Basically, I need you to finish the following sentence:
My belief in the resurrection in Jesus is based primarily on _____________________________.
My belief in the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ is based for the most part - mainly - on the Gospels.
I read Scripture and knew I found my sheppard. I accepted Christ as my saviour and was given the Holy Spirit.
Cheers my dear
Case closed then. I appreciate your honesty. Many other Christians claim there is historical evidence, but you have a belief. And I can respect that.
Cheers.
Case closed then. I appreciate your honesty. Many other Christians claim there is historical evidence, but you have a belief. And I can respect that.
Cheers.
Do you mean you respect the honesty or do you respect the beliefs? Being respectful of beliefs is not a given. Take, for instance, Islam.
I'd say I respect his honesty and beliefs. I respect beliefs of the Islam as well. Not the militant kind, of course, but there are plenty of kind Muslims. Old Testament, in my view, can be very similar to a radical Islam, but most Jews and Christians don't follow those bits literally. Most Muslims, in my view, are peaceful and find ways to explain away the violent passages.
But respecting a belief?
I can go with that. Your phrasing is conventional, so I can't fault your use. But, I find the coventional statement semantically thin.In my usage of the term, I meant that I'm okay with @the iconoclast having his belief. I disagree with it, but to each their own. If someone wants to believe in Santa Claus, I respect their belief also. In essence, I'm respecting their right to a belief no matter how irrational it is.
I haven't read this thread for almost half a year, but thought I'd chime in. I pulled out my trusty old dictionary (I always prefer old dictionaries) and found that, used as a verb, there are two things relevant, which are different:I can go with that. Your phrasing is conventional, so I can't fault your use. But, I find the coventional statement semantically thin.
Anyone else?
Jesus said....Often times, debate will transpire between believers and non-believers. At the end of some of these discussions, the believer will stop the debate, and state 'all that matters is that Jesus died for us, etc..'
I now ask....
What exactly makes the evidence(s) for a claimed resurrection so dang compelling, as opposed to claims of other messiahs, god(s), other?
Because at the end of the day, Jesus either rose from the dead, or He didn't. Are we justified in believing He did?
I'd say I respect his honesty and beliefs. I respect beliefs of the Islam as well. Not the militant kind, of course, but there are plenty of kind Muslims. Old Testament, in my view, can be very similar to a radical Islam, but most Jews and Christians don't follow those bits literally. Most Muslims, in my view, are peaceful and find ways to explain away the violent passages.
I am not sold on non interference. I respect that someone has the right to hold a belief, but I do not respect all beliefs and actively act against some beliefs. If a person holds a belief that they can flap their arms and fly then just refraining from interfering may be detrimental to the person holding the belief. We are seeing this play out with the black lives matter movement. Just respecting someones racist belief and do not interfere is not enough, some beliefs need to be challenged and eradicated, like flying or racism.I haven't read this thread for almost half a year, but thought I'd chime in. I pulled out my trusty old dictionary (I always prefer old dictionaries) and found that, used as a verb, there are two things relevant, which are different:
a. to consider worthy of high regard; esteem
b. to refrain from interfering with
So I think one can do b. without doing a. And I think b. is very important in all cases, but whether you hold a belief in high regard would have to be considered on a case-by-case basis.
I am not sold on non interference. I respect that someone has the right to hold a belief, but I do not respect all beliefs and actively act against some beliefs. If a person holds a belief that they can flap their arms and fly then just refraining from interfering may be detrimental to the person holding the belief. We are seeing this play out with the black lives matter movement. Just respecting someones racist belief and do not interfere is not enough, some beliefs need to be challenged and eradicated, like flying or racism.
Really? You would just let a person that believes they can fly kill themselves without trying to stop them? Convince them that they cannot fly?The person who thinks he can fly by flapping his wings should be free to fly off a cliff if he so chooses. But, he should not be free to jump off a building with people down below walking on the sidewalk.
Do you believe racism is something that is good for society? Should we not try to convince people that racism is wrong?You have your own biases. Why not have society eradicate those who reject belief in God?
"Godly Lives Matter" will see to it.
This has never been demonstrated.You do not understand human nature. For only God can show you the roots of racism and its eradication. Man is fallen and sinful. Self deceiving many times.
I agree, I never said we should. We need legislation to ensure equality and we need education and dialogue to combat racism.Eliminating racism is not achieved through legislation and law enforcement. For those who are racists will continue to think racism when they are not allowed to act upon it. Its not eliminated that way.
No. I am using the power of the government to ensure equality. That is it. I never said it can end racism.In a way, your solution runs parallel to religious legalism. Only, you are using secular powers to achieve your goal.
I never said it could.Legislation can not transform men. It only puts them in a straight jacket. It can dumb them down over time.
Well, believing you can fly would probably be due to mental illness, and we have various ways of trying to help people.I am not sold on non interference. I respect that someone has the right to hold a belief, but I do not respect all beliefs and actively act against some beliefs. If a person holds a belief that they can flap their arms and fly then just refraining from interfering may be detrimental to the person holding the belief. We are seeing this play out with the black lives matter movement. Just respecting someones racist belief and do not interfere is not enough, some beliefs need to be challenged and eradicated, like flying or racism.
OK. Do you think we should try to change their belief that they can fly?Well, believing you can fly would probably be due to mental illness, and we have various ways of trying to help people.
Both have the same root belief that other people due to physical differences are somehow different and that they are justified in genocide or not dating because of this. This thinking should be challenged and we should try to convince people that they are wrong.With "racism" I'm not sure what you mean, because that word could be applied by different people to a wide spectrum of things, from "I prefer to date my own kind" to genocide.
I suppose I'd give it a shot. Wouldn't spend too much time on it, though. I mean, if they're crazy...OK. Do you think we should try to change their belief that they can fly?
You can challenge them to debate.Both have the same root belief that other people due to physical differences are somehow different and that they are justified in genocide or not dating because of this. This thinking should be challenged and we should try to convince people that they are wrong.
Really? You would just let a person that believes they can fly kill themselves without trying to stop them? Convince them that they cannot fly?
Well, believing you can fly would probably be due to mental illness, and we have various ways of trying to help people.
With "racism" I'm not sure what you mean, because that word could be applied by different people to a wide spectrum of things, from "I prefer to date my own kind" to genocide.
Neither at the moment.Religions hijack mental illnesses. For example, do you suffer from schizophrenia or is God speaking to you?
That's your opinion. Others feel differently.If you're just not attracted to people of a certain skin color, that's not racism. If you are genuinely attracted to them, but refuse to date them because of their race, then you are a racist.
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?