• 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:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Just Believe

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
Who did Jesus instruct to worship at John 4:23-24 but his God
Right, No man has seen the Father, but people saw His Son.
No one can see God at any time according to John 1:18.
People saw Jesus. People saw Jesus and lived - 1 John 4:12; Exodus 33:20.
Because people saw Jesus and lived thus proves Jesus is Not the Father.
Gabriel told Mary her Son would be Son of the Most High, Not God the Son.
You are missing that Jesus accepted worship. Jesus said he and the father were one.

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”

Isaiah 9:6
For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

1 Corinthians 8:6
Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.

John 1:3
All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.

John 20:28
Thomas answered him, “My Lord and my God!”

John 10:30-33
I and the Father are one.” The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. Jesus answered them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?” The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.”

Colossians 1:15-17
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

John 14:9
Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?
 

firedragon

Veteran Member
I remember I posted that definition fairly frequently. See this post. I presented the evidence. What exactly are you looking for, proof or evidence?

I think I asked because you said evidence.

Okay. So provide proof that Jesus performed miracles. If you are gonna quote a book, that's not proof historically a miracle happened. Proofs dont work that way, neither does evidence. But lets see what "proofs" you have since you now brought that up.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Sort of. "Truth" and "error" are both manifestations of how the human brain cognates information. How relevant this is to the actual information is unknown. So there is 'truth' from our cognitive (relative) perspective, and there is 'what is' (absolute truth). We can grasp the former, but not the latter. We just don't have the capacity. So we have to live on the level of functionality, because we cannot live on the level of Truth. Understanding this, though, we can at least be aware of that level of truth, even if we can't comprehend it. And we can live somewhat more effectively and authentically as a result.

(This is a clumsy 'western' attempt at explaining a taoist view of the 'way of man'.)
So you believe if you drop a wrecking ball on your foot, the absolute truth is not what you will witness?
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
If everything needs a designer, who designed the designer?
And who designed the designer designer? And who designed the designer designer designer? And who ...
I don't recall my saying that everything needs a designer. Can you point out where I said that?
Why do you imagine that the beginning needs to have been designed?

[ So God is just an alien entity who happens to be a superscientist? As I said, I've never seen that claim made loud and proud by believers before.
This reminds me of when a little child sits and watches his favorite cartoon, and thinks that there are little people living in shoes. He links everything he watches with reality.
It seems you are trying to link the limited knowledge human have, with a life form that's far greater than anything we know of.
No. The Bible does not describe God as "just an alien entity who happens to be a superscientist".
It describes him as the living God - that is, a powerful spirit being. Not a fleshly being.

And that answer defines the problem ─ if God is a superscientist then our task now includes setting out to learn everything God knows and we don't ─ to outGod God, not to live in thrall to an alien being.
[ It's actually a reflection of Paul's gnostic views, God as infinitely pure and infinitely remote, so that the demiurge, Jesus, as creator or the material world, must mediate between man and God.
[ Science, as I said, is not justified because it possesses absolute truths, since there are none. It's justified because reasoned skeptical enquiry, of which it's a subset, works in practice better than any presently-known alternatives.
Since you started with a wrong concept, or premise, then you will most certainly end with a wrong conclusion.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
Neither was I there nor where you there, hence we both should consider all the evidence, and not just take fantastical non-repeatable claims at their word.
Your claims sound similar albeit from a non-trinitarian perspective to Peter J Williams who debates Bart Ehrman here:
I assume you wrote this, so I am going to assume you thought about it, as you wrote it.
we both should consider all the evidence, and not just take fantastical non-repeatable claims at their word.
That's why I don't take your claims seriously. I have considered all the evidence, and came to the conclusion that the Bible can be trusted. It is reliable.
You however, seem stuck on 'you can't take their word', as if people just read and say, "Yes."
I mentioned specific things included in "all the evidence".
What do you have to say about it... anything at all?

What do you have to say for example of people claiming that the writers made up things, and then they find that their claim is proven false, when the event, and character turns up in history?
Isn't that evidence the writers were truthful and their word reliable?
What evidence have you examined to support your claims?

You may be interested in the Williams vs Ehrman debate because Ehrman does not even have a go on miracles which I think he potentially could have had he wanted to.
No. Not interested.

For a shorter look at the problem with contemporary claims of miracles you might watch this video examining and deconstructing a modern miracle and think about why we can't just take stories of miracles at their word if you forward to 3:25;
Not interested in these so-called expert opinions, you rather put your trust in.
If you have a point you think is valid, you may go ahead and make it.

Its not about taking sides, you are trying to say something is true or not true based on it's source. Jesus had authority over a small number of men, He only had something like 11 fulltime disciples prior to the alleged resurrection, He was hardly a scriptural authority.
'trying to say something is true or not true based on it's source'?
No that is far from the truth. Nowhere in this thread do you see that.
I am saying one must have evidence for believing something. So examine all the evidence. What does it show.
You and a few others, clearly have misunderstood what was said. Maybe because of being so focused on trying to argue against something you have in your mind, that's not even there.

If that is the case there is nothing that God did which is not repeatable if it is just obeying the laws of nature. Which means that man can potentially do anything God can do. So man could potentially create life? Then why aren't there JW scientists studying how life was formed?

In my opinion.
God did say there is nothing that man may have in mind to do, that would be unattainable for them.
Man cannot create though, because he has to start with what is already created.
However, he can make things that once was considered impossible. He just needs the materials, and the know-how.
The problem with creating life however, is that in order to live, man needs spirit, or life force. Jehovah is the source of that.
It has to be animating the cells in order for man to use it.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
I think I asked because you said evidence.

Okay. So provide proof that Jesus performed miracles. If you are gonna quote a book, that's not proof historically a miracle happened. Proofs dont work that way, neither does evidence. But lets see what "proofs" you have since you now brought that up.
You'll want to create a new thread if you are interested in debating proofs of anything.
 

danieldemol

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I assume you wrote this, so I am going to assume you thought about it, as you wrote it.
we both should consider all the evidence, and not just take fantastical non-repeatable claims at their word.
That's why I don't take your claims seriously. I have considered all the evidence, and came to the conclusion that the Bible can be trusted. It is reliable.
You however, seem stuck on 'you can't take their word', as if people just read and say, "Yes."
That's precisely what it appeared you are doing in taking the word of the scriptures and non-scriptural sources who agree with them.
They wrote something, then you read it and say "yes", then when clips are presented to you discussing some of the problems with doing that from scholarly sources your answer is;
No. Not interested

I mentioned specific things included in "all the evidence".
I disagree, you made a vague reference to,
"those who claim to have actually witnesses these events first hand, and whose story checks out by secondary sources?" But did not even give one example of what you are talking about.

What do you have to say for example of people claiming that the writers made up things, and then they find that their claim is proven false, when the event, and character turns up in history?
Well historians aren't infallible, but they seem to be more reliable than the Bible.
I must stress though that again you are not being very specific here. Could you name one example of where a miraculous event was proven to have happened?

Isn't that evidence the writers were truthful and their word reliable?
It is evidence that the writers were truthful with respect to the claims that were proven correct. It is unreasonable to extrapolate from the correct claims that the problematic claims must also be true.

What evidence have you examined to support your claims?
Some of it was presented in the clips posted, here was your answer to them;
No. Not interested
Here you go again;
Not interested in these so-called expert opinions, you rather put your trust in.

If you have a point you think is valid, you may go ahead and make it.
Each and every point made by the experts was valid.
I'm away from my computer now so I'll re-watch the clips to distill some of the finer points later, but some of the finer points made by Ehrman going off the top of my head are,
-The earliest gospel claims to be from what the writer has heard attesting that it was based in oral tradition.
-Later gospels were clearly copied from earlier sources excluding Paul who never knew Jesus during His lifetime.
-The scriptures contain contradiction such as Judas hanging himself vs dying by falling headlong in a field and his guts bursting open.

The second clip proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Christian ministers are prepared to lie about miracles to promote religion, and since the claims of miracles are non-repeatable we have no reason to assume that earlier miracle claims were anything other than lies told to sell religion.

'trying to say something is true or not true based on it's source'?
No that is far from the truth. Nowhere in this thread do you see that.
Then attacking the source of the argument as a stiff necked people instead of addressing the argument is irrelevant.

I am saying one must have evidence for believing something. So examine all the evidence. What does it show.
It shows that Christianity spread through strings attached charity, not through a gradual process of winning over well off OT aware people through scriptural arguments - hence the obvious conclusion that Jesus was not a "scriptural authority".

God did say there is nothing that man may have in mind to do, that would be unattainable for them.
If you truly believed that then since man (and women) have it in mind to create life there should be no reason to believe it is unattainable for them given the correct natural conditions.

Man cannot create though, because he has to start with what is already created.
However, he can make things that once was considered impossible. He just needs the materials, and the know-how.
Ah semantics, to make something is an act of creation.

The problem with creating life however, is that in order to live, man needs... life force. Jehovah is the source of that.
It has to be animating the cells in order for man to use it.
So far no "life force" has been detected, just a complex interaction of chemicals.

And humans have proven themselves pretty capable of dictating to God when to provide that "life force" if any. It is unusual that man decides when God is to provide that life force by having sex or by cloning for example. What makes you think that if man found whatever simple chemical conditions lead to the first self replicating molecules that God would be any less happy to provide "life force" (if any) to a recreation of those primitive chemical conditions than God would if man were to simply clone or reproduce?

In my opinion.
 

nPeace

Veteran Member
That's precisely what it appeared you are doing in taking the word of the scriptures and non-scriptural sources who agree with them.
They wrote something, then you read it and say "yes", then when clips are presented to you discussing some of the problems with doing that from scholarly sources your answer is;


I disagree, you made a vague reference to,
"those who claim to have actually witnesses these events first hand, and whose story checks out by secondary sources?" But did not even give one example of what you are talking about.


Well historians aren't infallible, but they seem to be more reliable than the Bible.
I must stress though that again you are not being very specific here. Could you name one example of where a miraculous event was proven to have happened?
We see many miracles today, so please explain what miracle you would like proof of, and what would prove it.
Also, if a miracle takes place 2000, 4000, 6000, years ago, the persons that would provide the proof are those who did the miracle, and those who witnessed it.
Asking someone who lived centuries after the event to provide proof is similar to asking someone to prove that they ate lettuce last year this same time, which of course as you know, is ridiculous.
Also, if I have a friend that told me their most darkest secret, and you asked me to prove it, that too would be ridiculous, since your lack of knowledge, has nothing to do with the fact that the person chose to tell me.
Likewise, no Christian has to prove what they know. The ones who don't know won't believe even if there was no reason to disbelieve.

What the followers of Christ wrote, is not expected to be believed by all. Just those to whom that is granted.
I hope you see where that leaves your demands. They demanded a sign from Jesus too. Did he give them? No. Why? The scriptures say, they were faithless.

It is evidence that the writers were truthful with respect to the claims that were proven correct. It is unreasonable to extrapolate from the correct claims that the problematic claims must also be true.
So you extrapolating that these are fanciful claims is based on what?
The writers were not only honest. They wrote facts that were later proven to be true, to the critics dismay.

Some of it was presented in the clips posted, here was your answer to them;

Here you go again;

Each and every point made by the experts was valid.
I'm away from my computer now so I'll re-watch the clips to distill some of the finer points later, but some of the finer points made by Ehrman going off the top of my head are,
-The earliest gospel claims to be from what the writer has heard attesting that it was based in oral tradition.
-Later gospels were clearly copied from earlier sources excluding Paul who never knew Jesus during His lifetime.
-The scriptures contain contradiction such as Judas hanging himself vs dying by falling headlong in a field and his guts bursting open.
I have heard the "experts" opinions. What of them? Others have opinions that differ to theirs, and even those that agree, can't agree. So what of it? :shrug:

The second clip proves beyond all reasonable doubt that Christian ministers are prepared to lie about miracles to promote religion, and since the claims of miracles are non-repeatable we have no reason to assume that earlier miracle claims were anything other than lies told to sell religion.
"Christian" ministers lie all the time. So what's new? What does that have to do with the Bible?

Then attacking the source of the argument as a stiff necked people instead of addressing the argument is irrelevant.
Huh? Not sure what this means.

It shows that Christianity spread through strings attached charity, not through a gradual process of winning over well off OT aware people through scriptural arguments - hence the obvious conclusion that Jesus was not a "scriptural authority".
Evidence please. The evidence shows something else.
Do you see how it goes with evidence? Peple interpret it differently, and we cannot rule out bias in some cases. So where does that leave us, on this argument? Going anywhere? :shrug:

If you truly believed that then since man (and women) have it in mind to create life there should be no reason to believe it is unattainable for them given the correct natural conditions.
Man can do anything his capabilities allow. It doesn't mean that man can breath underwater, or in outer space, etc. It just means he is capable of anything in his power to accomplish.

Ah semantics, to make something is an act of creation.
I think words and their meaning are important.
Some people don't care, and they use words loosely, and carelessly... for whatever reason. Often, when they don't want to accept truth, or they feel their pride is somhow the most important thing.

Use of the verb “make” tells us that the production processes and the vehicle or clothing designs already existed. The verb “create” usually suggests newness or innovation. Generally, it means to produce something new or to bring something into existence.
Make or Create? - VOA Learning English

So far no "life force" has been detected, just a complex interaction of chemicals.
I'll check that out later, since I don't have much confidence in anything you say.
Experience here, tells me people say things off the top of their head, just because they can say it.
*** ad p. 1062 Life ***
The life of man and animals is dependent, first of all, on the life force started off initially in the first pair, and secondarily on breath to sustain that life force. Biological science testifies to this fact. This is evident in their separation of the process of death into two classifications: Somatic or systemic death (sometimes called clinical death), which is the absolute cessation of the functions of the brain, the circulatory and the respiratory organs (the body as an organized unit is dead); and death of the tissues (sometimes termed biological death), the entire disappearance of the vital actions of the ultimate structural constituents of the body. So even though the person is dead beyond all human help of resuscitation (somatic death), the life force still lingers in the cells of the body’s tissues until eventually every cell dies completely (death of the tissues).

I'll get back to you on that later.

And humans have proven themselves pretty capable of dictating to God when to provide that "life force" if any. It is unusual that man decides when God is to provide that life force by having sex or by cloning for example. What makes you think that if man found whatever simple chemical conditions lead to the first self replicating molecules that God would be any less happy to provide "life force" (if any) to a recreation of those primitive chemical conditions than God would if man were to simply clone or reproduce?

In my opinion.
"first self replicating"? You mean that myth you believe in.
Interesting that you so readily believe those stories, while dismissing a book that gives more evidence of its truthfulness.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
History of the Bible, or history of the Bible writers who where all Asians.
All Bible history comes with two egg rolls.

The current degraded ideas with its effect on people is a reason why there is an increase in immorality among more young or younger people.
Young kids all through history in every new generation are worse trouble makers than the adults ever were.

I find the Bible foretold that long before Muslim, Hindu and 'so-called Christian' religions at 2 Timothy 3:1-3,13.
Hinduism is older than the Bible. And it was based in the Indus Valley of India, which is in Asia.

Please note that those described conditions prevail today despite today's continuous learning efforts.
So, the Bible helps people understand truth that most people never learn or want to learn.
What truth? Facts about nature? Music theory? Food preparation? Sports psychology? What?

I find the Bible discusses common problems that are of concern to all peoples today.
The Old Testament has a list of rules, many of which are considered criminal today.

To me it is non-believers that can't afford the risk of knowing the truth.
By truth you mean your personal version of religious dogma, which can't be shown to be true or valid through reason? Is so, then perhaps you are heavily biased because you have no freedom to think otherwise.
 

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I don't recall my saying that everything needs a designer. Can you point out where I said that?
In #180, your words were ─

"There is evidence of design in the universe. Where there is design, there is a designer."​
It seems you are trying to link the limited knowledge human have, with a life form that's far greater than anything we know of.
Towit, an imaginary one.
No. The Bible does not describe God as "just an alien entity who happens to be a superscientist".
I didn't say the bible said that. I pointed out that "god as superscientist" was implicit in your statement,

"A miracle [...] is a work requiring greater power or knowledge than he has. But from the viewpoint of the one who is the source of such power it is not a miracle. He understands it and has the ability to do it.​
Since you started with a wrong concept, or premise, then you will most certainly end with a wrong conclusion.
The concepts, right or wrong, are yours, as I've pointed out above (for the second time).
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
I am pointing out that what we refer to as "a dog" is a phenomenological conceptualization. It is an idea. That's what human cognition is: sensual impulses becoming ideas.
OK, let's say you are walking down a street minding your own business and suddenly a large dog that is foaming at the mouth attacks you violently, and it tears your right calf to shreds. The pain is brutal.

Now do you just lay there stoically and look at this dog as an idea or concept as it tears your leg apart?

Or do you quickly react to this reality occurring and you manage to beat the dog off and you call for an ambulance that comes and takes you to an ER. you have serious wounds that requires surgery. And given the dog was foaming at the mouth it may have had rabies, and you will need treatment for that.

At any time do you think all this is just an idea? Or are you seriously concerned with the objective reality that your body was attacked by something that actually exists in objective reality?

Our senses don't "know" anything.
I never said they do. Apparently even your brain doesn't know there's a dog there about to attack you since according to you it's just an idea in your head.

They simply convert external phenomena into various kinds of internal impulses. The brain then compares and contrasts those impulses with past experiential impulse information to determine what they represent, and how to respond. We don't see "a dog". We see light and color patterns that we then determine to be "a dog".
All this happens in milliseconds.

The brain has no access to what you call "objective reality". It is trapped behind the 'firewall' of very limited human sensory and cognitive mechanics. The truth is 'what is', and yet we humans have no direct access to 'what is'. So we have no direct access to truth. We can only presume and extrapolate 'what is' from the limited impulses it generates in our bodies via the limited, binary intellectual process of our thinking brains. This "objective reality" that you think you can know is just another idea (conceptualization) in your mind. Same as all the others.
So when the objective reality of a rabid dog tearing your leg apart your brain has no direct access to this?


I am an agnostic theist. I neither believe nor disbelieve in the existence of gods because I do not possess the capacity necessary to make such a determination. But I can choose to hope and trust in the idea of an extant 'God' even though I can't know it to be so. And I can base that choice on the value of the results of having made such a decision, rather than on prior evidence that I don't have. .
Good for you for acknowledging the lack of evidence for a God. I'm sure the desire to believe is strong.

Atheists "believe in" an objective reality that they have no direct access to or knowledge of (they just think they do, because they "truly believe" what they believe in).
Do you think a person attacked by a rabid dog is wrong for acknowledging the objective reality of being attacked and seriously injured by a dog?

Yet they object to theists believing in a God that they have no direct access to or knowledge of (though they often think they do because they "truly believe" what they believe in).
Because the word "god" does not correspond to anything known to exist. It is truly an idea, unlike the actual dog that has ripped your leg apart.

I neither believe nor disbelieve, BECAUSE I have no direct access or knowledge of 'what is' (truth). All I can do is speculate, and then choose to either trust in my speculations, or not to.
Why would you expect gods to be truth or anything a material person would be able to sense when gods are described as immaterial? We use our senses, instruments, and intellect to understand what is demonstrably true about the world.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
Okay. So provide proof that Jesus performed miracles. If you are gonna quote a book, that's not proof historically a miracle happened. Proofs don't work that way, neither does evidence. But lets see what "proofs" you have since you now brought that up.
What about Jibreel vising Mohammad? Or Mohammad riding Buraq to heaven? I do not think Abrahamic religions should talk about truth.
I thought this thread was about believing with evidence, not "Just believe".
The irony.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
There are evolutionary niches, naturally all animals don't share the same niches, for example you can't run as fast as a cheetah or lift as much as an elephant can, so too there are some things that most humans can do such as extrapolate future events which other animals can't do.

And if being capable of composing music for orchestras means you are capable of living forever (which is pretty much a non-sequitur) then it is pretty clear that most humans can't compose orchestra and thus following that line of reasoning most humans are not fit for eternal life just like other animals that can't compose orchestra if that's your criteria for eternity.

In my opinion.
As far as niches go, it seems more than jumping the gun on logic to say that human brains just happened (by evolutionary magic) to fear death early on in growth years--bunny rabbits do not demonstrate that capacity. When they run away from being caught, it is in the realm of instinct, or self-preservation to use a coined expression. But humans -- well, if anything convinces me that we are different, very different (and not in an evolutionary sense) from gorillas, and bunny rabbits (and cockroach brains, if they have any), is our reflection, right or wrong, about death. And I believe the Bible has the right take on this. Revelation 21:1-5 promises that God will do away with death and sorrow.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
OK, let's say you are walking down a street minding your own business and suddenly a large dog that is foaming at the mouth attacks you violently, and it tears your right calf to shreds. The pain is brutal.

Now do you just lay there stoically and look at this dog as an idea or concept as it tears your leg apart?

Or do you quickly react to this reality occurring and you manage to beat the dog off and you call for an ambulance that comes and takes you to an ER. you have serious wounds that requires surgery. And given the dog was foaming at the mouth it may have had rabies, and you will need treatment for that.

At any time do you think all this is just an idea? Or are you seriously concerned with the objective reality that your body was attacked by something that actually exists in objective reality?


I never said they do. Apparently even your brain doesn't know there's a dog there about to attack you since according to you it's just an idea in your head.


All this happens in milliseconds.


So when the objective reality of a rabid dog tearing your leg apart your brain has no direct access to this?



Good for you for acknowledging the lack of evidence for a God. I'm sure the desire to believe is strong.


Do you think a person attacked by a rabid dog is wrong for acknowledging the objective reality of being attacked and seriously injured by a dog?


Because the word "god" does not correspond to anything known to exist. It is truly an idea, unlike the actual dog that has ripped your leg apart.


Why would you expect gods to be truth or anything a material person would be able to sense when gods are described as immaterial? We use our senses, instruments, and intellect to understand what is demonstrably true about the world.
Here's the situation: as far as I know, chimpanzees and bonobos do not convey any reflection about God or death. Only humans do.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Well then we humans have something to envy about chimpanzees and bonobos.
The Bible says the last thing to be done away with is death for humans. If it were not so, we wouldn't be thinking about it. In actuality, it's called the last enemy.
Paul wrote at 1 Corinthians 15:26,: "And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing."
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
The Bible says the last thing to be done away with is death for humans. If it were not so, we wouldn't be thinking about it. In actuality, it's called the last enemy.
Paul wrote at 1 Corinthians 15:26,: "And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing."
It's not factual, so why is it relevant?
 
Top