to Him. It is kind of like if you want to know the real facts about a product, you talk with someone who knows how to make the product work right. And this person demonstrates.So, how do we know the truth
But this doesn't prove he does not exist, does it?
I think I have enough to support that Santa does not exist, and this has not even started to be disproven.So, should we be agnostics regarding Santa who lives on the North Pole?
He actually does, many times. He speaks of Himself and uses words and titles for Himself that could never apply to anyone but God. Anyone who studies the New Testament and comes to some other conclusion is not just letting the text speak for itself.
I'd like to know as well. Is that a no?
This statement is anachronistic twice over and misunderstands everything about this subject. Yahweh was called an Elohim, which is a classification of being, which is transliterated for Greek as theos. It can mean a god or the God. Then we have the English language which means something entirely different. Jesus, the Holy Spirit, and the Father share the same substance and equally "God". Jesus wouldn't say "I am God" because that is a modern statement and meaning. He would identify himself as the second Yahweh figure in the Old Testament which he does in quoting Daniel's son of man passage, for which he receives his namesake throughout the gospels.
Everything known before the term and / or idea "scientific inquiry" was fabricated.Well, give me an example of what we know that's outside of scientific inquiry?
Even inside , no one is sure.I'd say, outside of a scientific inquiry we can't be sure of what we claim to know. How's that for an answer?
Everything known before the term and / or idea "scientific inquiry" was fabricated.
Every one who believes and trusts faithfully and truly Yahuweh,Do you only accept Christian miracles or also those of other religions and faiths?
Also, Christ does not claim to be God. This is done by inference. Not everyone who follows the New Testament accepts the proposition that Christ is God or claimed to be God.
Clarify.Including your religion?
Elohim is not a gods proper name. As I said it's a classification. Yahweh is an Elohim, but an Elohim is not necessarily Yahweh. You make the claim that various gods are absorbed into the Old Testament but you don't even understand the words you are using in your own claim, so what good is such an opinion.We are way outside the scope of Santa Claus, but I would just say that Elohim and El and Yahweh are various Gods that have been absorbed into the Old Testament.
I think you might as well claim that Thor, Zeus and Vishnu are all names for Jesus. It will have the explanatory power.
Now, how many Gods do you believe in? When you are in heaven, how many thrones will there be and will you see the Father and Jesus sitting on same throne or different thrones? Will you see two one figure in heaven?
No. You're importing your epistemological assumptions into this. That isn't how it's going to work because where religion is concerned, neither you nor I can control God as a variable factor, so this CAN'T be likened to experimental science where we can construct our instruments and research design to help control for various variables as we look for 'clues.'Ok, so in order to make things more fool proof, we need to have falsification, right?
No, not if your epistemological expectations are wrong, you won't.We need to be able to test our hypothesis, right?
Yes, YOU need to go back and rethink your theory---not me, but you, because where Christianity is concerned, you're not going to arrive at a state of faith, a state that is definitively a response to what God makes available and does in your life, if you continue to proceed the way you are.If I posit, for example, that the nervous system does nothing, and that people are controlled by invisible and undetectable strings from above, my theory would fail at a first case of paralysis, right? So, then, I would go back and rethink my theory, and eventually, we will be more fool proof than philosophy that asks you to believe it without ability to test it.
Okay. How do you know that? The claim that scientific inquiry is the only way to be sure of what we know is itself a claim that cannot be subjected to the scientific method, and thus, according to your own standards, we must reject the claim that scientific inquiry is a way to be sure of knowing anything.I'd say, outside of a scientific inquiry we can't be sure of what we claim to know. How's that for an answer?
Well, lets use faith then. Since we can't trust science, we just believe. And the good news, is that we are following the hallucinations and musings of ancient sheepherders. What can go wrong?Okay. How do you know that? The claim that scientific inquiry is the only way to be sure of what we know is itself a claim that cannot be subjected to the scientific method, and thus, according to your own standards, we must reject the claim that scientific inquiry is a way to be sure of knowing anything.
Your epistemology is self-defeating.
Nice try, but no. The point isn't that science isn't useful, it's that the scientific method is not the only means by which we can know things. Are you going to actually try to defend your position or not?Well, lets use faith then. Since we can't trust science, we just believe. And the good news, is that we are following the hallucinations and musings of ancient sheepherders. What can go wrong?
I mean, just look at how far we've come thanks for science being corrected by the Bible (or any other Holy Book).
The list is very exhaustive, it includes... (help me out here please)
Elohim is not a gods proper name. As I said it's a classification. Yahweh is an Elohim, but an Elohim is not necessarily Yahweh. You make the claim that various gods are absorbed into the Old Testament but you don't even understand the words you are using in your own claim, so what good is such an opinion.
Your claim about Thor and company being Jesus makes no sense.
What question are you asking? How many "Gods" in English, or how many Elohim do I believe exist? Do you know the difference? For the former 1, for the latter over 10,000.
I think you need to figure out what you are talking about, instead of talking so much about what you know nothing about. If you were in anyway genuine any of us would consider it a pleasure to guide you along, but you have been anything but that. You left your Christian roots, and what have you to show for it given this that you have allowed yourself to become?
Nice try, but no. The point isn't that science isn't useful, it's that the scientific method is not the only means by which we can know things. Are you going to actually try to defend your position or not?
I don't understand what point you are making. I'm not sure you do either.Deut. 32:8 When the Most High (God#1) gave the nations their inheritance, when he divided all mankind, he set up boundaries for the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.(Or sons of God in some MSS) 9 For the Lord’s (God#2) portion is his people, Jacob his allotted inheritance.
Look you can mix and match whatever terms you want to use. The Bible is a harmonized polytheistic book.