Just re-checked, no striped pins. Of course, without her posting when she actually wrote that (i.e., proof she wrote it) I won't be able to check my shirt diary to see what I wrote down as wearing that day.
I can't imagine not believing in God.
by MsGrowingGirl20 643 Replies latest members private
-
-
Chariklo
Once again, consider it "scolding" if you want, I don't care, or take it for the observation that it is, but this thread diverged from anything relevant to the OP several pages ago. A good few pages ago, in fact. Like almost, though not quite, all the way back.
Doesn't that serve to contravene Simon's posting guidelines by those mocking others who DO believe in God?
You'd think some of the people here are trying to drive MsGrowingGirl back into the clutches of the Watchtower.
-
EntirelyPossible
Doesn't that serve to contravene Simon's posting guidelines by those mocking others who DO believe in God?
Not at all. Pointing out obvious absurdities is not the same as mocking.
-
cofty
Chariklo - The thread was a good one. I don't think think msgrowinggirl was looking for a discussion, she just wanted to express her feelings about it. There were a lot of good replies in the first few pages and she decided to opt out on page 1. I'm sure she would be insulted by your suggestion that anything could drive her back to the borg.
Why should it bother you how people choose to make use of redundant threads to discuss related issues? It would be good if you contributed to discussions at times rather than playing the role of unofficial moderator.
-
Chariklo
Try reading, Cofty
-
brokethechain
I had the thoughts you had, except that I have not been able to find any logical explanation to the existance of a god. So, I grieved the loss of my belief in God and of what I thought was the meaning in life and my hope of life after death.
After mourning it, I moved on, and life is actually pretty good without "god". In some ways, it's better. It beats trying to reconcile the existance of a god that could do something to stop tragedies and just lets them happen, for example.
-
tec
First... pin STRIPES... not a pin.
Just pointing out some clarity to that on this thread. I do not recall that topic or that thread though, so I cannot comment further.
Second... not a chance (of my own choice at least) am I going to play that game. It is a cheap parlor trick (and it is designed to DISPROVE Christ - tear the Body of Christ DOWN, rather than build the Body of Christ UP - and such is not what any gifts or insight is given to do). The Israelites asked for signs too, even after witnessing miracles, that still were not enough... because they did not want to believe. A wicked and adulterous generation asks for a sign - not wicked and adulterous because they are asking for proof because they wanted to believe (as Thomas did), but because they are seeking to disprove and tear down that One (Christ). Christ said no sign will be given them, other than the sign of Jonah.
Rather I would repeat these words of Christ:
"If anyone loves me, he will obey my teaching. My father will love him, and we will come and make our home with him."
Peace to you,
tammy
-
FingersCrossed
There is a God-shaped hole in each of us...
-
Etude
Sorry I've been off-line for a sometime while contemplating the horror of Newtown, CT and why some believers did not get advance warning of it or at least a clue of the purpose for the deaths of those innocent young children and brave adults or the pain their families have and will forever experience. I trust every one of us (no exceptions) feels terrible about it. But only some of us can seem to derive that there is a "higher" reason or purpose for this tragedy.
--------------------------------
tec: " Okay, we are having a communication problem. Because I have never insisted that someone needs evidence to disprove that God exists. "
OK, yes. You're right to the point that I can't find specifically that statement. However, you imply it when you say things like: "[Cofty] has arguments [your terminology for what he calls evidence] ... all of which are circumstantial. He has no concrete evidence. Indeed, his position is that there is not enough evidence for him to believe in the existance of God. " What you're really saying is that he seems to have something (non-evidential) that indicates no support for the idea of God. At the same time, you have evidence that supports the existence of God. The part that is left unspoken is the part that someone cannot contradict your assertion that God exists because they DON'T have any evidence that he doesn't exist.
At one point you say: " Of course it is evidence. It is just not evidence for you. It is just not the KIND of evidence that you WANT. " So while earlier you called it "arguments", when it applies to you, you call it evidence, only it's a different kind of evidence. It's like calling it a different kind of truth, even though you used the term: "Truth is truth." I thought we had made the point that different (contradictory) truths in support of an argument cannot exist, that something either is and will always be true or that if it fails to remain true it was never true to begin with. You are making "evidence" arbitrary simply by pointing to who states it. If it's from you, it's evidence (although only the kind that you can confirm and not others). If it's from the opposing view, then it's simply a circumstantial argument.
But wait, there's more: " Cofty does not believe... because He sees (and/or accepts) no evidence for God. He has stated so himself. " What I understood he thinks is that existing evidence (whatever there is to have) does not support that idea that God exists. It's not a lack of evidence; it is the existence of evidence that does not support a God. What does that mean that he "accepts no evidence for God"? It may mean to you that he accepted "evidence for God", it would be of higher value than if he actually had evidence that says God is a shaky proposition. That inequality does not make sense. At the outset, both arguments have equal weight. In the end, they would not if one of the does not hold up.
Finally, you put the nail in the coffin when you state: " The evidence that he has against God is still evidence... but that does not mean that his evidence hold[s] up. Because none of it is concrete... not even for him. " OK, not only are you saying that he has evidence that God does not exist and that it is evidence (a change from arguments?) but it does not hold up (to you) and is insufficiently concrete. You even beg for evidence that negates something on other subjects, that begs for evidence for the negative: " Please point out where this is written, that the apostles were illiterate. " I did, but you still use the same arguments you used with Cofty (that it doesn't hold up) to discount it. You have basically ignored the historical evidence that suggest this was the condition at the time for people of that class and fail to mention where in the Bible there's any indication to the contrary.
" You keep saying this... but I am not relying on that document [the Bible]... I stated that the authority is Christ. " Yes I keep saying that and you really are relying on it. And as I pointed out, aside from removed and not so reliable secular evidence about Christ, the ONLY source for Christ is that document, the Bible. You can deny it all you want, but I'm still seeing your hand in the biblical cookie jar. So while you can minimize the Bible's prominence for you as a significant, no, major foundation while acquiescing to its errors, you really can't escape the quandary of the reasons for your faith.
" I'm not sure you can identify the errors [in the Bible]for certain. .. unless you have the source to go to to learn the truth. " Yes you can – be sure, that is. Many of the errors in the Bible are pure inconsistencies and contradictions within it, and they are not "minor". You know that you and I have at our disposal a vast source of information to confirm if translation errors are mostly responsible for the errors in the canon. They are not hard to find. I imagine that something the Spirit tells you can help you bypass them as unimportant. What it can't do is explain how you can rely on the ONLY source that explains that Spirit when it's full of errors.
While those errors may not make any difference in the message of love and peace Christ preached, they don't assert that those messages were actually spoken by Christ instead of being handed down by an extraterrestrial civilization that happened to appear to him and the apostles. OK, I know you would consider the voice of the Spirit as a separate source within you (nothing that anybody else can confirm) beyond the Bible. But you must admit that there appears to be a problem when that source or at least the nature of that source is only found in your head and in the Bible that may fail (due to internal errors) to substantiate it's veracity and therefore the Spirit ever existed.
" I am one of those people, giving witness to what I know, experience, hear. " No, no, no, no. I didn't ask who, I asked by what means and how can I learn and experience what you know. So far, you haven't given me any indication that what you know is anything but self-contained. And I do believe that you have suggested that what I have to do in order to come to your state is "ask", "seek", "knock" and maybe wait for as long as it takes. What has ever given you a hint that I have not done those things, most probably for longer than you have? Why can't you admit that there's a good argument for a better way than this waiting limbo for God to show up and really say something meaningful to us today?
In a way, I'm happy for you in your continual spiritual state of bliss. But really, I've come to be much more realistic and realize that the same degree of satisfaction can be achieved in other ways and with a little more information about where the answers are not, so as to not waste my time. That's the main reason why I don't plunge into your version of spirituality.
" You could have the same means as I do... Christ. But as long as you do not think he is even real or alive or that he can speak... then how can you have faith in him? " So basically, I have to simply accept that there is (was) a Christ (no evidence required other than the Bible and some feelings) and simply say to myself that I have "faith" in him; actually convince myself that He is real and talks to me. Yes, I believe that is the very thing some religious people do and what brings them who speak in tongues, worship Christ with snakes, kill Drs. who perform abortions and start "holy" wars. They all have justification for the same reasons you believe. They too "hear" things. They too seem to know what the "message" is from Christ and God.
" My mother always believed that the Holy Spirit is Christ. " OK, explain that. Do you mean that as long as she's been self-conscious she has believed that? Based on what? It seems like based on nothing. She simply always knew. But, not you. You have evidence that gives you the "faith" to believe that. So in a way, you never "asked", "sought", "knocked" or waited for your belief, you simply and without any preconceived inclination came upon this evidence and then developed the "faith" to believe. Right? I'm getting a confusing picture about your self-contained condition where it also seems apparent that anyone, including me, can take this last path you have described for yourself, put it to work and come to believe. Well, I did (put it to work) and it didn't (work for me). Christ has never shown anything to me but a nice, kind, selfless and desirous intent we should show towards our fellow humans. The thing is, so has the Buddha and many other people throughout history. So, why do we need Christ to feel good about mankind and have a purpose in life?
" Absolutely everyone has their own verification. " No. It doesn't work that way. If you want to make sure, try jumping out of a 3 rd story window (I don't recommend it) so that you can achieve your own verification of gravity. It is not your interpretation of the law that counts. It is the ONLY interpretation of the law that can be confirmed that counts. Don't you think that the God of the universe that created all the physical laws would be just as demanding and consistent about the laws of logic and reason? Why would he require any less from us?
" If something can NOT be known by NON-supernatural means... how can it be verified objectively? " I really need to translate that. Here's what it really means: "If something can NOT be known by natural means, how can it be verified objectively? The answer is: IT CAN'T. That means that if a thing requires an explanation other than via what we can muster in the natural laws and with proper reasoning, there is no logical way to objectively verifying it. It must be explained by other means that may not hold up to scrutiny and logic. That makes the explanation very nebulous and arbitrary. That's very much like the explanation for your faith in Christ.
Chariklo: " Given that you are currently refusing to believe something despite over two thousand years of every kind of documentation, it's hardly logical for you to ask Tammy to produce an example of something you have no plans of accepting, is it? " And that's where the problem lies. I fail to see (not for the lack of searching) any kind of documentation accumulated over two thousand years (favoring the Jesus of the Bible) in which I can believe after a critical examination. Of course, if you're referring to the Bible as being that documentation, I believe that this whole conversation thread has, not demonstrated, but at least has suggested that the Bible has a lot of problems that make it a questionable document. If you can point to this other historical "documentation", please feel free to offer it to me.
AGuest: " That such tools do not yet exist does not negate the ability to know these things by non-supernatural means. " Shelby, that's like saying that because we don't have any tools for detecting and explaining the ship propulsion engines of extra-terrestrial life that allow them intergalactic travel near the speed of light is no reason to doubt they exist by "knowing" in some other natural way (meaning a non-supernatural means), like when they abducted me and showed me their engine from their window with the fuzzy dice. Please take my word for it, they really gave me a good tour. If you need any proof, I'm willing to describe the foundations for their mechanism for you. Other than that, I can't imagine right now what other natural way we could employ to "know" short of producing some other "natural" documented evidence from the ship, like a little bobbing-head figurine from their dashboard.
AGuest : " what are you asking for... and WHOM are you asking it FROM? If you say "God," I must respond, "WHAT/WHICH God?". If you say "Jesus,"... well, C's mental state notwithstanding, you know what I going to respond there. So, again... WHOM are you asking it from? Thus, far, I haven't seen where a single one of you can even utter the name accurately. So, whom? If it isn't the One I'm speaking of... who is it? And if whomever it is you ARE asking isn't answering/responding... why... and why do you keep asking [him]??? " OK. So, who do you propose we ask? Christ, Jesus, the Savior, the Word, the Logos, God's son, the Messiah? Check, check, check, check, check and check! How about God, the Creator, Jehovah, Jahweh? Check, check, check and check. The Heavens above? Check. I can't image there's anything left to ask that wouldn't meet your approval. If you mean "how" instead of "whom" and say that it requires, persistence, fervor, sincerity, a desire to believe, etc, then check, check, check and check. I know what you'd say to that: I didn't try hard enough or I wasn't sincere enough or I didn't persist enough. Without you knowing my intent and my state of mind, there's no way for you to verify and contradict what I experienced and how sincere I was and how hard I tried and how much I wanted to believe. That's exactly the same reason no other person but you can attest or verify for others that what you believe exists anywhere else but inside your head.
-
still thinking
You gotta have the right NAME Etude...thats why you aren't hearing his voice. Jesus answers no one...EVER! well, according to Aguest there is no such thing as Jesus.
hhhmmmm...that sounds familier...gotta have the right NAME....like Jehovah maybe? Oh no, I'm getting them confused with the JW's. Theirs is another 'right name'.