Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And people like you to let go of the rational and give in to Love[not sex]
and light without questioning.
i updated my post.
But you use the word Evidence is a funny way when evidence cant even show an existence of God. But the god your describing is not all powerful and all loving.
Its easy to love something that is obedient its hard to love something thats not. ether god cant save everyone or he wont. your choice.
Most homosexuals are atheists.
THe fact that you have tried will be in your favour,but is not enough.
If Satan believed that Christ was the Son of God he would be a Christian. Needless to say, he isn't.
If Satan believed that Christ was the Son of God he would be a Christian. Needless to say, he isn't.
Good grief!
This is certainly not the case. I know a lot of very devout, very holy men who happen to be gay, and are no less Christian because of it.
There is plenty of evidence for God's existence, but as with any other evidence, you can choose to accept it, or choose to think it unconvincing.
That is not the same thing as saying there is no evidence. Life itself is the evidence. Love is another. Altruism is another. The tendency for dying creatures to be swamped by a vast dose of endorphins at the point of death is another; evolution would suggest no reason why death should be made easy or even pleasurable; a dying creature has no impact on natural selection whatever, and yet there is evidence that nature has made it so. Why is this? Luck? Chance? Or a benign deity?
That is not the choice. Salvation is freely offered to everyone, but will only be accepted by those who choose to accept it. Those who choose not to accept it will not be included.
And by choice I mean choice. If a person does not or cannot believe something, then that is not making a choice.
Most are .
Some may not be.
Personally, I find myself a little leery about the gods who just randomly pass by.
It's something about their eyes, but I just can't put my finger on it...
If you let go of the rational, and don't question, you could end up a Scientologist...
The parable in the old testament about Abraham and Isaac is about Faith in God Himself .
Taking one sentence out of the whole.
Very mischievous.
I know that God exists,because I studied evidence,so rational
knowledge is good,just not enough.
When one has no eyes one cannot 'see' the world around them.
If you have never 'seen' God ,it is because you do not have the 'innereye',
which does not require 'physical eyes',but the eyes of the soul .
Of course satan knows that Christ is the Son of God,thats why he hates Him.
"If you are the Son of God," he said, "throw yourself down. For it is written: "'He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.'"
Please, where are you getting this evidence that most people who are gay are atheists?
How do we know? It seems to me that Satan more than anyone would have good reason to believe that Jesus was the son of God. It's such an enormous oversight for someone who has personal proof of the rest of the story. How do you know Satan hasn't converted to Christianity sometime in the last 2000 years? Given his unparalleled knowledge of hell you'd think Satan would have done a bit of research in the interim and come to a few conclusions.
This is just wrong. How can you know something exists without believing it exists?Believing in human institutions is not about existence but credibility. A person can know full well that there is a monarchy in the UK, for example, without believing in it. Therefore the parallel with God really does not apply.
[/quote]The only relevent parallel in our faith that I can think of is in relation to Christ and Satan. Satan knows full well that Christ exists, but does not believe in him as the Son of God.
Where are they? And I ask so that I can decide for myself whether they are credible or not.That is such a silly question. Of course there are independently verifiable reports, for those who accept them, but if you choose not to believe them, or the evidence they present, then what is the point of asking who they are?
Let's look at it in a different way. If you give me three or more contemporary, independent, otherwise reliable historians who also mention a specific incident, and who describe it in enough detail such that it definitively cannot be ascribable to any other known cause, then I will count that as evidence that entertains the possibility of god's existence.You may just as well ask, is there anyone you can present to me, who I will believe. The answer is always going to be no, until you choose to make it yes.
That's what psychics say...and mentalists...and magicians...and fortune-tellers...and all manner of other parapsychological and mythical con artists. Why are you different? Or are you special pleading?When one has no eyes one cannot 'see' the world around them.
If you have never 'seen' God ,it is because you do not have the 'innereye',
which does not require 'physical eyes',but the eyes of the soul .
The evidence that the sun was still in existence 10 minutes ago is pretty strong. You are moving the goalpost.It is other people who use the term evidence in a misleading way, as if evidence is ever 100% convincing to everyone. Evidence is only convincing if we choose to accept it as such. There is plenty of evidence for God's existence, but as with any other evidence, you can choose to accept it, or choose to think it unconvincing.
The things you mentioned do not count as good evidence, because there are natural explanations as to their origins.That is not the same thing as saying there is no evidence. Life itself is the evidence. Love is another. Altruism is another. The tendency for dying creatures to be swamped by a vast dose of endorphins at the point of death is another; evolution would suggest no reason why death should be made easy or even pleasurable; a dying creature has no impact on natural selection whatever, and yet there is evidence that nature has made it so. Why is this? Luck? Chance? Or a benign deity?
The evidence is there. The interpretation of that evidence is a matter of choice.
Why not? Does that mean that god's egocentrism is a stronger acting force than his supposed love for us?That is not the choice. Salvation is freely offered to everyone, but will only be accepted by those who choose to accept it. Those who choose not to accept it will not be included.
So then why do people say that we will burn in hell?This does not necessarily mean that they will end up in eternal torment; Anglicanism does not on the whole accept such a concept, and I certainly don't. But it does mean that those who choose not to accept the existence of God, or who choose to reject him, will live without him.
Which Bible verse allows Christians to cherry-pick what parts to believe literally and what parts to believe are analogous, exactly?
I forget...
That is not what the Bible says. So you have just built a strawman arguement.Take a look. Even people who think the earth is only 6,000 years old would probably have a job believing that the earth, and the plants on it, predate the sun, moon and stars.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?