I can't imagine not believing in God. (page 55)

tec

That is absolutely incorrect. Look up the definition for evidence and you will see that it is one or a collection of facts or information that is used to render a proposition true or false. The evidence is not true or false; the evidence is the evidence; the conclusion from the evidence will determine the truth or fallacy of a proposition. If something is suggested as a fact or evidence and turns out to be neither, then it was never or should never have been considered as evidence. It either is or is not evidence. It would be improper to call that "false evidence".

Very well then. It is improper to use the term 'false evidence', though people do. So how about unsound then? Or the evidence fails to prove the proposition? Or as you stated (if proven wrong) the evidence is non-evidence?

You must be able to see what I am referring to?

If we can agree to a definition of "evidence" as is generally accepted (no just to you),

I am using the dictionary... as well as the various 'types' of evidence... not limited to scientific evidence. I bumped a thread I did a while ago for you and Punk; I will bump it again. "Evidence for God" It is nothing that you will accept as conclusive to you or others, but hopefully, it will give you a better idea as to me.

God and Christ. Why not? If not, how could you know?

Because while there are many ideas about them... (and versions)... there is only One Christ, and One God. I either know Christ; know Him somewhat; or never knew Him at all and only thought I did.

I only know by the Spirit.

Of all the places in John's gospel that refer to this "disciple that Jesus loved", no name is given, which leads many including myself to conclude that the person mentioned is actually John "the writer".

This is the traditional explanation, but that does not make this true.

In this traditional explanation, he would have switched from writing about himself, to writing as himself two sentences later.

"This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true."

Then...

"Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose..."

In any case, he is not clearly identified, and it does not have to be the author of John (himself) who is being identified here. If you don't believe this, then no problem. That is your perogative. But you cannot state that the bible clearly states that all the apostles were illiterate, when it clearly states here that at least one of them wrote down his testimony.

For that, he needed to also establish some legitimacy of record by naming himself (in a humble way) as the one "Jesus loved".

I never really thought that was very humble, lol. True, I am sure, but to refer to yourself as that person... ? I would think that that would lead one to believe that the author was humbly referring to another disciple. Especially since he also has no problem using the word "I" to refer to himself at the end of his gospel.

But once again, the verse in Acts (even if it did mean illiterate) does not refer to every single apostle. It also does not necessarily mean illiterate at all. I don't think it does mean that.

"When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus."

Makes more sense - based on what they were doing here... that what is being referred to here as unschooled and ordinary... is unschooled: that they are not trained to teach or interpret the law; not rabbis. Ordinary: no authority as or from the Jewish rabbies and teachers of the law to speak about God and the law. Just ordinary, untrained (unschooled) men.

Not educated at or made to attend school: "unschooled children".
Lacking knowledge or training in a particular field.

Because what they were doing was speaking as someone who does have authority and training.

A tax collector was also among the apostles. Why would he fall into this 'most likely to be illiterate' category?

Here's the answer to your question: I wasn't asleep. I guess my sarcasm didn't work or you just didn't get it.

Sarcasm doesn't alway read well on-line, and not by me. Ask Cofty.

That being said... I got it... I just let your sarcasm work against you ;)

You seem to hold many of those things which remain unchanged in traditional religion and incorporate a belief system based on the Bible and on self-referent logic.

See, here i am thinking that you are holding on to traditions... (such as the above concerning John). Tradition does not mean much to me.

I have yet to hear from you a reasonable explanation for Acts 4:13 other than that to you "unschooled" and "ordinary" does not mean "illiterate" when only the "unordinary" people of the time had the skills to read. So, yes you did side-step. You side-stepped, even if you found one disciple that could write, that this information does not explain all the other "unschooled" writers who contributed to the NT and the fact that they were uneducated and illiterate.

I did not side-step. I disagreed. I hope I gave you the explanation you were asking for above.

Scribes... is an easy explanation for someone who had testimony and wanted it written down, but could not write themselves.

(No reason at all to think that Luke was illiterate, who wrote one of the gospels and Acts. He, however, was not an apostle. So nothing said about the apostles need apply to him. He investigated and gathered testimony and information so that he could record it for someone in particular. He states that in who he addresses at the start of his book.)

"I AM not relying on that document for my faith in God. I did rely on testimony (from it and from others today) to learn about Christ." OK, now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. It's like you're saying: "I'm only a little bit pregnant." C'mon and be serious. How can you say you don't rely on a document and say you rely on parts of it? You rely on the document whether you do wholly or partially. Except that in your case, you get to pick and choose which parts to rely upon, so that you can go off and "verify" them. Didn't I mention that before?

I thought i emphasized my meaning by captilizing at the start... but let me try again.

I am not NOW relying on that document. I did ONCE rely upon it... not to know Christ personally, but to learn/hear ABOUT Him. (so that I could later go to him... and not need to rely upon anyone or anything else to know Him)

OK. You already mentioned that but you failed to cite or state any other sources (besides the Bible) for support. You mention before the same "other" sources you're mentioning now. But as I also responded before, you can't mention "his teachings" as a source if those teachings are only found in the Bible. Otherwise, that would not be "another" source. If you refer to teachings and truths that lie within you and that only you perceive, then again that is not another source, because no one within your communication circle can possibly verify what lives inside your head. Therefore, any real "other" evidence (or source) must exist outside of you.

Other sources... meaning other testimony about Christ and God... meaning other people testifying to their experience... Christ being One who testified to God (and who still does)

The problem with that, which I fully understand, is that people can lie or be mistaken.

Which is why i take anything that anyone says with a grain of salt (or not at all if it contradicts what the Spirit of Christ teaches me).

Anyway, you were saying something about a spiritual conversation only you are privy to and I was confirming that that communication is purely inside you, you know "spirit to spirit".

Thanks for going back and trying to unravel what had gotten tangled up in our conversation. i seem to have lost where it was supposed to be going, so i am just going to comment 'Okay' to the above quote :)

So, it would seem that Christ is totally unnecessary. If that's the case, I can understand then that you have no need for justification other than your personal inclination.

Unneccesary altogether? No.

For some to understand the law of love and show it... because that law is upon them naturally... then unneccessary to that for them, yes.

But Christ is the Life (eternal life)... even to those who might not know Him (but whom He knows because of the love/mercy within them made manifest in their actions). He is still the One who grants Life, and Truth (if one wants that truth, to be able to see His Father).

Until when? For how long? Is 40 years enough? I can just hear your answer: "Until he answers." I may be dead by then. But of course, I would have the benefit of going into his bosom them. You really don't know, do you? Nah.

I don't know for you, this is true.

I sought for years. I am the one who held me back though... by listening to the wts; traditions; men... and by my own fear and my own thoughts on how God should talk to me and lead me; my own fears as to what would I do if He wasn't there... what would I do if He WAS there?! Were God and Christ being arbitrary and stubborn? No. I was being so. I was afraid and uncertain. If i knew for certain, there would be no turning back. I could not handle that yet, despite all my demands of God to just tell me what he wanted so I could know for sure.

God does not withhold His Son( the Holy Spirit ) from us... we are the ones who are not (yet) willing. Even though we often think that we are.

Probably lots of times. But just like truth, Tammy, it was never supernatural to begin with, only inexplicable. Once we found the answers, answers that can be actually tested by EVERYONE, then we can say it is natural rather than unexplainable.

.

And one day, everyone will know this concerning God, His Son, and the spiritual.

.

This last germ of an idea is what keeps someone like me from jumping into the unsupported conclusions you make. I'm willing to say: "I don't know" rather than assume that because a tangible effect exists, which I cannot explain, that I must have an explanation where

evidence shows none is forthcoming.

I understand.

But this brings us back full circle to what I had originally stated regarding Cofty. This stance... this "I don't know"... does not contradict anything I know about Christ and God. So it does not concern me, nor my faith.

Peace to you,

tammy

AGuest

Really ... then your weak

Nothing wrong with that, though, dear F2B (peace to you!). Indeed: "God has chosen the foolish things of the world to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to shame the things which are strong..."

"Our dedication to Christ makes us look like fools, but you claim to be so wise in Christ! We are weak, but you are so powerful! You are honored, but we are ridiculed." Been saying that from the start. So being told we are such is not unexpected, dear one. Peace! A slave of Christ, SA

wolfman85

I'm not saying all, but some atheists or agnostics have reached their conclusions as a result of a defense mechanism.

Many of them were ardent followers of a religious movement. Equaled having a relationship with God to be more involved in religion. Suffering a major disappointment of religion and realize that organized religion has nothing to do with having a relationship with God, his awakening was abrupt and traumatic created what is known in psychology as a defense mechanism.

Now to avoid returning to suffer a painful and frustrating experience as it is the years of his life devoted to religion, have chosen consciously or unconsciously, to protect himself from another possible disappointment and have decided to remove any dependency you have in your life to believe in God. So create a protective fence for fear of suffering if they believe in God turns out to be another painful false. Others do it because of frustration that if there is God, WHY allows all this and inside themselves is the way to "punish" God for what they consider unfair.

This compares to the frustration felt by a child to be punished by a parent. The child might say "I LOVE YOU NOT" although that is not the real case, but the child's frustration leads him to speak to somehow cause some suffering to their parents for the "suffering" that the parents have caused in this time.

Some so-called atheists or agnostics would never admit this publicly, although it admitted to themselves. By the way I'm a beliver and I couldn't imagine my life not beliving in God neither.

cantleave

.....some atheists or agnostics have reached their conclusions as a result of a defense mechanism.

I must say I haven't met anyone in this category! All the atheists I know personally, have reached that conclusion by the complete lack of evidence for the alternative.

wolfman85

Some so-called atheists or agnostics would never admit this publicly, although it admitted to themselves.

cofty

Wolfman - Straw man

InterestedOne

wolfman85 wrote:

Some so-called atheists or agnostics would never admit this publicly, although it admitted to themselves.

If they would never admit it publicly, then you would not know it unless you could read their minds.

Witness My Fury

All the atheists I know (and from reading here) have come to this conclusion because of doing proper research into their beliefs and the bible and finding a total lack of evidence to support either of them.

It is not a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face, as you appear to imply.

wolfman85

The key word in my post is "SOME". I didn't say "ALL".

I can't imagine not believing in God.

free2beme

tec

AGuest

wolfman85

cantleave

wolfman85

cofty

InterestedOne

Witness My Fury

wolfman85

Share this