How can my stand be a cop-out when I hold the same standard for the existence or non-existence of a god? You can say what you want, but you’ve proven time and again that you believe in something because it is comforting to you and for no other reason. You will deny the science that disproves it because you prefer your insulated fantasy to the harsh reality of life on Earth.
Believe me, I have neither the desire nor the energy to convert you. It just bothers me that you come here to fight ignorance and then flip-flop the rules to suit your needs.
I’ve another question for yèou, ** dreamer ** which is directly related to this comment of your.
Your belief is based on the personnal relationship you claim to have with God. What exactly in this relationship makes you think that the whole set of belief you’re holding is true. For instance, you believe in the rapture. A lot of christians don’t. How dcan you know whether the rapture will take place or not? Did God told you so? Same question about for instance your belief that the bible is liutterary true. A lot of christians, who claim too they have a personnal relationship with God don’t believe it. So, once again, what convinced you? Did God tell you so?
And in case of your beliefs (except the part about the actual existence of God, which I’m considering as a given for the purpose of my question) are based on arguments rather than on your personnal connection with God, what makes you reject opposite arguments, exactly?
For instance, I’ve written here several times that God can’t at the same time be all-loving and sent people in hell to burn forever. Other people, who contrarily to me are christians, are making the same claim (there’s no way the loving god i’ve a personnal relationship with could sent people in a furnace/ have ordered to kill babies/ whatever).
If these particular beliefs aren’t based on your personnal relationship with god, why would you consider arguments coming from atheists/other kind of christians as having less value than arguments coming by people in your congreagation/church/ whatever. What makes these arguments less convincing, exactly? Should the value of an argument be dependant on the person providing it (God excepted) or on its own merits?
I think you are being a little harsh on dreamer there, EchoKitty.
There is a frustrating tendency of Bible literalists to contend that quoting a passage is a valid logical argument. Dreamer seems to openly and comfortably admit that it is a matter of faith and based on personal experiences.
Now, the OP did ask us rationalists what it would take to convince us? We want verifiable proof. Every “fundamentalist” spontaneously disappearing as in Left Behind, would be pretty solid evidence. Until then, all the objective evidence leads me the other way. (I doubt God would really mind that, after all, Thomas needed proof but was accepted as an Apostle).
The tables were turned on Dreamer by asking what would change her mind? It would “take a miracle”. Or, more specifically, a new revelation. After three summerless years, with the sun half eaten by a wolf, Dreamer will probably be down on her knees praying that Odin is not feeling vengeful (as will I be). If she recognized Jesus walking down the street and he said “You are kind of focusing too much on some things that lost a bit in the translation from Divine to Aramaic to Latin to English. Try to focus on…” she would be right on board.
A logical argument will not displace a thesis not based on logic. When we try have a strictly logical discussion, it is not a level ground. The believer has an impregnable position unless he or she chooses to challenge their support mechanism. I appreciate dreamer’s frankness about this.
[sub] This is just IMHO on this discussion. I appreciate finding a “reasonable fundamentalist”, and am now searching for signs of “army intelligence”. [/sub]
I admit I may have been a bit harsh, and I apologize if my tone came across as anything but frustrated, which is how I feel. I still don’t see how I turned the tables on her simply by asking the question she posed. After all, this is a debate, not an opinion. My beef here is that she uses emotion as the basis for her belief, and a twisted sort of logic for her to be a non-believer. I don’t see it as a fair way to determine the truth. Does anyone else see the point I’m trying to make?
dreamer, with all due respect, I believe that when the rapture does happen, the people who are “meant” to be saved will get it, and those who aren’t, will think its maybe aliens; that is, if its really that noticable.
I know a very few folks in real life who seem worthy enough to go.(I’m not including myself here)
Actually, I’ve been thinking that asking Christians and followers of other faiths what it would take to get us not to believe might make a very interesting topic. That said, I’d rather it was left for another thread, rather than hijacking this one. After all, belief in the Rapture only applies to some Christians, and I’m not even sure you could say the majority of them. I’d start the thread myself, but I choose persist in my faith despite arguments appealing to logic, contradictions, unfairness, etc. including unanswered questions.
Vanilla, my boss told me yesterday about a book she’d gotten, called something like Love in the Cards. It purports to use numerology to figure out what playing card represents your personality, and then tells you what your love life has in store for you based on your being, for example, the Jack of Clubs.
I’m wondering: do you have any more basis for this belief of yours than my boss has for her belief that being a nine of diamonds determines whom she oughtta go out with?
I’m still waiting for an answer to why you put so much faith in the rapture as described by Darby and more recently Linsey, teachings that has been around for all of 5% of the history of Christianity? Do you believe in every new Christian theory out there, such as Benny Hinn claiming Adam could fly and Eve was meant to give birth out of her side?
Why would God, who according to the bible empowers Christians to do greater things than Jesus, which descibes faith in terms of breastplates and helmets and swords, suddenly wisk away believers in the face of opposition like they are some feeble, broken creatures that need extra protection?
What are the alternatives to those few bible verses used to create this rapture theory?
dreamer, I’m glad I could finally get online to correct my statement.
(librarys computers were down)
No on eis worthy.
No one ever can be.
We are saved only by grace, our works mean nothing (chrisitians believe this).
So all of us christians will go in the rapture.
Lemme say again, our good works mean nothing, grace is the only thing getting us “in”.
So maybe some of us will be surprised who we see up there.
(personally, I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see pl)
I agree completely vanilla, I just thought because you said it might not even be noticeable (the rapture) that maybe you thought that not many will go. From what I understand all who believe in Jesus and his death and resurrection and that he is their Savior and follow him will go. Being worthy has nothing to do with it because as you said no one is worthy.
I’d name a few people who I think will someday find God, but I don’t think they would appreciate that ;).
I am sorry Guinastasia, but where does the bible speak
of “sin of presumption”, or is this just something the Catholics
hold true? Mat 24:36 "No one knows about that day or hour,
not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father
Is that what you are referring to? If so, this doesn’t have anything to
do with knowing if you are going to heaven. If not, I am probably
just not understanding what passage you are referring to.
Help me out here. We can know we are going to heaven. You should know
that, because the bible tells us so. We don’t deserve to, but we can
by the grace of God. Keep in mind that you keep repeating how it’s
Catholic doctrine. I am assuming that dreamer is not Catholic, and is
a bible believing/following Christian. ( sorry if I am wrong Dreamer)
We do not follow Catholic doctrine, we follow what the the Bible teaches.
Wrong. Yes, it is comforting to know that God is there for us, But that’s not the only
reason we believe. There is the prophecies that have come true. There are the prophecies
that are to come (which looks as if it will be soon for some things).
It seems like everyday someone is saying that ______ never existed, and archeologist prove otherwise.
It’s the person relationship with God that shows us in many different ways why He is
real and true. You cannot be expected to understand that unless you have God. BTW, I was unaware that science disproved God, is this recent? Last time I heard, science
couldn’t prove or disprove God. I am suprised this wasn’t on the news. :rolleyes:
by clairobscur
If we believe in what the Bible teaches and we have a personal relationship with God we can know what we believe is true. Some people claim to be Christian but just follow the pastor/priest blindly. How then can you know anything is true. The Bible tells us not to follow blindly, but to search the scriptures for ourselves. If we do so, we can know what is true and what is not. Being close to God only opens your eyes and heart more. Also, again, God doesn’t send people to Hell. People choose to go there. You have a choice. Some choose not to go, and they follow God. Others love themselves to much and there worldly possesions, so they find it to difficult to love and follow God. That is choosing Hell.
Just so we’re clear: the reason that no one appreciates a statement like that is because it’s smug, self-righteous, and designed to short-circuit the argument. It basically is a way of saying, “You may not realize I’m right yet, but one day you will.”
Heck. I could say that one day you’ll realize that your belief in YhWh is unsupported by evidence and the sign of a neurosis that you’ll outgrow. But that would be just as rude as your saying that one day I’d find God.
Just a little public service: I think that sometimes bornagainners don’t realize why some of the things they say are so annoying.
Jersey Diamond, you wouldn’t believe it even if it was on the news, although my intent was not to prove or disprove god (that’s up to you christians). I’m talking about the fundy belief that the earth was formed 6,000 or so years ago, that dinosaur bones were planted to throw us off the trail, and other such mind-numbing fiction that is spewed regularly by the “gotta share” club. So, :rolleyes: yourself!
JerseyDiamond, would you consider joining me in a new thread where we can go over these prophecies and find the ones that have taken place already and see if we can’t “prove” that the bible has predicted these things?
Jersey Diamond, I’m sure that you’ll agree with me that there are many things implied but not spoken straight out in the Bible. Most obvious example is the Trinity – the idea that there is one god that consists of Jesus Christ our Lord, His God and Father, and the Holy Spirit Whom He sent. It’s implicit in most of the New Testament and foreshadowed here and there in the Old, but nowhere is it stated or defined, or even that those three together constitute one godhead suggested. It’s a logical conclusion from the evidence on hand.
Likewise, the “sin of presumption” is a bit of Catholic (and many other churches’) doctrine derived from scripture though nowhere spelled out in it. To answer your question on the scriptural source for it, let me suggest one passage:
