steveorino 7 #251 March 1, 2007 QuoteIt is about the blood. In the OT presit would have to shed blood of animals for the people sins and it had to keep being done. When Jesus shed His blood for our sins it was once for all. So once you accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Saviour you are coverd under His blood and you have direct access to God. Steve did I explain this right from a bible point? I think so. From a scriptural standpoint there is a necessisty for a shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sin. It seems almost every culture requires something similar (sacriface) for atonement. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #252 March 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteOK I will make it more blunt so you can understand with out any problem at all and there will be no question. If God appeared before me and raised me off the earth and took me up to 12,000 ft and dropped me and I landed on my head(since I would falling head down of course) and I lived then I would believe in your God. So for you to believe God must take you personally for a skydive w/o a parachute and survive. Would God have to do that every day or is once enough? Would your experience be enough for your family or would they all need to take a ride? I can only speak for myself. Once would be enough. How about your family? Would each of them need it? EDITED TO ADD: I see you answered that sorry for the repeat. Would you believe if that happened to someone else or must it be personal? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #253 March 1, 2007 All of my immediate family live in Illinois. I haven't talked to them in months and don't hear from them very often. They are not all atheist. My mother is a Jehovahs Witness and my father is Catholic. Do you want to interview them and ask them the same question? I avoid talking to them about religion because it just doesn't go anywhere and does nothing constructive. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #254 March 1, 2007 It must happen to me or I be present and be able to test the results and have it repeated to be able to confirm that God did actually do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #255 March 1, 2007 If there is a god I have no idea of how to prove it. It is up to the person that establishes the proposition to demonstrate the evidence for it, not the other way round. lets suppose i come up witha new theory to unite relativity and quantum mechanics but i provide no eivdence for such a theory. Do you think it would be reasonable for me to turn to the physics community and ask them how I should prove it before they scoff at it? of course not, it would be my obligation to demonstrate it. So if someone claims the existence of supernatural being its their obligation to provide the evidence. Moreover nothing is ever proved in science, what we have is varying degrees of evidence. what makes evidence especially strong is a methhod of falsification. If someone suggests a theory and shows how it can be falsified by experiment and the experiment is done and the theory is not falsified but confirmed then we have a high level fo evdience. enough to convince most reasonable people. A few examples: Relativity predicts moving clocks will keep slower time than stationary clocks: confirmation: this experiment was done by taking a clock on the space shuttle, sure enough it ran exactly the amount slower that relativity predicts. The theory that most Dna is junk predicts that if we remove that section of the dna then we will not observe any differences between that organism and another which has not had the junk dna removed. verification: an experiment in mice was done exactly as the theory predicts and no loss of function in the engineered mice was observed. None of these examples represennt proof but they are evidence and the stronger the evidence the stronger our belief. It is up to you to present your evdience that god exists. not up to us to show you how to do it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #256 March 1, 2007 That's way too logical for them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #257 March 1, 2007 QuoteIt must happen to me or I be present and be able to test the results and have it repeated to be able to confirm that God did actually do it. Than that would make you God as you are the one calling the shots. Imagine everyone creating their own personal scenario for the proof of God. I'm sorry your family doesn't respect your decision to reject the idea of God. I'm sure they believe they are doing it out of love. I bet the JWs in your family just love you skydiving to boot! I think if one honestly seeks God they will find Him, but I'm also convinced you can write off just about every spiritual experience you may have as coincidence. While it may not seem fair to some, to experience God "almost" always requires active seeking, and "finding" God seldom comes from God proving to someone seeking to disprove Him. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #258 March 1, 2007 QuoteIf there is a god I have no idea of how to prove it. It is up to the person that establishes the proposition to demonstrate the evidence for it, not the other way round. lets suppose i come up witha new theory ... Why do you impose scientific reason for the proof of God? Why not use the same judment of music, art? literature? Why science? steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #259 March 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt must happen to me or I be present and be able to test the results and have it repeated to be able to confirm that God did actually do it. Than that would make you God has you are the one calling the shots. Imagine everyone creating their own personal scenario for the proof of God. I'm sorry your family doesn't respect your decision to reject the idea of God. I'm sure they believe they are doing it out of love. I bet the JWs in your family just love you skydiving to boot! I think if one honestly seeks God they will find Him, but I'm also convinced you can write off just about every spiritual experience you may have as coincidence. While it may not seem fair to some, to experience God "almost" always requires active seeking, and "finding" God seldom comes from God proving to someone seeking to disprove Him. I never sought to disprove God or gods. I just never saw any evidence that lead me to believe there is any such thing. How can I believe some thing that doesn't make sense to me? I grew around Jehovah's Witnesses and know their doctrine inside and out. Having grown up with it I believed it till I finally stopped and thought about what they were teaching and it just didn't make any sense. The more questions you ask the less it makes any sense. This is true of all religions. I have asked about lots of other religions and they don't have any answers either. The proof that you provide isn't proof of anything. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #260 March 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf there is a god I have no idea of how to prove it. It is up to the person that establishes the proposition to demonstrate the evidence for it, not the other way round. lets suppose i come up witha new theory ... Why do you impose scientific reason for the proof of God? Why not use the same judment of music, art? literature? Why science? Good music is subjective, as is good art. You say god objectively exists.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #261 March 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteIf there is a god I have no idea of how to prove it. It is up to the person that establishes the proposition to demonstrate the evidence for it, not the other way round. lets suppose i come up witha new theory ... Why do you impose scientific reason for the proof of God? Why not use the same judment of music, art? literature? Why science? That really makes no sense at all! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #262 March 1, 2007 QuoteI think so. From a scriptural standpoint there is a necessisty for a shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sin. It seems almost every culture requires something similar (sacriface) for atonement. Why is that? Doesn't that strike you as just a tiny bit stupid? "To atone for your sins you must cause this animal to suffer and die!" Why does a being of the spirit need such a grossly physical expression of atonement?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #263 March 1, 2007 QuoteI never sought to disprove God or gods. I just never saw any evidence that lead me to believe there is any such thing. How can I believe some thing that doesn't make sense to me? I grew around Jehovah's Witnesses and know their doctrine inside and out. Having grown up with it I believed it till I finally stopped and thought about what they were teaching and it just didn't make any sense. The more questions you ask the less it makes any sense. This is true of all religions. I have asked about lots of other religions and they don't have any answers either. The proof that you provide isn't proof of anything. I'm fairly confident that I didn't make my story the reason for you to believe, but rather I presented it as a confirmation for me. At least that was my intent. Again, I think spirituality is VERY personal. While community is part of Christianity it is still an individual decision. Based on your requirement for proof, it seems you have put God into a very narrow corner if he exists. The nature of God as studied from scripture, implies he doesn't respond well to such demands. But hey, you never know. Maybe he will make an exception for you. But of course you implied He's have to do it repeatedly. Again maybe you are in luck, as He is long suffering. Seriously. I hope you find peace in your life. I wish the "christians" in your life would be a blessing not a pain in the ... steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
beowulf 1 #264 March 1, 2007 You should really take a class in critical thinking. But on the other hand Religions tend to discourage questioning. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,563 #265 March 1, 2007 QuoteIt seems almost every culture requires something similar (sacriface) for atonement. Given the highly provincial nature of most Gods (including Jehovah) does that not strike you as evidence that blood sacrifice is a human preference, rather than a divine one?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #266 March 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf there is a god I have no idea of how to prove it. It is up to the person that establishes the proposition to demonstrate the evidence for it, not the other way round. lets suppose i come up witha new theory ... Why do you impose scientific reason for the proof of God? Why not use the same judment of music, art? literature? Why science? That really makes no sense at all! It makes no sense to me that God must be judged as a scientific hypothesis steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #267 March 1, 2007 Quote Religions tend to discourage questioning. Not Jesus. Matthew 7 is a great chapter about this and more steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #268 March 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteIt seems almost every culture requires something similar (sacriface) for atonement. Given the highly provincial nature of most Gods (including Jehovah) does that not strike you as evidence that blood sacrifice is a human preference, rather than a divine one? Or it is hard wired into our thinking. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
philh 0 #269 March 1, 2007 For things that are reported to exist we should have evidence of their existence particulalry for somethings as important as god - a subject which has shaped the history of the world and continues to do so, for bettter or worse. For things like literature and art - well if you claim you like a song its your opinion, that does not require you prove it , if you claim on the other hand that say a lost song by the Betales exist which no one has ever heard one would be right to demand evidence of it to believe in its existense. In that sense the standards for art are no different than those for science. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #270 March 1, 2007 QuoteFor things that are reported to exist we should have evidence of their existence particulalry for somethings as important as god - a subject which has shaped the history of the world and continues to do so, for bettter or worse. For things like literature and art - well if you claim you like a song its your opinion, that does not require you prove it , if you claim on the other hand that say a lost song by the Betales exist which no one has ever heard one would be right to demand evidence of it to believe in its existense. In that sense the standards for art are no different than those for science. But spirituality (and God is spirit) is not a scientific equation steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,076 #271 March 1, 2007 >Why do you impose scientific reason for the proof of God? Personally, I don't. But many fundamentalists do. There are people in this thread, for example, that would actually alter science to warp it into their particular view of religion. And once you start trying ro do that, then there DOES need to be scientific proof of the existence of God, the same way there needs to be a scientific underpinning to any other part of science. That doesn't mean we need to 'prove' the existence of God - rather, it indicates the folly of trying to mash science and religion together. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
steveorino 7 #272 March 1, 2007 Yep, one of the many reasons I'm not fundy. steveOrino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #273 March 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteSince we are "created in God's image", does God have nipples? Theology 101 for the professor ... Being created in God's image does not refer to a physical body, but that men have a spirit unlike lower creations. God is spirit and not flesh and bone. Not according to the Vatican. You are simply distorting the meaning of words, again.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #274 March 1, 2007 QuoteAllah and other gods didn't send their Son to die for your and our sins. Allah and other gods didn't raise from the dead. And I know someone said well if you don't except Jesus and you go to hell that that's not love. Well God did send His son to die for your sins so that you could have everlasting life. He made a way for you to get back to Him because He loves you so much and He wants to be with you. That my friend is LOVE. Your God didn't protect all of Achilles' body from harm except his heel. We know it's true, it's written in a very old book.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #275 March 1, 2007 QuoteQuoteSince we are "created in God's image", does God have nipples? Being "created in God's image" has nothing to do with our physical being. It has to do with our eternal soul. However (without absolute proof, I admit), I'm certain Jesus had nipples. So, in answer to your question and for a period of about 33 years, yes. QuoteWHY would an omnipotent being economize on the design of his masterpiece? Why not economize a trillion times more by creating one fewer star in the Andromeda galaxy? To confound those who think they are wise and who are arrogant & self-righteous. (1 Corinthians 1:27) Oh, same reason he planted dinosaur "bones" in the ground, to confuse us. Yup, there's a loving, caring god.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
