Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

[edwinissweet]

fine nobody answer my question

[unriggable]

Gd is perfect right? and god is everything right? so if god is everything that means he is sin aswell. sin is evil thus making god evil thus making him not perfect?

Why not. God is a shitty concept.

[luns101]

I believe he was an illusionist who used his powers of prestidigitation to convince people that he had the right idea (which he did).

What was his "right" idea that he had which you agree with?

[daddy1gringo]

fine nobody answer my question

It's just that this general concept has been hammered out at such length, in this thread and others, I'm afraid my best answer is to recommend that you do read the other 40 pages.

You can skim a lot of it. Not all of it is on that subject.

[daddy1gringo]

How would you define sexual impurity though? Would it be committing adultery or just having sex without being married?

To begin to answer that, I first have to deal with the common misconception that Christians, because they believe sex outside of marriage is wrong, think sex itself is bad. Here's an analogy.

I have one good suit. I certainly don't wear it while working on the car, or playing basketball, or hanging around the house. I don't even wear it when I'm working as a teacher or when I used to work as an optician. I have dress shirts, dress slacks and ties for that, but not my one good suit. I save that for weddings, funerals, job interviews (which can be like a wedding or a funeral) and maybe some other special occasions.

Now, do I think less of that suit because so much of the time I will not wear it? Heck no. I refuse to wear it on those other occasions because I think more highly of it than my other clothes, and want to keep it special for those special occasions for which it is intended.

God invented sex. It is because it is so good, and so special that it is only meant for within the context of a complete union in marriage. It is treating it as a game for your evening entertainment that is regarding it as something low or dirty.

First, there is an emotional and even spiritual bonding that goes on between two people who have sex, which is meant to help them bond for life. When people bond that way and then break up, there is a tearing and a wounding that happens. When it happens repeatedly, a scar forms on the wound, and sex loses some of its ability to bind in that way, like a sticker or adhesive bandage that has been peeled off and re-stuck repeatedly. That is one of the reasons (note, I didn’t say the reason) divorce, which used to be a relative rarity, is now well over 50 percent, even though you would think that “trying out” one another should help.

Second, sex and marriage were created to reflect deep things about God. He created “Adam” in his image, THEN said it wasn’t good for man to be alone. The only thing missing in this image of himself was relationship. He has relationship within himself. He is one and yet more than one. So he split this image of Himself in two, and provided that the two, man and woman, like and yet unlike, could become one and thereby be a more nearly perfect image of Him. The characteristics that he made typical of the man and the woman are both necessary for this complete image. Two of the same is not the same thing.

The Bible also uses the union of a husband and wife as a metaphor for the intimate union He wants to have with his people. Before the bozos start with the jokes, I said METAPHOR. Look it up if you have to. The union results in strengthened and closened relationship, pleasure and joy, and bringing forth life. Sex is meant to be a part of this union. When you use it outside of the environment it was meant for, you dishonor, distort and cheapen it.

God created sex as something both powerful and profound. Pardon both the crudity and the bad pun when I say that you don’t “f around” with that. That’s the basis of defining sexual purity or impurity.

[unriggable]

If something is good and has no side effects why should it be used sparsely?

[Jehan]

God is perfect right? and god is everything right? so if god is everything that means he is sin aswell. sin is evil thus making god evil thus making him not perfect?

God is everything?

[daddy1gringo]

If something is good and has no side effects why should it be used sparsely?

You obviously didn't really read what I wrote. I answered that clearly.

Side effects? Used as directed, the effects are awesome. Abused, it tastes sweet but has disasterous side effects.

Let's see, sexually transmitted epidemics, divorce, unwanted pregnancies, fatherless children. Just for starters

[daddy1gringo]

I think it’s been proven pretty effectively, both in this thread and others, that while science, facts, and logic cannot prove that God exists, neither can they prove that he does not. Nevertheless, somehow an impression has been created that asserting that God exists is blind faith, and asserting that he does not is reason.

NO THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE THAT GOD EXISTS. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE BELIEVER. I DONT BELIEVE BECAUSE THERE SEEMS NO VALID REASON TO-GOD HAS NOT "REVEALED" HIMSELF IN THE WORLD

The concept of a “burden of proof” is out of place in this discussion, but it’s interesting that you bring it up. The placing of a burden of proof on one side of an argument reflects the prejudices of the one who places it.

For example, in a criminal case in the US court system, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution. (Some say that in practice it is not so, because people assume if one is caught and accused one is probably guilty. That may be true, but we are talking about the theory) This reflects the preference of the lawmakers that it is better to let some guilty people get away, at least until they commit another crime for which there is better evidence, than to have an innocent person punished unjustly.

Now think about what just went on here. We establish that neither the proposition, “God exists” nor the proposition, “God does not exist” can be proven. Your immediate reaction is to assert that the option you don’t like has to do what we have just agreed neither can do, but the option you do like, doesn’t have to. How convenient. Heads I win, Tails you lose. Because neither one can be proven, the one I like is right.

Once again, you illustrate my point that, on this subject, although people refer to facts and logic, they actually make their decision on another basis, and make the facts and arguments fit into the scenario they prefer. This is at least as true of those who choose to believe that God does not exist as those who choose to believe that he does.

[edwinissweet]

God is perfect right? and god is everything right? so if god is everything that means he is sin aswell. sin is evil thus making god evil thus making him not perfect?

God is everything?

the catholic doctrine teaches that god is not limited by time or space.

[daddy1gringo]

Still, nobody has answered my question about how someone commits the sin of Strife. Any Christians out there want to tackle this one?

The Greek word is “eris.” Alternate translations include “wrangling” and “contention.” The impression I get is of the person who likes to cause arguments just for the fun of it, or just to “be right.” I also get the feeling he is talking about creating division and disunity in the church, and maybe in the family.

[Gregrios]

Why don't you believe?

1: Satan existed before God had made the earth, (snake that convinced Eve). It's my opinion that God's foresight is for the earthly presence. 2: If God proved himself to everyone, then how would the testing of man be at all successful. He would end up with another Satan by his side. I hope I've shed some light for you. I don't like to catagorize my religion, but I will say that I believe everything in the bible to the literal sense.






P.S. Im not member of the jesus freaks

[daddy1gringo]

God is perfect right? and god is everything right? so if god is everything that means he is sin aswell. sin is evil thus making god evil thus making him not perfect?

God is everything?

the catholic doctrine teaches that god is not limited by time or space.

Well, the Bible makes a distinction between the Creator and his creation, so, no, it's not accurate to say God is everything. He is everything to me, but that's more poetic license.

Here’s a way to look at it, though it’s not in the Bible. Scientifically, darkness is not a thing that exists; it’s just the absence of light. The same with cold; it’s just the absence of heat. Evil, or sin, could be looked at as the absence of God.

[Gregrios]

I think it’s been proven pretty effectively, both in this thread and others, that while science, facts, and logic cannot prove that God exists, neither can they prove that he does not. Nevertheless, somehow an impression has been created that asserting that God exists is blind faith, and asserting that he does not is reason.

NO THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE THAT GOD EXISTS. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE BELIEVER. I DONT BELIEVE BECAUSE THERE SEEMS NO VALID REASON TO-GOD HAS NOT "REVEALED" HIMSELF IN THE WORLD

The concept of a “burden of proof” is out of place in this discussion, but it’s interesting that you bring it up. The placing of a burden of proof on one side of an argument reflects the prejudices of the one who places it.

For example, in a criminal case in the US court system, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution. (Some say that in practice it is not so, because people assume if one is caught and accused one is probably guilty. That may be true, but we are talking about the theory) This reflects the preference of the lawmakers that it is better to let some guilty people get away, at least until they commit another crime for which there is better evidence, than to have an innocent person punished unjustly.

Now think about what just went on here. We establish that neither the proposition, “God exists” nor the proposition, “God does not exist” can be proven. Your immediate reaction is to assert that the option you don’t like has to do what we have just agreed neither can do, but the option you do like, doesn’t have to. How convenient. Heads I win, Tails you lose. Because neither one can be proven, the one I like is right.

Once again, you illustrate my point that, on this subject, although people refer to facts and logic, they actually make their decision on another basis, and make the facts and arguments fit into the scenario they prefer. This is at least as true of those who choose to believe that God does not exist as those who choose to believe that he does.

If God proved himself to everyone, then how could man be successfully tested. For the last comment in the previous paragraph, I say this: From age 16 to 22, I cursed God & Jesus, I devised plans of deceit, I rairly did the right thing, then I went to jail for a month. It was the first time since I was 16 years old, that I was off the maryjane. I gained clear thinking and an interest to read. 2 - 3 years later, I read the bible for the 1st time in my life. Since then, I've believed in God. I admit it took a little longer and more reading, but eventually started believing in Jesus Christ as well. I still smoke the maryjane and like to enjoy my time on earth. My point is that believing in God & Christ has never been to my convience, but it'll be to my advantage.

[moomaster2000]

Religion was created to explain things we didn't know. We want answers, and sometimes we are just too greedy. End-o-story.

[Kegler]

Religion was created to explain things we didn't know. We want answers, and sometimes we are just too greedy. End-o-story.

Alleluia

[daddy1gringo]

Allow me to repeat myself:

I am not an atheist. I believe in God. I don't believe the Bible is God's word, nor do I believe in Jesus' divinity. I believe he was an illusionist who used his powers of prestidigitation to convince people that he had the right idea (which he did).

Sorry, VT, I don't remember ever seeing you post that. I agree w/ luns in wishing to know what idea you are talking about.

[daddy1gringo]

Of course the easiest thing for any god to do would be the giant face/light/orb in the sky speaking to the world at once in all languages. For that matter forget the visual...just the voice would do. Surely a god that can create entire solar systems can pull this off. But as you say, maybe this isn't a gods style.

But it must be something undeniably godlike. None of this hiding in the shadows with mysterious, unprovable "signs".

... if a god can create life from nothing, surely it can also be in two, three or one thousand places at once...no?

If a god were to communicate in some way (dream, face in sky, voices, grilled cheese, etc) that, oh, the moon would disappear for one week...and then it did...I would consider that proof.

Or make everyone on the planet mute for a day.

Or for an hour we could have a conversation with our pets. Gods have made animals talk before...correct?

Or turn Lake Superior into Wine.

What I don't consider proof is hundreds of thousands of people watching a TV preacher and one persons MS goes into remission.

Fine. We don't have to "see" it. It could place a common message planted in every humans mind simultaneously, worldwide. That would do it.

Or how about this..... Every house plant in the world begins to burn and a voice speaks out of it. Not one person alone, with no evidence...but everyone at the same time.

OK, so let's say God does one or more of these things. What would happen then, with you personally, and with the rest of the world?

[MeDeFe]

I'd get my ass to Lake Superior in a flash.

[Snorri1234]

I think it’s been proven pretty effectively, both in this thread and others, that while science, facts, and logic cannot prove that God exists, neither can they prove that he does not. Nevertheless, somehow an impression has been created that asserting that God exists is blind faith, and asserting that he does not is reason.

NO THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE THAT GOD EXISTS. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE BELIEVER. I DONT BELIEVE BECAUSE THERE SEEMS NO VALID REASON TO-GOD HAS NOT "REVEALED" HIMSELF IN THE WORLD

The concept of a “burden of proof” is out of place in this discussion, but it’s interesting that you bring it up. The placing of a burden of proof on one side of an argument reflects the prejudices of the one who places it.

For example, in a criminal case in the US court system, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution. (Some say that in practice it is not so, because people assume if one is caught and accused one is probably guilty. That may be true, but we are talking about the theory) This reflects the preference of the lawmakers that it is better to let some guilty people get away, at least until they commit another crime for which there is better evidence, than to have an innocent person punished unjustly.

Uhm....yes, the burden of proof is on the prosecuters side. They have to proof something happened (or exists). I don't have to proof that I didn't do anything, they have to proof that I did something, which is logical. The same applies to this question.

They are not prejudices, they are logic.

[got tonkaed]

I think it’s been proven pretty effectively, both in this thread and others, that while science, facts, and logic cannot prove that God exists, neither can they prove that he does not. Nevertheless, somehow an impression has been created that asserting that God exists is blind faith, and asserting that he does not is reason.

NO THERE IS SIMPLY NO EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE THAT GOD EXISTS. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE BELIEVER. I DONT BELIEVE BECAUSE THERE SEEMS NO VALID REASON TO-GOD HAS NOT "REVEALED" HIMSELF IN THE WORLD

The concept of a “burden of proof” is out of place in this discussion, but it’s interesting that you bring it up. The placing of a burden of proof on one side of an argument reflects the prejudices of the one who places it.

For example, in a criminal case in the US court system, the burden of proof is placed on the prosecution. (Some say that in practice it is not so, because people assume if one is caught and accused one is probably guilty. That may be true, but we are talking about the theory) This reflects the preference of the lawmakers that it is better to let some guilty people get away, at least until they commit another crime for which there is better evidence, than to have an innocent person punished unjustly.

Uhm....yes, the burden of proof is on the prosecuters side. They have to proof something happened (or exists). I don't have to proof that I didn't do anything, they have to proof that I did something, which is logical. The same applies to this question.

They are not prejudices, they are logic.

I think part of the problem with this is that it doesnt reflect human history very much. Since humanity seems to have postulated...and has by in large accepted the assumption that some type of supreme being exists, that would seem to in theory be the stance that doesnt have to be proven, since by in large most people believe in it in some fashion.

[Snorri1234]

Doesn't matter. It's about proving a positive, not about what most people believe. OJ Simpson was still innocent even though many people believed he did it.

[got tonkaed]

Doesn't matter. It's about proving a positive, not about what most people believe. OJ Simpson was still innocent even though many people believed he did it.

well i think its an issue in that you cant purely look at it as a logical debate, since in many respects it deals with subjective. Its not really a debate or an issue that you can look at it under a microscope and properly analyze which in some sense i figure probably extends to the notion that someone has to prove that a God exists.

It would certainly do a lot for determining the issue once and for all if either side could do it, but since it seems that so far its relatively unproveable either way, we shouldnt really go around assigining the burden of proof to either side.

[Snorri1234]

Doesn't matter. It's about proving a positive, not about what most people believe. OJ Simpson was still innocent even though many people believed he did it.

well i think its an issue in that you cant purely look at it as a logical debate, since in many respects it deals with subjective. Its not really a debate or an issue that you can look at it under a microscope and properly analyze which in some sense i figure probably extends to the notion that someone has to prove that a God exists.

It would certainly do a lot for determining the issue once and for all if either side could do it, but since it seems that so far its relatively unproveable either way, we shouldnt really go around assigining the burden of proof to either side.

Well ofcourse you have a point in that whether or not God exists is unfalsifiable, which means this isn't actually a scientifical question.
However, since many christians believe it is, the burden of proof falls on them in this case. It's silly to place it on them because they can't actually proof it, but the concept does apply to creationism.

[unriggable]

Of course the easiest thing for any god to do would be the giant face/light/orb in the sky speaking to the world at once in all languages. For that matter forget the visual...just the voice would do. Surely a god that can create entire solar systems can pull this off. But as you say, maybe this isn't a gods style.

But it must be something undeniably godlike. None of this hiding in the shadows with mysterious, unprovable "signs".

... if a god can create life from nothing, surely it can also be in two, three or one thousand places at once...no?

If a god were to communicate in some way (dream, face in sky, voices, grilled cheese, etc) that, oh, the moon would disappear for one week...and then it did...I would consider that proof.

Or make everyone on the planet mute for a day.

Or for an hour we could have a conversation with our pets. Gods have made animals talk before...correct?

Or turn Lake Superior into Wine.

What I don't consider proof is hundreds of thousands of people watching a TV preacher and one persons MS goes into remission.

Fine. We don't have to "see" it. It could place a common message planted in every humans mind simultaneously, worldwide. That would do it.

Or how about this..... Every house plant in the world begins to burn and a voice speaks out of it. Not one person alone, with no evidence...but everyone at the same time.

OK, so let's say God does one or more of these things. What would happen then, with you personally, and with the rest of the world?

\

A word of advice (no pun intended) don't look forward to those signs ever happening.