Ahh, if only to be able to tear oneself away (may you all have peace!), but the intrigues of the thread are... well, just too intriguing (for all of us, it appears).
In contrast Yahweh, the bible and faith tends towards denying mystery and possibility suggesting that there will always be more of the same
"Yahweh" and the Bible, perhaps, dear SG (peace to you!), but certainly not the Most Holy One of Israel, JAH of Armies... or faith. Faith is FOUNDED on possibility. Faith BELIEVES in the POSSIBILITY... in spite of the fact that what IS possible may not have been beheld. In fact, it believes even more: in the REALITY of that which some believe IMpossible. That it also includes mystery is only due to what has not yet been revealed to the one OF such faith. Until then, "it"... whatever it is... just may BE a mystery; however, faith in the REVEALER of Truth, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, JAHESHUA, the Chosen One of JAH... allows one to know that it will not REMAIN a mystery. Just as faith in the processes of science leads those with faith in THAT (which I also have, as regards the physical world)... to know the same. In that light, I have always said that science hasn't figured out HOW to access the spiritual... YET... because it does not have the TOOLS to do so... YET. But I do not deny the POSSIBILITY... and, therefore, do not deny the REALITY of such a thing. Others, however, vehemently do!
This "christ tag" has nothing to do with coming to an understanding more than it is a personal preference.
The personal preference lies in whether the one claiming to want to understand is willing to accept the basis, dear Jay (peace to you, dear one, as well!). If you ask ME how I can, in the face of Hubble, etc., still have faith in God... but are unwilling to accept that the BASIS of that faith is Christ... then how can you say you "want" to come to an understanding? Isn't that like me saying I want to understand how we know there are other galaxies out there... and you saying, "Well, Hubble is sending back pictures," and me then responding, "I want to know how you know without using the Hubble-tag"? If Hubble is HOW you know what you now know/believe... how can you tell me what you know/believe... without referring TO it?
point me to the freely available evidence and I'll examine it. That's what I'm looking for.
From where... and whom... may I ask, dear Size (peace to you!) have you heard/read that the evidence WE profess is NOT freely available to ALL? Religion may teach that... and some even say the Bible does, as well. The latter, however, is not true at all. The Bible says that such evidence is available to ALL... and will NOT be withheld from ANY who ask for it. Which is what TRUE believers say, as well! It is only UNbelievers (including those who claim to be believers)... who believe... and teach... such limitations.
The PROBLEM, however, is that some who ask want a specific KIND of evidence... and will accept nothing else. Like Thomas, who said, "I will NOT believe... UNLESS I see the holes." Seeing Christ himself wasn't enough - he had to see the marks made by the nails. Which is interesting to me on two (2) levels: one, that even though Christ himself was standing there before him... the fact that he COULDN'T believe had to be on HIM. It had to be that HE just couldn't ALLOW himself to believe unless the FORM of evidence that HE personally needed was provided. Second, that so many unbelievers use this very account and say, "Well, Thomas needed more!"... while denying belief in Christ at all. How can Thomas' account be valid... if Christ himself is false? Isn't, then, the account invalid as well? Even so, while Thomas received what HE requested, he was told that it would NOT occur that way afterward, yes? So how is one part of the account valid while the other invalid?
Several of us here have offered what constitutes the evidence - that you and others CHOOSE... to REJECT... the FORM of evidence... is on you. But it would be NO different from one of US saying, as dear Awen (the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!) intimated: can I personally perform any of the experiments that scientists perform in order to know FOR MYSELF that what they say is true? Of course, I can't. So, I have to TRUST those who say THEY performed such experiments and that the results ARE as they say. That, as dear Awen stated, is a form of FAITH - YOU did not "behold" the results... but only READ/HEARD about them... through the accounts of those who DID so behold them.
And, of course, the question would be, "Well, why would they LIE?" Surely, we all know some of them have; yet, you do not reject the findings, opinions, or experiences of them ALL. In the same vein, I can understand, given the history, conduct, and overall track record... why it would be prudent to reject RELIGION; however, at least 2-3 of the believers who've responded here have stated that they have absolutely nothing to do with religion... or what it teaches/believes.
Unlike dear Nick (the greatest of love and peace to you, as well!), however, most of the non-believers cannot ALLOW themselves to live... and let live. Which, IMHO, makes them not much different from the "religious." Like the latter, the former chide, deride, ridicule, belittle, berate... and often verbally abuse... those who think/believe different than them, including those who beliefs are even different from religion. And so, I've learned, as I have often stated, there really isn't that much difference, if any at all: both are polar ends, unwilling to even entertain, let alone tolerate, anything different than their own paradigm.
Which is, IMHO, hypocrisy. You cry to others to "open" their minds... yet, you keep your own shut like bear traps (in spite of your claims to want to know). Some say that faith does not allow for possibility... yet, faith in ROOTED in possibility. Faith says IT IS POSSIBLE for man to be resurrected; however, that POSSIBILITY... is based on EVIDENCE: others have been resurrected! Now, that some reject the RECORD... is, IMHO, NO different than "creationists" who reject the scientific record that the earth is older than THEY believe.
When you're in the middle, however, and your mind and thinking are BALANCED... you realize that God does not cancel out science... nor does science cancel out God. SOME science cancels SOME things SAID about God. And SOME things said about that which is spiritual cancels out SOME of what is said by science. But NEITHER completely cancel out the other.
And when the world of mankind realizes this... that BOTH are truth, just different forms of it because it relates to different REALMS... perhaps they will stop trying to show each other ENTIRELY wrong... and instead learn to live together and accept that which is physical AND that which is spiritual can and DOES... exist TOGETHER.
Unfortunately, if discussions here are any indication, that's not really something we can realistically look forward to... on our own.
Dear, dear tec... the greatest of love and peace to you, my dear! Thank you for trying to clarify, truly.
Dear Paul... the greatest of love and peace to you, as well, and... yes... I understand and agree.
Again, I bid you all peace!
A slave of Christ... which I state so that I don't ever forget that and lose sight of the TRUTH... that the sheep are his, not mine... so that, as HIS slave... a position I willingly volunteered for... out of gratitude... I ralways emember that am also THEIR servant...
SA
