Proof Of God/proof Of Jesus

[Mattnxtc 0]

I am not trying to change the Bible. I am offering my interpretation, to stand up against yours. Your interpretation is not the foundation, not the basis, against which all other interpretations are judged. Do you claim to be the judge of what is God's will, as laid down in the Bible? I do not. I offer my view on what I read. A mortal and flawed view, yes. I do not attempt to force this view on anyone, I simply voice this view.

And I am askin you to provide any sort of biblical backing for your beliefs. If you cant then thats a problem. If there is no biblical backing for your beliefs how can anybody believe you?

These two quotes are about incest. They are about Paul's admonition to the Corinthians regarding members of their group practicing incest. This is hardly a template for the resolution of all intrafaith disagreements regarding interpretations of the Bible.Are you really arguing that disagreements regarding interpretations of the Bible should be based on passages regarding condemnation of incest?

Actually those verses apply to this:1 Corinthians 5:11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. So no your interpretation is not correct. If someone is sinful within the church we arent supposed to associate with them as long as they continue to live in this sin. Sorry but it is crystal clear.

Belief in God is not a private club and it doesn't require a card or a waiting list. Nor does belief in Jesus. Christianity IS inclusive. Jesus was inclusive. Jesus overthrew the established order of elitists in the temple and walked in public with whores and beggars and the diseased. Whether 2000 years of man bungling it up muddied the original message is not particularly important at this point in time. His message is one of forgiveness and inclusiveness, not one of superiority and exclusivity.

Please provide a verse where Jesus said its alright to not believe in Him but that its ok to believe in something else. In fact explain this:Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before Me. so we should allow others who believe in a DIFFERENT GOD into heaven? Yeah that is biblical. Yes Christianity is inclusive. We dont dismiss people and not allow people in. But that does not mean if you are not a believe that you are saved. You are tryin to mix two things that dont work

[FullMontyM1 0]

Actually those verses apply to this:1 Corinthians 5:11 But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler--not even to eat with such a one. So no your interpretation is not correct. If someone is sinful within the church we arent supposed to associate with them as long as they continue to live in this sin. Sorry but it is crystal clear.

You are wrong. Those verses are regarding an incestuous member of the Cornthians' congregation (or possibly multiple incestuous members). Read the whole passage, then come back.

Please provide a verse where Jesus said its alright to not believe in Him but that its ok to believe in something else.

I do not need to provide such a verse, because this is not what I am claiming. You are either a) accidentally, or b ) intentionally misreading my posts.Jesus says to believe in Him. If someone does not believe in Jesus, then they fall into one of two categories:1) People who have been given an opportunity to believe in Him and chose not to; or2) People who have -not- been given an opportunity to believe in Him.The New Testament has almost nothing, as far as I can tell, to say about people in the second category. People in the first category are in trouble for sure. But none of the verses you've provided say that Jesus or the Father can't save them anyways. Which, of course, they can, if that is God's will.

In fact explain this:Exodus 20:3 "You shall have no other gods before Me.

Well that's Old Testament, and that's a part of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, so those three groups are safe anyways. Hinduism is, at it's core, monotheistic, so they're good with Moses too. That leaves Buddhism, which is a curious thing. But I don't think God is marching all the Buddhists off to Hell anyways.Do I have a Bible verse? No. Do you have a Bible verse that says Buddhists are going to Hell? Nope. So it's just something we'll figure out when we're both taking the dirt nap.

so we should allow others who believe in a DIFFERENT GOD into heaven?

I'm not in the business of allowing people to go to Heaven, just trying to get there myself. Watch out for that beam in your eye. God is in the business of allowing people to go to Heaven. How he sorts that all out, only God knows.

Yeah that is biblical. Yes Christianity is inclusive. We dont dismiss people and not allow people in. But that does not mean if you are not a believe that you are saved. You are tryin to mix two things that dont work

I just feel like you want to force everyone to believe the way you do, so that you don't feel like your beliefs are invalidated.If you are worried about this, please, let me help reassure you.Nothing that I am saying invalidates anything you believe.Beliefs are absolute.The slippery part is...That two people can believe completely different things about the exact same thing, and they can both be right.That's a kick in the pants. And it's a helluva good reason to believe in God ;)We can continue this tomorrow.Good night and good luck.Monty

[Canada 0]

no serious historian in this field will deny that Jesus didnt live. The fact on whether he was God or not is what the question. This is both religious and secular that will agree with it. It is usually the uninformed layperson that will try to say there is no evidence Jesus lived

Absolute bollocks.When will you morons stop talking for others. Anyone that states a debated viewpoint and then completes it with 'All experts on the subject agree' obviously hasn't grow intellectually since they were 7. "T-rex could easily destroy a velocitor raptor and everbody knows it"See how ridiculously childish you sound?To suggest no serious historian will deny Jesus existed is a sweeping statement that in essence is full-of-****.There are many that will argue that he did. Most of these are likely to be Christian of course, however there are bound to be some that aren't.There are also a large number that argue there is no evidence that he did. The debate is a large one and wouldn't be so if there were 'no serious historians' on either side.Of course to your mind you can only be a 'serious' historian if you attend church on SundaysI personally agree with with the 'no evidence' side and I feel that if you took the Christian bias out of the debate ie there was no motive to show he existed it would wrap up pretty quickly. (Notice how I've expressed this as an opinion, not a sweeping statement filled with tripe. It's the trademark of a free-thinker. Try it sometime, it doesn't hurt much)I remember a thread where you got into an argument with Smash on this and you got owned like a biatch, yet you jump in here with your childish sweeping statements again. Obvioulsy the bruising healed.Edit: Here is the thread for reference.Man, you got slapped about. The best bit is you couldn't see how you being toyed with

[copernicus 0]

I remember a thread where you got into an argument with Smash on this and you got owned like a biatch, yet you jump in here with your childish sweeping statements again. Obvioulsy the bruising healed.Edit: Here is the thread for reference.Man, you got slapped about. The best bit is you couldn't see how you being toyed with

And then he comes back over a year later to get smacked around again. That time would have been better spent with a book on logic instead of rereading the number one book on the all-time best seller list...Fiction section.

[crowTrobot 2]

It is used throughout Europe, Australia, South America and parts of Asia that I know of... I can only assume that parts of Africa this occurs as well... but even without Africa I would say that's pretty much 'all over the world'. Again, say what you will, but it's pretty interesting. And if you were Jesus, maybe a little ironic?

where it is used it is adapted as part of english speaking/christian culture - that's what i said.

I'm not talking about the existance of God here, but instead, the fact that the Bible as a historical document can not be disproven.

if you choose to interpret it in a non-literal way to avoid historical disproof obviously it can't be disproved historically duh. however as far as a literal historical document it has been disproved many times over.

About the existance of God though... why do you think that extremely intelligent people like Antony Flew have changed their minds? Did you read the interview? you should.

i might, except if it's just a philosphical rehash of lewis i probably will lose interest pretty fast. you should read everything written by dawkins, gould etc. there are hundreds of millions of extremely intelligent people who don't believe in the christian god. are you saying flew is the smartest person in the world?

[copernicus 0]

where it is used it is adapted as part of english speaking/christian culture - that's what i said. if you choose to interpret it in a non-literal way to avoid historical disproof obviously it can't be disproved historically duh. however as far as a literal historical document it has been disproved many times over.i might, except if it's just a philosphical rehash of lewis i probably will lose interest pretty fast. you should read everything written by dawkins, gould etc. there are hundreds of millions of extremely intelligent people who don't believe in the christian god. are you saying flew is the smartest person in the world?

Dont bother with the Flew article unless you have time to kill. He never even directly admits to being a theist, at most casting himself a deist (although allowing the interviewer to call him a theist on occasion). He then says very clearly that his beliefs cant even be found in the interview, that you have to buy his next book.I also find it interesting when theists grab onto a handful of "conversions" of a scientist to their religion but ignore the 100,000s of thousands who critically examine the issue and don't convert and also ignore those that start out with religious beliefs who become agnostic or atheist.If it were an election, no recount would be needed, the direction of any changes isnt even close.

[brvheart 1,752]

I do not attempt to force this view on anyone, I simply voice this view.

Actually this is exactly what you do... obviously. It's called expressing your opinion. This is a ridiculous statement trying to make you seem above it or better than everyone, when in fact, you are doing the exact same thing you say that you hate.

Dont bother with the Flew article unless you have time to kill. He never even directly admits to being a theist, at most casting himself a deist (although allowing the interviewer to call him a theist on occasion). He then says very clearly that his beliefs cant even be found in the interview, that you have to buy his next book.

Why are you encouraging people to be close minded? Weird.

I also find it interesting when theists grab onto a handful of "conversions" of a scientist to their religion but ignore the 100,000s of thousands who critically examine the issue and don't convert and also ignore those that start out with religious beliefs who become agnostic or atheist.If it were an election, no recount would be needed, the direction of any changes isnt even close.

I totally agree with you on this point, which makes it even more amazing that any very famous intellectuals would ever switch.. it makes absolutely no logical sense. They are respected in their fields and are risking everything to... "follow the evidence where it leads.." as Flew said.Flew is especially amazing, in that, in his book he basically says that evolution is ridiculous and everyone knows it, but can't let it go. He also says that he didn't WANT to change to a Theist but that he was forced to, because the evidence is too overwhelming to ignore. You all should definately buy a copy. Mind you, Flew doesn't believe that Jesus is God, so we are 100% in opposite camps... but his turn away from agnostism is very profound. He gains nothing, but the ire of the entire secualur world. He simply points out that atheists in general are so close minded to admitted that there was a single creator that they don't even try to follow the evidence. And of course, being a Christain, I find that ironic since it's the seculars that always try to accuse Christians of the same thing.Peace out.

[crowTrobot 2]

Flew is especially amazing, in that, in his book he basically says that evolution is ridiculous and everyone knows it, but can't let it go.

ok then, all i needed to know. no sense wasting time reading anything else he has to say.

[brvheart 1,752]

ok then, all i needed to know. no sense wasting time reading anything else he has to say.

Thanks for proving my point about being close minded and not investigating his reasoning. Debating is much easier when the opposition helps prove your point.

[mtdesmoines 3]

Direct evidence would be sufficient, where by direct evidence I mean his appearing to me and performing some action for which there is no plausible natural explanation.I cannot think of any indirect evidence that would be sufficient to make me believe, although a prepoderance of indirect evidence might move me from atheist to agnostic.Regarding Jesus if I first came to believe in god then his telling me that Jesus is his son would be sufficient. Alternatively, Jesus himself could provide that first direct evidence of his divinity.

How would you know a "plausible natural explanation" if you saw one?

[copernicus 0]

How would you know a "plausible natural explanation" if you saw one?

its called the scientific method

Thanks for proving my point about being close minded and not investigating his reasoning. Debating is much easier with the opposition helps prove your point.

Debating is much easier when you ignore the reasons why the opposition might hold an opinion such as Crows.Anyone who states that "everyone knows" that evolution is ridiculous is dismissable without further investigation. Evolution is good science and accepted by virtually all scientists in the field. To claim that they know its wrong and simply cling to it is what is ridiculous and impossible to substantiate, since that would be a feat of mind reading. If that is the quality of Flew's science, any further time spent on him would be wasted.That is not being closed minded, that is making a decision based on the clear evidence of his own words.

[Canada 0]

OT a bit, but brv I just wanted to put 2 quotes from this thread by you side by side

If it's close minded, then I, by necessity, must be close minded.

Why are you encouraging people to be close minded? Weird.

Now add in your signature

"My opinion is right, and if you disagree, you are a CLOSE MINDED piece of ****!!" --any liberal or any agnostic/atheist.

This all leads me to ask if you need help tying your shoes in the morning?

[brvheart 1,752]

OT a bit, but brv I just wanted to put 2 quotes from this thread by you side by sideNow add in your signatureThis all leads me to ask if you need help tying your shoes in the morning?

Actually I'm glad you put all that together... because it goes together perfectly. I am close minded. I know the Jesus was God, and that because I believe that, that I will be in heaven someday. It doesn't really matter to me what anyone on this board says, that knowledge will never leave me. My entire point to all 3 of those posts that you nicely put together for me is that while my opposition on this thread calls me close minded, implying that they are above being close minded, are in fact just as close minded as I am. You see the middle quotes sarcasm?

its called the scientific methodDebating is much easier when you ignore the reasons why the opposition might hold an opinion such as Crows.Anyone who states that "everyone knows" that evolution is ridiculous is dismissable without further investigation. Evolution is good science and accepted by virtually all scientists in the field. To claim that they know its wrong and simply cling to it is what is ridiculous and impossible to substantiate, since that would be a feat of mind reading. If that is the quality of Flew's science, any further time spent on him would be wasted.That is not being closed minded, that is making a decision based on the clear evidence of his own words.

This is a valid point, and one I'm sure Flew or anyone else would be mad at me for associating with them... so instead I will post what he said word for word, as soon as I can find it. As I'm sure that there are plenty of scientists that still believe that macro evolution is the reason for life.

[mtdesmoines 3]

Totally serious question:What type of "proof" would you require to believe in God?What type of "proof" would you require to believe that Jesus was "the Son of God" and was actually what the Gospels portrayed him to be?

Requiring "proof" about God reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of "faith." Until that chasm is bridged, either by one party accepting "faith" or the other rejecting the need for "proof," there really is no discussion that can occur.

[brvheart 1,752]

HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to methat the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

This isn't what I was trying to find, because this is from his interview not his book, but I'll post it, as soon as I find it.

[crowTrobot 2]

"that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design."

this is a matter of opinion. there are polls of trained objective biologists that show that most think the exact opposite. why are you placing so much emphasis on one man's opinion? what makes Flew special? he's not.

[brvheart 1,752]

this is a matter of opinion. there are polls of trained objective biologists that show that most think the exact opposite. why are you placing so much emphasis on one man's opinion? what makes Flew special? he's not.

url? I can't just trust what you say... I learned that from you. And Flew is only special because he's smarter than anyone on this board, and has studied these topics more than all of us combined.

[crowTrobot 2]

Flew is only special because he's smarter than anyone on this board, and has studied these topics more than all of us combined.

bull

url?

http://www.csicop.org/intelligentdesignwat...ontroversy.html

[crowTrobot 2]

I can't just trust what you say... I learned that from you.

yes - you shouldn't trust what any one person has to say. there is no "smartest" person in the world (you are implying Flew is). i realize you don't care because you will believe what you believe no matter what, so you selectively choose who you think is right. however that means nothing to anyone else who is objective about these issues.

[Mattnxtc 0]

yes - you shouldn't trust what any one person has to say. there is no "smartest" person in the world (you are implying Flew is). i realize you don't care because you will believe what you believe no matter what, so you selectively choose who you think is right. however that means nothing to anyone else who is objective about these issues.

im not so sure he implied he was the smartest guy in the world. Is he smarter than any of us...more than likely.

[crowTrobot 2]

im not so sure he implied he was the smartest guy in the world.

by saying that his conversion to theism is of major significance he certainly did.

Is he smarter than any of us...more than likely.

it depends on how you define smart. someone with a high IQ is capable of wallowing so deep in philosophy that they miss the big picture, which isn't smart. obviously he hasn't objectively studied the issues more than everyone else in this forum combined if he thinks "everyone knows evolutions doesn't work but won't let it go". that statement is clearly false, and shows an impractical pre-set agenda unrelated to level of intelligence.

[copernicus 0]

if he thinks "everyone knows evolutions doesn't work but won't let it go". that statement is clearly false, and shows an impractical pre-set agenda unrelated to level of intelligence.

We can't say whether that statement is true or false. Flew may have psychic abilities and know the true feelings and motivations of the vast majority of experts in the field who merely claim to believe in evolution.The possibiity that he might be trying to sell books or has found god out of fear as he ages and death looms nearer shouldnt even enter your mind.

[brvheart 1,752]

yes - you shouldn't trust what any one person has to say. there is no "smartest" person in the world (you are implying Flew is). i realize you don't care because you will believe what you believe no matter what, so you selectively choose who you think is right. however that means nothing to anyone else who is objective about these issues.

I'm implying Flew is the smartest person in the world because I said he was smarter than anyone on this board?!?!? Wow you guys think pretty highly of your intelligence.And I was looking for a url from a site that wasn't OBVIOUSLY biased. Although I don't know if one exists.

[gobears 0]

I'm implying Flew is the smartest person in the world because I said he was smarter than anyone on this board?!?!? Wow you guys think pretty highly of your intelligence.And I was looking for a url from a site that wasn't OBVIOUSLY biased. Although I don't know if one exists.

I perused the site - what makes you think that it is biased? He sent out letters to the dept heads in the science fields of a bunch of universities to get their opinions and posted them.

[crowTrobot 2]

I'm implying Flew is the smartest person in the world because I said he was smarter than anyone on this board?!?!?

no, you implied that when you stated that the fact of his conversion to theism by itself is significant information.