Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
I have no idea what that means.
I find you are far from alone in your ^ above ^ thinking.
I find the evidence is for Christ being the Son of God because that is really what the Bible teaches.
But only a fool thinks that's the end of the story, or all there is to theism. Mythology, artifice, idealism, these are all important means by which we humans understand and relate to the mystery of existence. And we ignore or belittle them at our peril.
The problem is that you can't so easily dismiss the ideal of an ultimate source, sustenance, and purpose for all that is, so you have to equate it with something trivial that you can more easily dismiss. I understand perfectly. Which is why I called it silly.
To a critical thinker it is meaningless. Because a critical thinker will know that a lack of evidence is meaningless unless there is a logical, reasonable expectation that evidence would be extant, and recognizable, and in this instance, neither is the case. So that lack of evidence is evidence on nothing at all.
Why are you demanding physical evidence of mythical, representation 'entities'? Don't you understand that these are only conceptual 'avatars'. My avatar is Popeye. Are you suggesting that since Popeye is a mythical representation that I don't exist? Or that since Santa Clause is a mythical representation of the spirit of Christmas that Christmas isn't "real"? Or that the spirit of Christmas doesn't exist and isn't real?
You can repeat that til the cows come home, and it will be just as illogical and untrue the last time you say it as it was the first time. Unless you have a logical, reasonable expectation of there being recognizable, verifiable evidence, the lack of it means nothing. And since as far as I know you have NEVER actually articulated what evidence you expect to exist, if God exists, I have to assume you have no reasonable expectation of it.
True, but then again, 'source, sustenance, and purpose' are often not visible even when the result, is. So the fact that you can't see it certainly does not indicate that it doesn't exist.
Identifying that there is a source does not answer much. We woud still want to know the nature of that source, and the duration of it's sustenance, and the purpose of it all (particularly of ourselves). It "wouldn't mean much" because you haven't resolved much of anything
Oh, that's nonsense. Nearly everything we "reason to be true" is based on our trusting in the accuracy of our perception and the process of our reasoning. We humans live by faith. We have no choice.
Except we're ALL colorblind to varying degrees. So your thinking that consensus somehow solves the puzzle of reality is false. And since the vast majority of humans are theists, even consensus rejects you presumptions.
Who or what is your spirit of truth?
The Bible teaches that Jesus was God incarnate. No one has seen the Father but they have seen the Son.
You are confusing the conceptual representations of God invented by men, with the reality of God's existence. Before you enter the theism/atheism debate, you need to clear up this confusion in your own mind. Otherwise all you're gong to do is argue endlessly and pointlessly about how the mythology IS mythology. And the people arguing back will be, and remain, just as confused as you are.
That is the claim of the Bible. That is not the evidence. Perhaps he did all of that, perhaps he did not. There is no difference between a Bible believer and the man on the cliff.I just can't believe it.
How does a person believe in something for which they have no evidence?
How can one just believe in a god, when they have absolutely no evidence?
I don't get it.
To me, that's like one standing on the edge of a mountain, without any glider, singing, "I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I dream about it every night and day. Spread my wings and fly away."
Then jumps.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. SPLAT
Is that not idiotic?
That's not faith either. It's stupidity, imo.
The Bible does not even support such an absurd idea.
If Jesus just wanted people to have faith without evidence, he would have simply walked around; looked people in the face; smiled, and said, "Hey. I'm the Messiah. Believe it."
However, Jesus performed great signs, and used the scriptures to teach with authority, giving people evidence - reason to believe, and exercise faith. Is that not so?
So can someone help me out here. How does a person believe in a god, without evidence? I know there are quite a number of those who call themselves Christians, who think this way. Blind faith, they call it.
Not simply no evidence, but no coherent concept of what is said to be believed in, no definition appropriate to an entity with objective existence.
If you believe Jesus performed magic ─ exercised supernatural powers ─ then you accept that magic is possible and that all the other claims of all the other magicians in history are equally valid. Asklepios in ancient Greece raising the dead, or statues of Ganesha drinking milk just a couple of decades back, the roll has many, many names on it.
Almost exclusively because they were indoctrinated into it, generally before they had developed sufficient judgement to question those doing the indoctrination.I just can't believe it.
How does a person believe in something for which they have no evidence?
The same way we can believe in Santa and the Tooth Fairy. Because those we are programmed to believe, when we are children, said so.How can one just believe in a god, when they have absolutely no evidence? I don't get it.
The really, really interesting thing is that -- in fact -- most people DO NOT BELIEVE to that extent.To me, that's like one standing on the edge of a mountain, without any glider, singing, "I believe I can fly. I believe I can touch the sky. I dream about it every night and day. Spread my wings and fly away."
Then jumps.
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. SPLAT
Is that not idiotic?
That's not faith either. It's stupidity, imo.
Well, and here's where we get to what you have simply decided to believe "without evidence." You accept -- on the word of the Bible alone, and in spite of the failure of any and all attempts to replicate what is claimed -- that those "great signs" actually happened. Nobody can do them now, can they? Oh, wait, there are claims made by the Baha'is and Mormons that they have. Oops. Why don't you accept those? Just out of curiosity.The Bible does not even support such an absurd idea.
If Jesus just wanted people to have faith without evidence, he would have simply walked around; looked people in the face; smiled, and said, "Hey. I'm the Messiah. Believe it.
However, Jesus performed great signs, and used the scriptures to teach with authority, giving people evidence - reason to believe, and exercise faith. Is that not so?
Sorry, I can't help you. I don't believe in a god without evidence -- it is you who does that. So? How do you do it?
Why would they be blessed? Let's note they are being told there is a Jesus that can't be seen, and they are told they will be blessed by believing it. What about the objective thinker who isn't convinced by just taking this person's word for it?
No, we believe in things we cannot verify. When your senses depend a phenomenon then it is confirmed as real and not something subject to judgment. Now you know the wind exists. That's why this is a bad analogy for some idea like jesus. People can believe in Jesus, and do so despite there being no real substantive evidence to justify that judgment. No Christian can claim to know Jesus exists because there is no practical and functional way to determine this Bible character exists.
They experience what their minds adopts, mimicking, and create. Nothing suggests anyone actually experiences a Jesus outside of what they imagine.
And where does God say Jesus is not the messiah now?
