by AK - Jeff 1495 Replies latest jw experiences
Faith on the other hand is just acceptance because our parents accepted because their parents accepted because.... on and on.
If that were the case, Jeff, then faith could not have been borne to begin with.
When you die, faithful ones, there is nothingness.
Well, when you die and come back to tell me that... then I'll take your word for it... um, yeah ;)
In the meantime, I will take the word of Christ and God.
Peace,
Tammy
Christians are such an idiots. Christianity has brought us the dark ages, Holy Wars, the inquisition, Hitler, Jehovah's Witnesses, prevented perfectly good science (Galileo, Newton, Darwin and many others were censored to some extent), why would you even want to believe in a set of things that have done nothing good for us
Well, when you die and come back to tell me that... then I'll take your word for it... um, yeah ;)
In the meantime, I will take the word of Christ and God.
This is basically a tautology going into an appeal to false authority. Both arguments have already been extensively discussed and debunked both here and in scientific arguments.
The burden of proof is on you to prove that a) there is an afterlife and b) that god/christ exist and the bible is it's infallible word.
So why BLAME God?
Atheists do not blame God since he doesn't exist, you're using a false argument. We blame you for believing in it and offloading your responsibilities towards your communities for the past, present and future on such figure. The statement of fact is: if a benevolent, omnipotent God exists he would not allow suffering. This is undisputable since you cannot be both omnipotent and benevolent and allow suffering. To be benevolent you should help those in your power to help and since he is omnipotent and omniscient he has no excuse for either not knowing or not doing so. And all your other arguments are unsatisfactory and in a sense you yourself are blaming God while trying to vindicate him.
why would you even want to believe in a set of things that have done nothing good for us
I don't personally believe in a set of any 'things'. I believe in Christ; not 'christianity'. In the things He taught. Forgiveness, mercy, love for neighbor and enemy, faith, peace, etc. Neither Christ nor those 'things' caused holy wars, etc. Men caused those things... acting on what is inside them. So the saying goes... if the light within you is darkness, then how great that darkness!
This is basically a tautology going into an appeal to false authority. Both arguments have already been extensively discussed and debunked both here and in scientific arguments.
Actually, it was just me being glib... to a point. The other point being why should I listen to someone else who has no more personal knowledge of death than I do?
The burden of proof is on you to prove that a) there is an afterlife and b) that god/christ exist and the bible is it's infallible word.
Actually, the burden of proof is not on me... I don't have to prove anything to you. You choose what to believe and what not to believe. Who says you can't? Not me. I simply share what I believe... and you may consider, dismiss, or do whatever you want with that.
I would also never say that the bible is the infallible word of god. That is a falsehood.
Christ is the Word of God.
The bible has some witness testimony to Christ, some scripture, some prophets, some allegories, some parables, some history, some myth... as well as some misunderstanding, some lies (lying pen of the scribes), some translation errors. Nor is it one book (so that all are judged by the other books within it), but many books. Some of which are not books at all, but personal letters.
Atheists do not blame God since he doesn't exist, you're using a false argument. We blame you for believing in it...
Actually, I believe this is what I said a few posts back. Or rather that atheists blame believers for NOT blaming God for the suffering in the world... that we instead take personal responsibility for our actions. Which is kind of a contradiction to the rest of your statement:
offloading your responsibilities towards your communities for the past, present and future on such figure.
How is saying that God is not responsible for suffering, but that we (mankind) is responsible for suffering... offloading responsibility?
Peace,
Tammy
I know it was five days ago, but when I answer the original question it is a difficult one. I believe in a god - creator. He has allowed the suffering of mankind with the knowledge that he can undo all that has been done. He grieves for the child who starves ..... just as he did for his own son on the cross. In a "new World" either heaven or earth all the former things have passed away and even the memory of suffuring is done away with.....
At the same time the Atheist has the more reasonable arguement "prove it" or I won't belive it. I can't prove it. I believe science has stated "life comes from life" and we disproved spontaneous generation of life a few hundred years ago. With evolution we go back to that life comes from no life. No science has shown that possible or likely. The spark of life and the consciousness of man force me to accept something more than "survival of the fittest" or "evolutionary imperative" to explain. I do believe in the evolution of species, but life from no life? Can't find the science.....
I do believe in a personal god. A god who has revealed himself in a variety of ways. Not the most benevolent and kind, but real enough. It is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but "a peronderance of the evidence" I think.
we disproved spontaneous generation of life a few hundred years ago.
I wasn't aware of that . . . where can I find that information?
No science has shown that possible or likely.
Not according to this summary . . .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Why is the inability of science to prove something beyond doubt, a precursor to believing something devoid of any proof at all? "Life from no life" is simply a philosophical barrier based on our own conceptual prejudice on what constitutes life. It could be as simple as increased complexity through the natural evolution of matter . . . reaching a human-imposed threshold of complexity we call "life." So we go looking for a "threshold" . . . ie; "life" appearing, when no such event may even exist. The hasty illogical conclusion that "God must have done it" seems less reasonable than "well, we just don't know for sure yet what the details are"
If God did it . . . what exactly did he do? . . . string a few amino acids together and form the first protein? Or did he cut to the chase and make a ready-made amoeba with self-replication abilities and the evolutionary code fully installed? If you ask it of science . . . then you must ask the same of God theory. After all . . . he's no scientist . . . He already knows everything. We must at least apply the same standards to what we choose to believe and choose to reject.
Why should we love The God? We don't know what The God looks like. Isn't that telling? Oh, why? Because if we learn to love God we will love our neighbor better. Please don't argue that, it's way too obvious that it is true, just because it is. It is my opinion that some posters are not being so honest. Or helpful either.
It reminds me of something I want to share with you all. On another forum there were Jehovah's Witnesses. I think they were. They sounded like they were and they were consistent, as we know they all are. The faithful ones, anyway. That certain web thread had a button that could be used for agreeing that the post was indeed "helpful". There were two camps. There were three camps, but I only noticed two. One was the Jehovah's Witnesses and the other one was non-jehovah's witnesses that were, I believe, passionate about causing (I am going to call it) "spiritual seeing" in the JWs. As I was watching, and participating, a pattern was developing. It didn't say much for Human Race. Most of us here studied with or as Jehovah's Witnesses and know what they BELIEVE, and also know there is nothing new with them for many, many years. But the camp of the witnesses would press "helps" almost every time one of them posted. And on the other hand the camp of bleeding hearts would also press "helps", but in truth, not in competition (or so it seemed). Do I have a point? I think so. What is my point? So glad you asked! 2 Timothy 2:14, 2:24, where is says it is not good for the servant of God to quarrel. Debate is good, and this place is good for debate and let's all thank the Lord or circumstance that this place doesn't have a button. Amen.
What got me off track? Well, I know sizemik gets my respect for his intelligence and bona fide disputation (gotta love Google!), but it would have been gracious of sizemik to tell the other camp the truth about quakes. Savvy?
it would have been gracious of sizemik to tell the other camp the truth about quakes. . . . N.drew
N.drew . . . you'll need to help me out with this . . . have I been lying in your opinion? . . . or have I mislead somebody?
I have studied Earth Science . . . and lived through 7,600 earthquakes in the last 14 months . . . so I know a few things about them. What am I not telling?
LOL You told us,and we know!. But you did not tell the one or ones that use quakes as evidence against the god. By your post you tell the one who knows that quakes are quakes for good earth, but why did you not correct the ones who say quakes are bad from a bad non-god? Why? Do you not know the mighty power of correction?
N.drew . . . my post is here for all to see. It is not up to me to interpret or correct things for others . . . they are quite capable of drawing their own conclusions. I simply express what I know . . . and try to learn what I can.
Earthquakes to me are neither benevolent nor malevolent . . . they are simply how this planet works. If they are the deliberate product of a God-designer, then that is a question those who are convinced of his existence need to resolve for themselves.
That is one school of thought, dear EP (again, peace to you, dear one!)... and actually, it is the one that furthers my point. With the article, it appears as al-?ilahah. Let me ask you: when you pronounce that "word"... what do you HEAR? "Al il ah"... or "Al il hah". In Arabic/Aramaic, it means for some "there is no god but Allah." For others, it means "there is no god except the one [true] god." However, I will share with you what my Lord had shared with ME... and that is that the term came from "Al (there is no) il (el, or god)... [but] Jah." In turn THIS phrase came from the Hebrew "hal el a Jah"... or... "hallel u Jah".
Except that when you pronounce that translation, you are doing so in modern english from words that no one actually knows exactly how they were pronounced from two DISTANTLY related and different alphabets. Doesn't hold water to just try to sound it out close enough in modern english.
I would NOT lie to you about this, dear one. I speak neither Hebrew, Arabic, or Aramaic. My Lord, however, not only speaks all three... but also knows the evolution/transition of all three. From Hebrew TO Arabic and Aramaic (a form of Hebrew and Chaldean).
I don't think you are lying at all. You are just wrong and there is no shame in that. If your LORD really can speak all three of those languages, why is he relying on sounding it out in modern english?
