Zone1 Before or After

[buttercup]

Trying to prove what a self proclaimed divine authority actually said doesn't need any other sources to verify it?

That's not what we're trying to do here!

It's not about trying to "prove" it, I was just asking you address and respond to the words, on their own, regardless of who said it.

Why is that so hard for you? You are making everything far more difficult than it is.

How about this. Since you clearly have a bizarre problem with the bible, let's do something different. How about if I say something similar, in my own words, and then you can address what I said, OK? That way we can skip all this wasted time talking about sources.

Here we go....

Creation itself testifies to the existence of God. Things like the DNA, the human mind, the amazing variety, beauty and complexity of creation....do not just put themselves together on their own by dumb luck. So, people look at nature, and intuitively understand that something higher than us exists.

Ok, now, instead of going on and on about the source, and wanting more than one source, can you simply address the point being made? I'm not saying you have to agree, or "prove it", simply address it!

Again only with religion would this be an argument.

And you are trying to prove the very existence of the god that said these things. So unless I stipulate that the god of the bible actually exists, and I don't, the statements need verification from another source.

No! Again, I wasn't trying to "prove" God by that one point. I was simply answering YOUR question about whether or not people can believe in God before being exposed to any religion.

I answered your question, and you have yet to even address that point, other than to deflect deflect deflect.

And all that says is you judge people by their actions and those actions are the window to their character.

Unlike you I do not believe a murderer can be a "good" person in the aggregate.
I do not think a serial fraudster can be a good person as long as he does one more good deed than the number of times he defrauded people

And a tree doesn't produce a "bad" fruit or a "good fruit" it jut does what it does.

People on the other hand CHOOSE their behaviors so the comparison there is lacking.

WHAT? What on earth are you talking about?? I never ever ever ever ever ever ever said, thought or implied that a murderer could be a good person.

I don't know how on earth you arrived at that absurd conclusion based on ANYTHING I said. I mean again, it's like you're living in another galaxy when it comes to communication and understanding here.

How about this. Instead of putting words in my mouth, which is not cool at all.... why don't you pinpoint specifically what I said that caused you to come up with that absurd takeaway? Maybe we can reverse engineer how you extrapolated that out of anything I said. Then we can go from there. OK?

 

[TNHarley]

If someone had never heard of any god or religion, and then read their books, or had their stories told to them? They would probably think the person was crazy, or the book was a fairy tale.
And if he read the OT without someones interpretation, he would probably think god was the monster of the story.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Oh my word! I never said, implied or thought ANYTHING even remotely close to that.

Where on earth do you get your replies from?? Seriously, I don't want to say you have poor reading comprehension, but it's like you're in another galaxy or something when it comes to communication, because this is not the first time you've done that, you continually come back with replies that show a complete lack of understanding of anything I'm saying.

What did I say that would cause you to think such an absurd thing?

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world

 

[Woodznutz]

My mother gave me a Christian themed coloring book. One picture was of Jesus with some small children and lambs. She said "That's Jesus, and he loves you." I was three and have been a believer ever since.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

If someone had never heard of any god or religion, and then read their books, or had their stories told to them? They would probably think the person was crazy, or the book was a fairy tale

Nope. Many have been converted after reading these books. I just read about a Jew who read the NT for the first time and immediately became a Christian.

He had a humble and teachable spirit. He is the one in 10,000 God is calling.

 

[TNHarley]

Nope. Many have been converted after reading these books. I just read about a Jew who read the NT for the first time and immediately became a Christian.

He had a humble and teachable spirit. He is the one in 10,000 God is calling.

So he was already religious. Which is the exact opposite of what I said.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

And if he read the OT without someones interpretation, he would probably think god was the monster of the story

I've always seen the SAME God in the old and new

 

[TNHarley]

I've always seen the SAME God in the old and new

God went through rehab. Thats why there is a NT.
Dude was a jealous, genocidal madman. And a liar.
He talks about forgiveness and then ruins humanity because adam and eve messed up one time

 

[Woodznutz]

God went through rehab. Thats why there is a NT.
Dude was a jealous, genocidal madman. And a liar.
He talks about forgiveness and then ruins humanity because adam and eve messed up one time

Adam and Eve were just following the script. God never intended for us to run around naked all our lives.

 

[The Irish Ram]

I have always wondered if people decide to believe that a god exists before or after they were exposed to any particular religion

Didn't they have to believe in God before there were churches, in order to build churches?

 

[Meriweather]

And if he read the OT without someones interpretation, he would probably think god was the monster of the story.

Unless he was able to read and understand the original Hebrew from an ancient culture's point of view. Then he would probably be thoughtful--if not in awe.

 

[TNHarley]

Unless he was able to read and understand the original Hebrew from an ancient culture's point of view. Then he would probably be thoughtful--if not in awe.

There is no way to justify killing children and their animals.

 

[Blues Man]

Why? If God is God, He wouldn't be God if he allowed us mortals to dictate the terms by which he must exist.

We can believe in being in love when we have never experienced it because so many have expressed it in various ways. But we cannot ever fully understand what it is until we have experienced it. And once we have experienced it, there is no way to adequately explain what it is like to another person. We simply don't have the words in our vocabulary that fully express it.

So it is with God. People accept that God exists because that is what they are taught. But I think they may always entertain doubts--doubts many will not admit--until they can know for sure.

Only when you experience God first hand, have a relationship with God, can you ever know with absolute certainty that He exists.

But he has by allowing people to make up different stories about him.

And that's just more circular reasoning.

In order to have proof a god exists you must first believe that god exists so you can have a personal relationship with it whatever the hell that means.

If any gods humans worship exist then the proof of that should not depend on what I believe.

I have always said that if any god actually revealed himself to the world then I would have to believe that god exists.

But we don't have that we have multiple generations of hearsay that a couple people talked to a god then we have a guy who shows up and says he is a god because he was born of a virgin even though that was never really confirmed to be true in any physical way.

And this guy never wrote anything down himself because he was most likely illiterate and I find it funny that an all knowing god walking the earth in a human skin didn't know how to write.

The whole thing makes no sense and religion is the only thing that we humans are not willing to analyze critically like we would the works of any other philosopher or scholar from the past. We just accept the thinking of a time where most people were uneducated, illiterate and unsophisticated.

 

[Meriweather]

There is no way to justify killing children and their animals.

Happens every day in modern times and it appears the majority find it quite justifiable.

 

[Woodznutz]

But he has by allowing people to make up different stories about him.

And that's just more circular reasoning.

In order to have proof a god exists you must first believe that god exists so you can have a personal relationship with it whatever the hell that means.

If any gods humans worship exist then the proof of that should not depend on what I believe.

I have always said that if any god actually revealed himself to the world then I would have to believe that god exists.

But we don't have that we have multiple generations of hearsay that a couple people talked to a god then we have a guy who shows up and says he is a god because he was born of a virgin even though that was never really confirmed to be true in any physical way.

And this guy never wrote anything down himself because he was most likely illiterate and I find it funny that an all knowing god walking the earth in a human skin didn't know how to write.

The whole thing makes no sense and religion is the only thing that we humans are not willing to analyze critically like we would the works of any other philosopher or scholar from the past. We just accept the thinking of a time where most people were uneducated, illiterate and unsophisticated.

God doesn't reveal himself to the brightest people. You know you are 'bright' when God hasn't revealed himself to you.

26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

 

[Blues Man]

Sigh. I don't want to keep repeating myself but it's a logical fallacy to attack the source.

Why is is so hard for you to judge those words on their own, regardless of the source?

You don't need another source, because with that particular verse we're not trying to prove something that happened in history, in which case another source would be relevant.

Those words are making a claim about how one can have knowledge of God. You can either agree or disagree. But you have been refusing to even look at those words and address them on their own. You just keep coming back with "the bible yada yada yada" or "other source yada yada"

Look in the world today the validity of source material is important.

We pull apart the works of scientists scholars and philosophers of the past by examining their sources because if the sources are found to be faulty then the conclusions drawn from them are faulty.

Why should I conclude from the bible alone that this particular god exists. The bible as we know it today was cobbled together by the Roman Catholic Church and people don't even know what the Council of Nicaea left out or even made up because the public is not allowed to see all the original documents.

If any other institution tried to publish any work of significance like that they would not be taken seriously by anyone in the modern world.

Only with religious texts is that type of examination given a pass.

 

[Foxfyre]

But he has by allowing people to make up different stories about him.

And that's just more circular reasoning.

In order to have proof a god exists you must first believe that god exists so you can have a personal relationship with it whatever the hell that means.

If any gods humans worship exist then the proof of that should not depend on what I believe.

I have always said that if any god actually revealed himself to the world then I would have to believe that god exists.

But we don't have that we have multiple generations of hearsay that a couple people talked to a god then we have a guy who shows up and says he is a god because he was born of a virgin even though that was never really confirmed to be true in any physical way.

And this guy never wrote anything down himself because he was most likely illiterate and I find it funny that an all knowing god walking the earth in a human skin didn't know how to write.

The whole thing makes no sense and religion is the only thing that we humans are not willing to analyze critically like we would the works of any other philosopher or scholar from the past. We just accept the thinking of a time where most people were uneducated, illiterate and unsophisticated.

Oh believe me I have analyzed it all critically in minute detail at times. And I have been damned for not agreeing with this or that theological belief. I do not criticize the beliefs of others--only their actions when those harm others--but neither do I deny what I myself believe.

You indicate it is annoying to you to hear of a personal relationship with God and that is not an uncommon reaction for those who are not believers. But you know what your relationship is with your parents or spouse or children or girl friend/boy friend or best friends. Would it annoy you if I suggested you had no such relationship? I would never presume to do so.

All I can tell you is I have a personal relationship with God and it is intensely important to me. You do not have to believe in such a relationship or believe in God now for you to have that. But if you invite Him to do so and can allow that to be on His terms and in His time, then you will know.

 

[TNHarley]

Happens every day in modern times and it appears the majority find it quite justifiable.

Pretty crappy thing to say. And to defend.
Hey everyone! Genocide of children is ok because there is messed up people on this planet!

 

[Woodznutz]

Look in the world today the validity of source material is important.

We pull apart the works of scientists scholars and philosophers of the past by examining their sources because if the sources are found to be faulty then the conclusions drawn from them are faulty.

Why should I conclude from the bible alone that this particular god exists. The bible as we know it today was cobbled together by the Roman Catholic Church and people don't even know what the Council of Nicaea left out or even made up because the public is not allowed to see all the original documents.

If any other institution tried to publish any work of significance like that they would not be taken seriously by anyone in the modern world.

Only with religious texts is that type of examination given a pass.

Perhaps God has his written word right the way he wants it.

 

[Meriweather]

Pretty crappy thing to say. And to defend.
Hey everyone! Genocide of children is ok because there is messed up people on this planet!

Pointing out the failings of our ancestors is pure hypocrisy when we are still doing the same. Think about it. Broad-brushing ancient times is about as accurate as broad-brushing modern times. I expected you to get that.