Methinks the... well, I would say "gentleman," but let's keep it real, shall we?... doth protest too much.
Please try to be original when attempting to insult me. Simply copying what I say? Come on, try harder.
I can't imagine not believing in God.
by MsGrowingGirl20 643 Replies latest members private
-
-
Etude
PSacramento: Yeah you did. Your statement about not being able to discount Mark as the writer of Mark reads fallacious all over it. If you really want me to break it down for you, send me a PM. I agree with you and don't want to highjack the thread any further. But, just in case, don't keep avoiding the external evidence of the time that indicates people like the apostles were illiterate.
Chariklo: I'm sorry you feel sad about the discussion thread. I'm sure that it is a nice intent to feel spiritual and believe in God. But from where I stand (and I imagine many of us feel that way), my intent is to educate and perhaps make people realize that holding to certain ideas may not help them. I'm not saying that they can't be spiritual and believe what they want. But if you're going to drink a potion, make sure it's not poison.
" you naysayers have nothing better to do with your time than try to destroy someone else's faith ". It's too bad you actually see some of us that way. The only ones I can blame for destroying my faith are the Jehovah's Witnesses. They did it thoroughly and without mercy. But really, I only have myself to blame for being so gullible, vulnerable and not being informed enough. Why would I want to destroy someone else's faith? Well, I don't. But while for some people ignorance is bliss, I'm of the opinion that it is better to know and suffer than to ignore and apparently prosper. One of my favorite quotes is: "For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst and provide for it." — Patrick Henry
So, I find honor and not shame in yelling the truth to anyone who needs it. That truth IS NOT that God does not exist. It is that we need to logical in whether we believe in him or not. It seems to me that you're the one being negative by finding a nefarious intent on at least my part to want to destroy someone's faith instead of my good intent for someone to come to a more logical understanding. I did not assail the desire of MsGrowingGirl20 by destroying her need for the spiritual. Perhaps you missed it and didn't read that I consider that sense an important part about being human. That goes for you too Lozhasleft. I'm going out on a limb here and state that I don't recall anyone tearing into vulnerable people. Please, clear your hateful perspective and realize that at least I was tearing into unsupported arguments and ideas, NOT THE PERSON.
" So, if you succeed in destroying a person's faith with your fancy research, that doesn't actually prove a thing, what then? Will you personally, each one of you step up and replace that relationship you've destroyed? No, you can't, because it's way way over your heads and your hearts. So why don't you allow, yes just simply, allow, individuals, to choose their own stance, based on their own findings? Without cynical remarks, without hateful comments, without sarcasm, without this whole awful offensive?"
Yes, you really sound like you're full of vinegar by refusing to see that other intents may be at play other than the negative ones you envision. Can I or anyone personally succeed in destroying someone's faith? I sincerely doubt it. Only the person can do that for him or herself. But if you don't want your ideas challenged, then don't put them out for discussion in front of people who will do precisely that, challenge them.
Chariklo: " But reason is not a necessary adjunct to faith, although it may be. " I think it must be if anyone is going to claim that it is based on evidence. But if it isn't (according to you), the Bereans had a huge waste of time examining and reasoning the scriptures. So much for the scriptures!
EntirelyPossible: I love the brevity in your responses. I, unfortunately, am not built that way. Kudos to you.
sd-7: I really like your introspective and philosophical approach. I believe I can live with it in spite of thinking that someone I lost and the legacy she left will probably be forgotten in a couple of generations. Her great-grandchildren will probably not remember her and she may end up as a footnote on a family tree. That happens to a lot of people. So, I'm glad to agree that, in my own feeble attempt, I will leave behind a legacy of arguments that show I really tried to search for what is true and legitimate. In them, I hope to encapsulate the essence of who I am, warts and all.
-
EntirelyPossible
EntirelyPossible: I love the brevity in your responses. I, unfortunately, am not built that way. Kudos to you.
Thanks! Yours are very well thought out and elegantly presented. I look forward to them.
-
SkyGreen
I am struggling with this right now... I so desperately want to believe in a loving creator who cares about us and is going to one day fix everything that is wrong in the world...
But there's so much going on around me that says if he is there, he forgot about us long ago...
how bout an update on the bible eh God?
-
designs
'If I should cry out who would hear me among the army of angels' Orestes
-
Etude
SkyGreen: There was a time I also desperatly wanted to belive, especially after leaving the witlesses. But as I gradually asked and saw and waited, I began to think as you: He forgot about us or is being deliberately scarce for some purpose he refuses to tell us. Do I need a test to see which way I'll choose? Do I really need to witness the pain in the world so that I can later recognize how good He is for fixing it? Well, the answers don't come fast enough and I have to move on. I've been waiting for over 40 years. I'm with you; we need a Bible upgrade to fit the times. That's what the little invisible green men that live in my head keep telling me.
-
tec
Peace to all.
Etude, I have not forgotten about you. I have your post half responded to, but I did not want to skimp on or rush through one of the questions you asked and I had to go to bed (then worked all day).
But at the moment for both you and Skygreen...
We are not going to get a bible update.
But we have gotten an update from the written word (including the law): the Spirit. Christ. He speaks within, to the spirit that we are (though at the moment we are 'clothed' in physical bodies).
I know the written word is easier for most of us to listen to... because we can look at it; because mankind tends to walk by sight. We need something to see, touch, hear (with our physical ears), smell, taste. Though having the written word has never stopped mankind from twisting it in order to justify what they want to do (or want to get others to do, often for them). So one can see that the written word does not stop division. There really is no benefit to it... over the truth and the Spirit. Indeed, it can be an impediment to hearing the Spirit of Truth (Christ), especially if one has been taught to give it authority over Christ. (like an idol)
But Christ and God are spirit, and so Christ (who is the image of God) speaks as spirit. This requires listening, and faith... in what is unseen. Rather than in what is seen.
Peace once again to you both,
tammy
-
cyberjesus
"Jehovah's God's Witness"
Some people, the only thing they left, was the propper name.
-
cyberjesus
You guys are just so intellectual and skeptical about everything.. you just dont believe... you fool un-believers.
Trying to make others think... what do you think you are? thinkers? proof proof, evidence, evidence... what are you scientists?
to hell with you!
-
tec
This is what I have to the first half of your last post to me, Etude.
You cannot have evidence against something that does not exist. You can only have evidence that fails to sustain that something exists. What you're saying is like having evidence against that invisible man over there. I hope you get the subtle difference.
I get the difference Etude. But you said:
It IS the evidence that discounts the idea of God (at least the one that's commonly touted in the Bible).
This difference does not change my response.
and yet you appear intent, at least to a certain degree, to stick with its story and message.
It is written and translated by people; based on witness accounts, testimony, inspired writings, historical acconts, parables, poetry, symbolism, etc. There are bound to be errors. That does not mean you must throw away the whole thing. You just have to recognize it for what it is, rather than making it out to be more than what it is, and then when it is proven that it is not what you thought, it no longer has any merit to it at all.
In any case... I only fully accept something that has been confirmed to me or shown to me or revealed to me in spirit. Otherwise I continue to test against Christ, and against love.
Basically, it is the ONLY finger pointing to Christ. So, I guess what I'm gleaning from that statements is that you recognize that there are problems with the Bible (to what degree, I'm not sure), but that you see it as a collective of different sources (I presume some more reliable than others) and you get to pick and chose, after your examination of them, which you trust and which you don't. Is that right? If that's what you do, then your belief is indeed self-contained.
There are people who point their finger to Christ as well. So there is more than just the written testimonies. Then there is personal evidence as well.
I do not think that my faith is self-contained. Christ is involved. Indeed, He is the foundation of my faith. I don't fully trust anything unless I have heard it for myself, or seen evidence of the truth of something.
I do try to reason as to the rest. One thing that Christ has shown me is that His Father acts out of love, mercy, to help US. So from that I know to test everything against love.
Huh?????? So, in a way you're saying that it wouldn't really matter where this "truth" is written.
Well, would it?
Truth is truth.
Well, if I just take the that last sentence of yours, it all goes back to the way you choose or how you select what you're going to pick and choose from the Bible to justify your belief.
I don't choose anything to justify my belief. I do choose (or see/understand) based on Christ, since He is the Truth.
Really? Where can I go listen, or what channel do I tune into, or what kind of altered state do I need to achieve (other than just accepting and without mushrooms) in order to perceive the Christ here and alive and as a Spirit?
Your "truth" would go a long way if it affected us just like gravity and confronted those who don't believe in him or have some misgivings about him. And so, it becomes evident that this is a common problem with your "evidence". You simply state "one such truth is" without any need for verification of substantiation. Please, help us poor ignorant ones out here.
First... the only One you go to is Christ... if you want to hear Him (the Spirit of Truth) or if you want to know God.
Second... I have verification for me. But the only thing that I can do for someone else (in regard to faith)... is witness TO Christ. Be a pointing finger to Him. If you WANT to know God, then look at Christ - the image; the exact representation of God, in the flesh. If you want to hear, then ask for ears to hear. Then keep asking; keep knocking...and the door will be open. He said that, and so it is true. I know it is true, because he opened that door for me when I had the faith to ask.
His words on the matter:
"If anyone loves me, he will obey my teachings. My father will love him and we will come to him and make our home with him.
"Since I know that is true (because He has spoken to me, via the spirit)..." OK. Please provide some details about this spirit that a reasonable person can explore in order to ascertain its existence. This is not a dare and I realize you don't have to. But I sincerely would like to know and it would be kind gift on your part if suddenly I found myself at the threshold of something I completely ignore. If you use the Bible to explain it, then you get into a sticky wicket about the veracity of such concepts, which also seem indistinguishable from those conceived by individuals who were smoking some substance in the fungi genus. Therefore, I fail to see how you establish the "actual truth and/or validity in something written" unless you do it in terms of itself. That's bad form.
I have written of this on a couple occassions and i will try to find those for you because I think I might have gone into more detail. I also do not need to use the bible to describe this for you, because I can describe what I, myself, experience. (Even though some might need to SEE where something is written, to corroborate... I know that I did -and sometimes still do when the Spirit speaks to me - though I always kick myself for not putting faith in what I heard, instead of looking something up to verify it) Christ (the Spirit of Truth/ the Holy Spirit) speaks. His voice is quiet and calm and sure. He speaks in spirit (from within). Sometimes in words (an inner voice), sometimes in revelation (such as understanding granted or truth recognized... recognized in your very blood and bones); sometimes He reminds me of something that is written ( a scripture), or reminds me of something that I have experienced so as to help me understand something that I might be asking about."Luke investigated what he wrote... from others." That may be partially true. Except that there's no way to determine that Luke (the apostle) ever wrote anything. More accurately your statement should read: "Whoever wrote Luke investigated from others". The reason is that the overwhelming indication from historians is that Mark the gospel was an earlier document and that the writers of Mathew and Luke referred from it or used it as a foundation in addition to "Q", an unknown source.
Okay. I don't have a problem with that possibility that it was someone other than Luke. Either way, the one who wrote, wrote off their investigations.
Luke, however, is not an apostle (one of the twelve) to begin with.
"We also have written at the end of the book of John that one of the disciples DID write things down." Again, you miss the point that just because some document says it was written by someone doesn't mean they actually wrote it. I once signed "Donald Duck" on credit a card receipt to see if anyone checked it. Had they checked it, it would not have been their assumption that I was a Disney character due to my signature. If you've read other opinions that contradict the timing of the Gospels, by all means let me have it.
Okay... but so?
My point was that the bible does not make the claim that the apostles were all illiterate... as you stated. It does, in fact, make the claim that at least one of them wrote something down.
(and if you follow your line of reasoning - something being written does not make it true - then why do you believe that they were illiterate?)
Please read Acts 4:13 and notice what the Bible says about the illiteracy of Peter and John.
Acts 4:13 states that Peter and john were unschooled, ordinary men.
This does not equate to illiterate.
They were not exceptions to the apostles.
First, what do you base that conclusion upon... and second, once again, "unschooled and ordinary men" does not equate to illiterate. I am sure that it did for some, but there is no reason to think that it did so for all.
Besides that, there is corroboration from other non-biblical sources that show that individuals of such ranks in that society (fishermen, carpenters, etc) were not educated and most likely illiterate.
"Most likely" does not mean IS.
Christ was a carpenter by trade. He was not illiterate by any means, not according to what we have written about Him.
Beyond that, I have to rely on linguists who can point to the use of complex sentences of the Greek in that period and find the same markings in the Gospels, something that was more typical of someone in a higher societal echelon. Ad that to the historical knowledge that in that period of time and place the men that would have been the apostles only spoke Aramaic and you have the perfect circumstance for someone much more erudite to have written the gospels for his own purposes.
Okay... but what about translations of writings from one language to another, by way of a translator or scribe?
Even if the apostles did not write anything down, does that mean that they did not dictate to someone who did write something down? Even Paul (who was educated) dictated some of his letters.
"The writings and testimonies in the bible and elsewhere..." Where? That would really help because as you already agree, there are problems with the Bible. Is there something that historical critics missed or did I just fail to read about it? Unless you can assail that reasoning on the gospels as false with some other evidence (not just say so or from a spirit I can't dial up), I don't see how you can have reasonable confidence that what you base your belief on is actually so. You can have confidence in what you believe, but not based on any reasonable foundation.
Okay, well, there are writings that never made it into the canon.
But I was speaking about others personal testimonies/experiences... with the Spirit... today.
Those can cause one to think; to consider; to test and to reason. Though they are not enough to base one's faith upon... at least not imo. The most that those testimonies can do (as well as my own) is point to Christ, and perhaps help someone to go to Him. Because He is the only foundation that is true, and strong.
Peace to you,
tammy