'not really a Christian'

[Bravus]

fccool: My point was simply that in an age of mass communication, it's not just the gospel that is 'preached in all the world', it's everything, including the latest doings of Paris Hilton, which I for one would far prefer to be ignorant about. Given that, simply being known in all the world is not, in itself, fulfilment of prophecy: it is simply the way of the world now. Add to that the Great Commission - the Christian meme has the command to actively spread it to all the world at its core - and the fact that it has spread to all the world is doubly unsurprising.

Again, not saying Jesus had it wrong, or anything of the sort, simply that the fact that it has in fact gone global is not really the logical knockout punch it's being presented as.

[LifeHiscost]

If we were really serious about spreading the gospel and reaching large amount of people through TV and radio, then why not spend some money and purchase the air time on those TV stations that actually being reached and watched by the people worldwide?

Until that kind of attitude becomes a reality, I doubt we are going to have any kind of impact, because our message is rather self-serving... with interest emphatically targeted towards filling the pews rather than getting the message out.

And the veracity of these conclusions are acquired from what body of investigation?

And the programs or actions you've started or supported to remedy this state of affairs are what?

Regards!

[LifeHiscost]

3) I'm correct because the Bible says so

I'm really wondering where one can get information about God, Who He is and what His intentions are toward human kind, if the Word of God is so indistinguishable as never to reveal accurate knowledge of Him.

"“You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!" John 5:39 NLT

Regards!

[fccool]

And the veracity of these conclusions are acquired from what body of investigation?

And the programs or actions you've started or supported to remedy this state of affairs are what?

Regards!

I did help supervise and run the local Adventist station, yet I thought to put my effort into something that would have wider reach, and a bit more subtle approach than re-playing sermons verbatim.

Tails From the Ark - Honk if You're special

http://ishinelive.com/product/honk-if-youre-special-dvd/

Credited: Producer

Godless - Motion Picture - financing stage

To Be Credited: Writer/Producer

Meta - Motion Picture - writing stage

Trust me, I'm not speaking from inexperience or passive criticism. I'm well aware of the efforts and the impact, thus I think it's not the best use of our money for what we claim we are to do... mainly because people who run things are theologians and administrators. They tend to ignore creative approach, while films/music/TV tends to shape and influence our culture today. The companies do better self-promotion job than Christianity does with all of the resources it commands at the top levels.

[fccool]

Originally Posted By: fccool

3) I'm correct because the Bible says so

I'm really wondering where one can get information about God, Who He is and what His intentions are toward human kind, if the Word of God is so indistinguishable as never to reveal accurate knowledge of Him.

"“You search the Scriptures because you think they give you eternal life. But the Scriptures point to me!" John 5:39 NLT

Regards!

I'm not simply dismissing the Bible as the Word of God. I'm simply saying that you can't use it as a valid factual evidence for your belief to other people. I will argue that Christian conversion is emotional rather than intellectual. There's no intellectual capacity for love. Love is not something intellectual, although perhaps it can carry both logical and illogical reasoning.

If, walking through the desert you come across dying child, and you have enough water only for yourself... your intellect will leave this child to die, likewise your logic will do the same. Yet, there is a greater capacity that goes beyond logic or intellect that perhaps against all odds try to save the child.

Such hope is neither built on reason, nor evidence that you can make it. It's based on belief, and hope that you will.

Likewise, arguing with someone the Biblical worldview from standpoint of evidence is rather futile. Biblical narrative is a historical heresay that does not provide much historical record of Christ exclusive from circles of his followers... who perhaps can be viewed as interested in perpetuating such belief.

If you were tried for a crime you did not commit, who would you like to be tried based on evidence of the third party that conveyed to witnesses that you were guilty. Such course of actions would be outrageous, if indeed the mere words of the third party would be enough to convict you.

Likewise, this could be true when we approach Biblical account. I know it's an uncomfortable though to admit, yet it's only the honest one.

We can make certain bets on reality of things, just like you would make a certain bet that there's something valuable behind the box of "Deal or No Deal" game. Yet, the fact that we are correct or incorrect about our belief should never invalidate the principles behind it if it would be worthwile.

And these principles perhaps are best re-iterated in some of the fundamental belief statements of our faith:

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Even if there is no God, and we live as though there is following such principles... our faith is worthwhile, and I certainly hope that Richard can agree.

[LifeHiscost]

Some very good thoughts.

Not to deny your sentiment, yet I find much more peace and satisfaction, intellectually speaking, in these succinct statements;

"For God so greatly loved and dearly prized the world that He [even] gave up His only begotten ( unique) Son, so that whoever believes in (trusts in, clings to, relies on) Him shall not perish (come to destruction, be lost) but have eternal (everlasting) life."John 3:16 AMP

"Jesus loves me, this I know.

For the Bible tells me so"

Regards!

[Twilight]

D

Quote:

id you not make the claim that Jesus fulfilled the prophecies because He contrived to.

If you did not make that point, I will withdras my comment and apologise.

Mark :-)

I've made the case for such possibility. Making a case for possibility does not negate the argument. I simply presented the alternative view of history that perhaps missed your mind when you claim that there's no other possibility exists that could be feasible, and that prophetic writings of the Bible prove with certainty the validity of Christian claims.

We choose to believe in these claims for different reasons. You choose to believe because you think that you've examined the evidence and it had proven itself correct. I don't make such assumption. I believe the claims because I see that reality in people who directly changed my life fore the best without beating these believes into my psyche as "the only possible way".

So, no need to apologize really . I'm not offended by anything that you say, neither I have any delusions of changing your mind on the subject. I'm simply trying to get what you claim to offer... an irrefutable evidence of God's existence and validity of Christian faith.

If you can't present such irrefutable evidence, then perhaps you should be more humble about your faith, and making certain claims to people who have the valid reasons to question your logic.

The fact of the matter is how you approach the faith and evidence. You present no solid evidence rather than a promise and the record of people who strongly believe in certain ontology... and you present it as irrefutable truth.

Why don't you believe Cathy O'Brien's claims about Bush sr. ? Cathy writes in "Trance Formation Of America" of how George Bush was sitting in front of her in his office in Washington DC when, he opened a book at a page depicting lizard-like aliens from a far off, deep space place. Bush then claimed to be an 'alien' himself and appeared, before her eyes, to transform 'like a chameleon' into a reptile.

I mean, she was the real person, and Bush is the real person, and Washington DC is the real place. Why not believe her extraordinary claims like thousands, and perhaps millions of David Icke followers that do?

I can tell you why... you don't believe her claims for the same reason someone like Richard does not believe in Biblical account... lack of evidence for the extraordinary claims, other than what we would consider to be a heresay legally. Just to refresh your memory on what it its:

Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.

So, no need for your apologies. Just approach what you know and how you know it in humility rather than impudence.

I think you have taken half of the Christian Witness and offered it as all of it.

Yes, we should manifest Christianity as evidence.

But that does not remove the fact that Jesus established Faith in Himself through the prophetic Word.

It is the fundamental backbone to the bible.

So your point is valid, but it does not remove mine.

Rather, they should go hand in hand.

A prophetic logical revelation, that feeds into a Spirit filled walk with God, as we have a logical basis for the faith we have.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I have seen this so many times, a point that Cardw veered away from.

His argument was basically that the prophecies of the past were failed and then cited examples.

Now what he did not realise, is by implication he has agreed that those prophecies were written before the time.

I made no such implication. Prophecy can fail by not being a prophecy at all. So many of the "prophecies" are so vague as to be applicable to anything one might want to make inference to.

You are also ignoring that hypothetical situations are presented to show internal inconsistency. That is IF the text is a "prophecy."

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Now what is interesting, is if he actually points out what he thinks are failed prophecies in Isaiah for instance, he now has to condone the prophecies that were met in Isaiah.

There is no such requirement because I am simply presenting an argument from the hypothetical.

Originally Posted By: Twilight

As the ones he uses to condemn the bible (in his links), are also side by side with those that are fulfilled, he has by implication given them historic credence.

I have done no such thing. I have not conceded that any prophecy has been fulfilled because I don't believe that it exists period. Either the text was written after the event or it is so general and vague that it can be applied to any later event that happens to share a general similarity or the prophecy is simply pushed to some future event. All of these are not proof. They tend to be methods used by scam artists.

There are NO proven prophecies.

You, on the other hand, have claimed to have absolute proof of god in the fulfilled prophecies of the Bible. I only have to present one failure to negate your statement. I gave you hundreds.

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I realise of course that to deny the gospel is illogical anyway, but this type of contradiction is very common.

Lies are never logical...

This presents a dilemma. No wonder you can't admit that you fail to present logical arguments. You would have to call yourself a liar.

That's the weakness of black and white. You pin yourself in a corner pretty quickly.

So why present a link of "failed prophecies", when your argument is one of "false prophecies"?

This is the problem you have created by not being willing to discuss specific points.

[Twilight]

I'm not simply dismissing the Bible as the Word of God. I'm simply saying that you can't use it as a valid factual evidence for your belief to other people. I will argue that Christian conversion is emotional rather than intellectual. There's no intellectual capacity for love. Love is not something intellectual, although perhaps it can carry both logical and illogical reasoning.

"I will argue that Christian conversion is emotional rather than intellectual."

And I argue that it is both, not one or the other...

God does not say: "Park your brains here, whilst I give you an emotional experience..."

He says:

"Come let us reason together..."

[John317]

... I'm not simply dismissing the Bible as the Word of God. I'm simply saying that you can't use it as a valid factual evidence for your belief to other people. I will argue that Christian conversion is emotional rather than intellectual. ...

I was convinced by the evidence, and emotion had nothing to do with my decision to accept the Bible as God's word. I can say the same for a close friend of mine who became a Christian at the same time. We had every reason emotionally to reject the messages we heard. Today if I went by my feelings I would reject it and go with my emotional desires.

When the Bible talks about the law of God being written on our hearts and minds, it is referring to the whole person, including the emotions, but that is not where it starts. It has to be a conviction that includes both the mind and emotions. The conviction that the message is true has to be based on convincing evidence that appeals to the mind, or reason.

If conversion was emotional primarily, the conversion wouldn't last. No one can "feel" the same way all the time and under all circumstances. True conversion to Christ is a matter of the Holy Spirit, and He convicts us of the truth in a way that affects both the mind and the heart. It is far more than the emotions. If that were all it is, I wouldn't have anything to do with it. If it is not valid or sound intellectually and logically, I really wouldn't be interested in it.

[fccool]

"I will argue that Christian conversion is emotional rather than intellectual." And I argue that it is both, not one or the other... God does not say: "Park your brains here, whilst I give you an emotional experience..."

He says:

"Come let us reason together..."

God does not say things. He either chooses to be silent, let people write down His thoughts, while apparently holding on to much of their perspectives... and God would seemingly prefer a very select number of people to directly reveal Himself to by talking and making them their mouthpiece.

God of the Bible in fact requires you to suspend reason, and park your brains and just believe. If He did not, then there would be no problem with people who honestly come up with different conclusions through processes of reason.

Christianity does not exclude the people who commuted adultery, murder, lying, rape, extortion. It gives them second chance. But there is a sin that will surely put you to everlasting death (seemingly) and it's the sin of unbelief. I.E. it does not matter how good you are, how much positive things you have done for humanity, and how much you have unknowingly advanced God's cause...

as long as you did not believe, this one thing overpowers all positive based on the dubious negatives (like lying and lusting). How comfortable are you about that thought.

I love people, and for that reason I'm very uncomfortable with that idea. I'm not very comfortable with the idea that my parents lived a life of positive influence and charity, yet they don't believe based on lack of evidence for faith or God, or perhaps of plenty of evidence that is found in people hijacking God for their personal power and gain. It really casts doubt in minds of rational people.

So, to say that my parents, in light of their positive influence on me, taught me to do everything outside of religious belief... things like abstain from abusive substances, seeing the full picture and have compassion on people in spite of what they've done, value marriage and fidelity... all of that is thrown out of the window when it's done under the belief of "agnostic".

What we are told from religious perspective is that no matter how much good we've done apart from that belief, it's in reality "evil". Does that make you question any bit why God would consider such thing "evil", if it in fact aligns with His purpose? Is He light Microsoft, that He invokes a copyright lawsuit every time one does good and positive outside of the belief?

Here's a quote from other site:

The unbelief with which men die never was atoned for by Christ. There is no atonement for the person who died in unbelief. If he had been guilty of every other sin, if he had but believed, he would have been pardoned.

If you truly love people, doesn't that make you all warm and fuzzy inside? One one hand we have murderers who feel sorry about the consequences of their actions, and they turn to supernatural explanation as their last hope... and they are forgiven.

On the other hand, we have people who believe in value of human life, and live by principles of mutual support and trust... and they believe that murder is wrong, enough not to commit it, yet they are guilty of the sin of unbelief, which is much greater than murder. And their reason for not believing is simply because of the obvious lack of evidence other than dogma pushed from the pulpits.

I can tell you honestly, that I find it unsettling and difficult part of my faith.

[John317]

I am a logical person, yet I can't prove the existense of God by logic.

For belief to be a matter of the mind rather than the emotions, one does not need to be able to "prove" the existence of God. No one can "prove" God's existence any more than anyone can disprove it, but does that fact mean that belief is not based on reason and evidence?

[John317]

God of the Bible in fact requires you to suspend reason, and park your brains and just believe. If He did not, then there would be no problem with people who honestly come up with different conclusions through processes of reason.

Originally Posted By: fccool

Christianity does not exclude the people who commuted adultery, murder, lying, rape, extortion. It gives them second chance. But there is a sin that will surely put you to everlasting death (seemingly) and it's the sin of unbelief.

Why is this? Why do you believe this is true?

Originally Posted By: fccool

I love people, and for that reason I'm very uncomfortable with that idea. I'm not very comfortable with the idea that my parents lived a life of positive influence and charity, yet they don't believe based on lack of evidence for faith or God, or perhaps of plenty of evidence that is found in people hijacking God for their personal power and gain.

But is lack of evidence for belief in God really the reason that people reject the gospel?

I realize very well that there are many people who hijack God for their own personal power and gain, yet I don't see that as a reason to reject belief in God. Why do some see it as a reason they ought to reject God, whereas others do not?

Originally Posted By: fccool

What we are told from religious perspective is that no matter how much good we've done apart from that belief, it's in reality "evil".

Why is the good that people do apart from faith in Christ really "evil" if they reject God and the gospel of Christ?

Or is it? If I reject God and the gospel, why shouldn't I be allowed in Christ's kingdom on the basis of the good that I do?

[LifeHiscost]

If I reject God and the gospel, why shouldn't I be allowed in Christ's kingdom on the basis of the good that I do?

Mainly because all good gifts come from above and when we fail to recognize that, we set ourselves up as god and will only have opportunity for a future as our own misguided beliefs afford.

"Every good thing given and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shifting shadow." James 1:17 NASB

Blessings!

[phkrause]

If conversion was emotional primarily, the conversion wouldn't last. No one can "feel" the same way all the time and under all circumstances. True conversion to Christ is a matter of the Holy Spirit, and He convicts us of the truth in a way that affects both the mind and the heart. It is far more than the emotions. If that were all it is, I wouldn't have anything to do with it. If it is not valid or sound intellectually and logically, I really wouldn't be interested in it.

I agree with this John, at least for me. When growing up in NY, we were members in a Jewish Adventist Church. We worked for the Jewish population of NY. And we baptized many Jews, all but a many few stayed. The reason that I saw was most had an emotional attachment to the pastor "Dr. J. M. Hoffman" and not to Jesus or any conviction to the truth. So most left before even a year had gone by.

[cardw]

But is lack of evidence for belief in God really the reason that people reject the gospel?

I realize very well that there are many people who hijack God for their own personal power and gain, yet I don't see that as a reason to reject belief in God. Why do some see it as a reason they ought to reject God, whereas others do not?

I think for some people and for a time myself, the idea that there might not be some great loving creator out there is rather frightening when one has built their world view around that assumption.

I keep repeating this and it seems to be a difficult concept for Christians. The Christian god described in the Bible isn't the only concept of god. Just because I reject the god of the Bible doesn't mean that I reject the concept of god altogether. Most agnostics are atheists when it comes to the god of the bible.

As far as some future understanding of a creator, that is not so clear. While there may be no direct evidence of such a consciousness and all such descriptions of such a consciousness have serious logical problems there still is the fact that we live in a universe that is largely mysterious, has much beauty, is incredibly interesting in large part because there is risk, and we have transcendent experiences.

The big warning signs that I look for in any religious belief are shame, fear, violence, paranoia, fundamentalism, rejection of reason, tribalism, magical thinking, and an inability to adapt to new ideas. All of these cause serious harm to a society. All of these exist in some form within not only Christianity, but in most major religious groups. It seems that the Abrahamic religions have the most problems with these. I think it is largely because they rely on a book to define their thinking instead of learning from the world around them.

There is adaption but it has to go through a lot of mental gymnastics to keep the book relevant to the times. And as we learn more, the worse the problem becomes.

[cardw]

So why present a link of "failed prophecies", when your argument is one of "false prophecies"?

First of all you claimed that you have 100 percent absolute proof from the prophecies of the Bible that the god of the Bible existed.

A failed prophecy is a false prophecy. I don't see the point in pointing out the distinction. Even if there is some difference the result is the same. I just need one to negate your statement and like I said I gave you hundreds. And I think you will find many Christian theologians have problems with a number of these as well. Hardly the iron clad proof you claim it is.

[Twilight]

much beauty, is incredibly interesting in large part because there is risk, and we have transcendent experiences.

The big warning signs that I look for in any religious belief are shame, fear, violence, paranoia, fundamentalism, rejection of reason, tribalism, magical thinking, and an inability to adapt to new ideas. All of these cause serious harm to a society. All of these exist in some form within not only Christianity, but in most major religious groups. It seems that the Abrahamic religions have the most problems with these. I think it is largely because they rely on a book to define their thinking instead of learning from the world around them.

Does not athiesm have these "problems"?

I look at the USSR which wass founded on athiestic thought, as a prime example of atheism in action...

Now did they manifest any of these as a society:

"shame, fear, violence, paranoia, fundamentalism, rejection of reason."

Your argument falls down, because every world view in the world will have the same issues, as can be seen with the USSR and other communist countries which tried to deny religious thought.

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

So why present a link of "failed prophecies", when your argument is one of "false prophecies"?

First of all you claimed that you have 100 percent absolute proof from the prophecies of the Bible that the god of the Bible existed.

A failed prophecy is a false prophecy. I don't see the point in pointing out the distinction. Even if there is some difference the result is the same. I just need one to negate your statement and like I said I gave you hundreds. And I think you will find many Christian theologians have problems with a number of these as well. Hardly the iron clad proof you claim it is.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it here Cardw.

On the one hand you claim all the prophecies are fake.

Yet on the other, you claim they are failed.

That is illogical.

[cardw]

So why present a link of "failed prophecies", when your argument is one of "false prophecies"?

Originally Posted By: cardw

First of all you claimed that you have 100 percent absolute proof from the prophecies of the Bible that the god of the Bible existed.

A failed prophecy is a false prophecy. I don't see the point in pointing out the distinction. Even if there is some difference the result is the same. I just need one to negate your statement and like I said I gave you hundreds. And I think you will find many Christian theologians have problems with a number of these as well. Hardly the iron clad proof you claim it is.

You are trying to have your cake and eat it here Cardw.

On the one hand you claim all the prophecies are fake.

Yet on the other, you claim they are failed.

That is illogical.

Using your "logic" here you have admitted that prophecies fail.

While I enjoy my cake may I suggest the pie...

[Twilight]

Using your "logic" here you have admitted that prophecies fail.

While I enjoy my cake may I suggest the pie...

I am questioning your claims Cardw.

Not expressing my own beliefs.

Which is it, are all the prophecies in the bible fakes, or are they failed?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Using your "logic" here you have admitted that prophecies fail.

While I enjoy my cake may I suggest the pie...

I am questioning your claims Cardw.

Not expressing my own beliefs.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

much beauty, is incredibly interesting in large part because there is risk, and we have transcendent experiences.

The big warning signs that I look for in any religious belief are shame, fear, violence, paranoia, fundamentalism, rejection of reason, tribalism, magical thinking, and an inability to adapt to new ideas. All of these cause serious harm to a society. All of these exist in some form within not only Christianity, but in most major religious groups. It seems that the Abrahamic religions have the most problems with these. I think it is largely because they rely on a book to define their thinking instead of learning from the world around them.

Does not athiesm have these "problems"?

[Twilight]

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Does not athiesm have these "problems"?

I wish you would quit spreading these myths about what it means to be an atheist. Atheism has no doctrines, philosophies, or beliefs. The only thing all atheists have in common is no belief in gods period.

Originally Posted By: Twilight

I look at the USSR which wass founded on athiestic thought, as a prime example of atheism in action...

The Socialist Republic of Russia was founded on the philosophy of Karl Marx who based his ideas on Christian and Jewish notions of civil rights, human rights, and political/social emancipation. He was a Jew who converted to become a Lutheran.

Now granted Lenin and Stalin used this philosophy and applied it in a totalitarian way. The problem wasn't their atheism, it was their totalitarianism. It should be noted the they had to face a totalitarian Eastern Orthodox establishment.

Originally Posted By: Twilight

Now did they manifest any of these as a society:

"shame, fear, violence, paranoia, fundamentalism, rejection of reason."

Your argument falls down, because every world view in the world will have the same issues, as can be seen with the USSR and other communist countries which tried to deny religious thought. [/quote']

Every totalitarian world view does and this would include theocracies. It's true that every world view either struggles with these or tries to offer solutions to these, but the problem with Christianity is that it claims to be the perfect god given solution to all the worlds problems. Hardly!!!

My point is simple.

You lay a charge at the door of Christianity that can be laid at the door of any worldview.

Unless you have a system in mind that would prevent the above from happening?

[cardw]

My point is simple.

You lay a charge at the door of Christianity that can be laid at the door of any worldview.

So?