Left Powerless Over Sin? No!

[fccool]

Quote:

Yes, it is trying to demonstrate that, but it's absurd to believe that a film based on someone's imagination can demonstrate that the Bible's prophecies and history is "self-referencing." All the film can do is try to illustrate the concept of self-referencing, but it can provide no evidence that this is what the Bible is actually doing. You choose to believe the film is right, but that is your opinion, your faith-- not a demonstration of truth.

Not really. The film is not pretentious about being "the truth". It's a work of art, which is subject to interpretation.

It does not scream out "Bible is wrong", unlike religion does the opposite. It paints a concept. Do you understand what a concept is, John?

The concept that the film paints is not the same as you are talking about. It does not reference itself. It merely shows the nature of belief, which is self-evident.

See, so far you have not even attempted to defend against my accusation that you believe the things that you are largely imagining before you are believing them.

That's the nature of belief. It has nothing to do with film, the film merely touches on the universal truth about belief - belief is imagining "the truth".

Quote:

In order to see if the Bible's evidence is merely self-referencing, you have to study the Bible and compare what it says with what we know from history, archeology, linguistics, the ancient manuscripts, etc.

I went to college to do so, and I have a minor in that John . I believed once, and I studied very hard... and ironically, the more I actually studied on my own, the more I saw how bogus all if it is.

That's the point IT DOES NOT MATCH. IT'S EXAGGERATED. Just because it references some real places and people does not mean that we have to believe everything else, or do we?

You simply can't come up with any other sources that would describe the incredible events that happened around that insignificant part of the world during that time. That's where your imagination comes into play, and you keep telling yourself:

1) Well, because this place/person existed, it must be true

2) Well, because the prophecy in the earlier chapter happened in the later one... it must be true.

3) Just because I can imagine certain things to make some sense prophetically by filling the blanks of prophecy constructed in very vague terms - it must be true.

Come on, John .

Quote:

It's silly to think that this can be done by watching a film based on someone's imaginary, fictional experiences. At best all we can say is that the film is an illutration of someone's theory or idea.

That's exactly what I'm saying . It's an illustration of your religious belief.

[John317]

If you seen the end of the film I think there's a very powerful statement Tarkovsky is making. There are unexplainable things, but there's no need to explain them, especially if one does not have any ability to do so.

So, yes. The girl perhaps can push the glasses of the table with her mind, but of itself it is a film - which is a "Zone" of a sorts that requires us to believe that it's possible. But there's zero need to explain it, and that's why the film just ends.

Yes, I saw the end. I saw the entire film and enjoyed it. I'll send the link to a close friend of mine who majoried in film.

The film, and in particular the idea of the "Zone," has some parallels in literature. Have you read Gravity's Rainbow, or other books, by Thomas Pynchon? He's doing some similar things.

[fccool]

I'll have to check it out. The idea for the film was actually taken from Strugatsky Brother's short story, so it did begin as literature.

Strugatsky's are quite fond of playing with allegories. "Inhabited Island" is one of my favorites of theirs.

[John317]

It's silly to think that this can be done by watching a film based on someone's imaginary, fictional experiences. At best all we can say is that the film is an illutration of someone's theory or idea.

Originally Posted By: fccool

That's exactly what I'm saying . It's an illustration of your religious belief.

No. All it is, is an illustration of what you believe about my religious beliefs and experiences. In other words, we see in the film only what the film-makers think about certain concepts and beliefs. We don't see the actual beliefs that he is referencing.

[fccool]

Quote:

No. All it is, is an illustration of what you believe about my religious beliefs and experiences. In other words, we see in the film only what the film-makers think about certain concepts and beliefs. We don't see the actual beliefs that he is referencing.

Not really. What I KNOW about religious belief and experiences - from deeper understanding my personal experience.

I did believe once, John.

Film is merely a metaphor. A better way of saying what I'm trying to say. Some things have to be shown rather said... something Bible does not do too well. It just says things, and has you imagine them, even if you have not seen anything like it.

You are simply unable to distinguish reality and your imagination of it. That's how any religion just keeps on living.

[JoeMo]

John 317,

I don't agree with you 100% doctrinally; but I love your candor and transparency. You are so non-judgmental and calm in your responses.

fccool,

I love your posts, too - you stretch my mind. But from corresponding with John before, I truly believe his experiences are totally genuine and transformative. He's one of the people here that reinforces the my conviction that Jesus works miraculously to transform us if we let Him do so.

[fccool]

See, you imagine that there is a God, and he has a "son" named Jesus , and then there's a Spirit that moves people to do things through some sort of tingling sensation of conviction and presence.

You imagine and then you believe these things. Once you believe them, they become a part of your reality... in the same manner that Allah is a part of Moslim reality, and Elvis sightings are real to his extreme fans.

Once you believe, those things are real to you, even though you can't see them. Then, you simply interpret and filter your reality by means of those imaginary beliefs. Every time you pray, you imagine there's a God listening. Every time you have something amazing happening to you, you interpret it through lens of your belief.

That's the nature of belief in general. Belief is imaginary.

[fccool]

Quote:

I love your posts, too - you stretch my mind. But from corresponding with John before, I truly believe his experiences are totally genuine and transformative. He's one of the people here that reinforces the my conviction that Jesus works miraculously to transform us if we let Him do so.

How did he know that it was Jesus who did that, and not himself motivated by his own imaginary beliefs?

He knew that Because Bible told him, and some preacher explained to him how to interpret it. It did not happen out of thin air with Jesus descending and telling him that he will be changed (Paul experience). If it was such, then I think at least I could understand it better. But for the most, that's not the case. "The experience" of "personal relationship" has to be imagined.

All of it can be explained otherwise, and people can change if they really wanted to. Religion can be a motivating factor for change, but so can be other things.

One can credit a lucky penny for any positive changes in one's life all I know, but in the end - it simply a personal interpretation of one's experience based on BELIEF, which is imaginary.

Personal experience of itself is a poor "evidence", because it's a subjective, especially when it comes to interpretation of events happening in one's personal life as attribution to some supernatural forces.

Consider how horoscopes work.

[fccool]

I'm not doing this to be disrespectful to anyone. I'm merely doing to open people's eyes to some truths that they tend to overlook.

Richard Bandler once told a story that I can't forget. There was a guy who came to him who could not function well in society, because his mind was broken and he just saw Satan everywhere. He was absolutely terrified anywhere he went. So he was locked up in a mental institution.

Richard projected an image of Satan outside of the window and Spoke in the "voice of Satan", and told him:

"Hello [bob], I'm Satan. I was after you, because I want you to do something. There's a book on your table. I want you to study it well, and do everything that it says. If you do it well, you'll never see me again".

The book was a car salesman manual, and the guy became one of the better salesman and a person who is able to function in society.

The point being, much of our fears, wishes, hopes, hate, can materialize as "experience" in a wide variety of ways. What religion does is simply gives the experience a name - Jesus, Satan etc, make you imagine and believe it, and then interpret EVERYTHING based on that belief without asking difficult questions, that would cause you to "loose your salvation".

The moment you stop imagining thing is the moment that you see how ridiculous many of these concepts are. They were not merely useful, but morally and psychologically detrimental.

[John317]

In order to see if the Bible's evidence is merely self-referencing, you have to study the Bible and compare what it says with what we know from history, archeology, linguistics, the ancient manuscripts, etc.

Originally Posted By: fccool

I went to college to do so, and I have a minor in that John . I believed once, and I studied very hard... and ironically, the more I actually studied on my own, the more I saw how bogus all if it is.

You're saying that since you studied the subject for a few years, your conclusion that it is all bogus must be true.

That's interesting in light of the fact that millions of people who've studied far longer and deeper into the subject have concluded that the Bible is true.

Each of us has to study the Bible and decide on our own whether it's true or false. We can't ultimately decide it for anyone but ourselves alone.

Originally Posted By: fccool

That's the point IT DOES NOT MATCH. IT'S EXAGGERATED. Just because it references some real places and people does not mean that we have to believe everything else, or do we?

I believe it does match. Its truth goes far beyond the mere referencing to some real places and people.

Some time we should devote an entire thread to the evidence supporting the Bible and showing why we can trust it.

[fccool]

Quote:

You're saying that since you studied the subject for a few years, your conclusion that it is all bogus must be true.

I never said that it's the sole reason why. You've assumed that I did not have "experience" and did not study. I told you that I did.

Now you throwing it back at me as some sort of disadvantage of mine?

Quote:

That's interesting in light of the fact that millions of people who've studied far longer and deeper into the subject have concluded that the Bible is true.

They imagined (believed) that the Bible is true. Truth is Face to Face coming of reality.

Besides, millions of people concluded that Bible is false likewise, and billions of people concluded that Allah is more true than Yahveh. I think you understand this well, and you still make this point. Why?

Quote:

Each of us has to study the Bible and decide on our own whether it's true or false. We can't ultimately decide it for anyone but ourselves alone.

Sure, that goes for any book or information. The subjective decision does not constitute the proof of any sort, neither how many people believe it or don't. The only thing matters is how well it actually reflects reality... not imagination.

Quote:

I believe it does match. Its truth goes far beyond the mere referencing to some real places and people.

Some time we should devote an entire thread to the evidence supporting the Bible and showing why we can trust it.

Why won't you start one, and put the single strongest evidence that you feel justifies believing in Biblical veracity in its entirety?

You can post a couple you feel are the strongest evidence, if you'd like.

[John317]

... Once you believe, those things are real to you, even though you can't see them. Then, you simply interpret and filter your reality by means of those imaginary beliefs. Every time you pray, you imagine there's a God listening. Every time you have something amazing happening to you, you interpret it through lens of your belief.

That's the nature of belief in general. Belief is imaginary.

Such is also the nature of unbelief. Truth could be staring you in the face, but if you choose not to recognize it, or if you choose to explain it away, it will not exist for you.

The truth of God is such that it doesn't depend on information that only a few people have access to, but it depends on something that everyone can have: an open, willing heart to listen to God and obey Him. Jesus said that if anyone wants to know the truth and obey God, they will know whether Jesus teaches God's truth or not. So it depends on the spiritual condition of the heart (mind), not on educaton or IQ or place of birth.

[JoeMo]

Quote:

How did he know that it was Jesus who did that, and not himself motivated by his own imaginary beliefs?

If his imagination can produce the changes in him; and my imagination can transform me like it has, I'm OK with that. One man's faith is another man's imagination. I don't think it's the Bible that is bogus. I think it's the way denominations tell us to interpret it that is bogus. Honestly, I'm open to the idea that the Bible can tell two people two different things with the same passage because God speaks to each of us differently. Some need rules to follow to confirm their relationship with God. Some don't need the rules - they just need the relationship. There will be those that don't even need a Bible to have a relationship with God. The fact that pagans, atheists, and agnostics stay around here, given the abuse you all often take, is a testimony that some people don't even need to call Him "God" to have a meaningful spiritual life. I admire you, man! If I was an atheist, CA would probably be the last place I would hang out. There are some mean, self-righteous people on here (both believers and non-believers)! There are also some sincere loving people here both believers and non-believers. Non-believers are some of the most sane and logical people on CA.

[fccool]

Quote:

Such is also the nature of unbelief. Truth could be staring you in the face, but if you choose not to recognize it, or if you choose to explain it away, it will not exist for you.

No, the nature of unbelief is unwillingness to accept something based on imagination alone. You are asking me to imagine.

So, I have to believe prior for it to make sense to me. That's silly. It's like saying I'll give you a million dollars when you earn it, and the fact that you earned it is my act of giving you a million dollars.

Quote:

The truth of God is such that it doesn't depend on information that only a few people have access to, but it depends on something that everyone can have: an open, willing heart to listen to God and obey Him.

1) Heart does not listen. It's a blood pumping organ.

2) You probably mean mind, when you say heart.

You are merely re-stating what you imagine is truth as though it actually is. You present no actual proof that your belief (your personal decision) is actually true.

Anyone can just make things up and do that.

Quote:

Jesus said that if anyone wants to know the truth and obey God, they will know whether Jesus teaches God's truth or not. So it depends on the spiritual condition of the heart (mind), not on educaton or IQ or place of birth.

You are speaking in Biblical "bumperstickers". Anyone can do that. But you have given no reason for why it's not merely your imagination reliving the imagined story someone wrote down a long time ago.

[John317]

Some time we should devote an entire thread to the evidence supporting the Bible and showing why we can trust it.

Originally Posted By: fccool

Why won't you start one, and put the single strongest evidence that you feel justifies believing in Biblical veracity in its entirety?

You can post a couple you feel are the strongest evidence, if you'd like.

I will do it-- although I won't be able to start such an involved project tonight, late as it is here already-- but it has to be evidence taken from many different disciplines and topics, not only the strongest single piece of evidence. What convinces me is all of it together. For instance, if the historical evidence was missing, the prophetic or the linguistic or the manuscript evidence alone would not necessarily be convincing. On the other hand, if the prophetic evidence did not exist, then the historical parts by themselves might not convince me. What I'm looking at is the weight of evidence.

[John317]

Quote:

Such is also the nature of unbelief. Truth could be staring you in the face, but if you choose not to recognize it, or if you choose to explain it away, it will not exist for you.

So, I have to believe prior for it to make sense to me. That's silly. It's like saying I'll give you a million dollars when you earn it, and the fact that you earned it is my act of giving you a million dollars.

What's I'm saying is that you have to accept the possibility that the God of the Bible may exist and that it's possible for God to become a man.

If you think that it's not possible for the God of the Bible to exist or that it isn't possible for God to become a man, then you aren't going to be fair to the evidenece.

In the same way, in order for me to be fair with the evidence regarding other religions-- such as Mormonism, JW's, Hinduims, Islam, Buddhism-- I have to be willing to accept the possibility that they could be telling the truth. The same holds true for atheism or agnosticism, etc.

[fccool]

Quote:

If his imagination can produce the changes in him; and my imagination can transform me like it has, I'm OK with that.

Sure, you are looking at the positive aspects of faith. Do you want me to point out negative?

Quote:

One man's faith is another man's imagination.

Faith and hope is very similar - could be summed up in one word - wish.

Christianity is largely a wish IMO.

Quote:

I don't think it's the Bible that is bogus. I think it's the way denominations tell us to interpret it that is bogus.

The trick that any skilled cold-reader scam artist will pull is to convince you that it's not his "psychic reading" that's at fault, but it's your interpretation of it.

So, if you don't see yourself in some prediction... it's your fault, but the psychic reader is always correct.

Once you've decided that, you forever close yourself to a very important possibility - the psychic reader is full of it.

Quote:

Honestly, I'm open to the idea that the Bible can tell two people two different things with the same passage because God speaks to each of us differently. Some need rules to follow to confirm their relationship with God.

Are you open to possibility that Christianity was organized as a religious sect of Judaism with both using religion the way any nation or tribe on this planet used their own - as a political tool?

Quote:

Some don't need the rules - they just need the relationship.

I hear this a lot, but the words "Relationship with God" are not found in the Bible. You can search KJV Bible for the word "relationship" and it will return 0 results.

"Relationship with God/Jesus" theology is a modern invention to bring more people in church based on emotional appeal, especially to their loneliness and feelings of being rejected.

It works, of course. It fills a lot of seats.

Quote:

There will be those that don't even need a Bible to have a relationship with God. The fact that pagans, atheists, and agnostics stay around here, given the abuse you all often take, is a testimony that some people don't even need to call Him "God" to have a meaningful spiritual life.

We don't really feel abused , so don't feel bad for us. I think that being religious is a certain stage of maturity, just like achieving certain realization that's impossible to see given a religious mindset.

I've been in place that John is now, I went from mindless Atheism, to Christianity full of God's miracles in my life - to realizing that it was all in my head.

I don't look down on religious people, neither I feel anger or resentment towards them in any way.

Quote:

I admire you, man! If I was an atheist, CA would probably be the last place I would hang out. There are some mean, self-righteous people on here (both believers and non-believers)! There are also some sincere loving people here both believers and non-believers. Non-believers are some of the most sane and logical people on CA.

Well, I appreciate it. But, I actually think that the ultimate maturity of any human being is admitting that one does not truly know the answer to the most difficult questions. I believe that it's a point of mature human being to face death without any fear, instead of "securing the place in heaven", which is a child's pipe dream IMO, neither it would be desirable for anyone to live forever.

Most of the Christians don't understand the concept of eternal existence and experience and the burden that comes with it. I can now honestly say that death is a necessity of experience. Every experience must end. A never-ending experience is not an experience, because there is no distinction. Good experience is good, because it ends, and it stands out from the bad one in contrast. If all of the experience was good, then there would not be any. If all you ever felt was orgasmic bliss, then you would never felt anything to contrast it with and it would make no comparative sense. Death is a natural necessity, because oddly, I believe, all of us would want it given enough time.

[fccool]

Quote:

What's I'm saying is that you have to accept the possibility that the God of the Bible may exist and that it's possible for God to become a man.

I think we have established that I believed once for many years. I more than accepted it as possibility. I once accepted it as a reality.

Quote:

If you think that it's not possible for the God of the Bible to exist or that it isn't possible for God to become a man, then you aren't going to be fair to the evidenece.

John, this is ludicrous. I'll show you why.

There's evidence that pumpkin fairies exist. It's in the book that was inspired by them, and the fact that pumpkins exist.

If you think that it's not possible for the pumpkin fairies to exist or that it isn't possible for them to create pumpkins, then you aren't going to be fair to the evidenece.

It's demented logic that does not work anywhere else, and you would not accept it anywhere else. Why would you make exception in your case?

Quote:

In the same way, in order for me to be fair with the evidence regarding other religions-- such as Mormonism, JW's, Hinduims, Islam, Buddhism-- I have to be willing to accept the possibility that they could be telling the truth. The same holds true for atheism or agnosticism, etc.

True, but you don't hold it as possibility. Faith is not a statement of possibility. Faith is a statement of certainty.

I simply refuse to make a statement of certainty about something that I don't know, and about something you can't possibly know through direct experience... You read about other people experienced something, and you take it and you model it.

That's what Christianity is - an imitation of Biblical experience.

[JoeMo]

fc,

Quote:

Faith is not a statement of possibility. Faith is a statement of certainty.

I respectfully disagree. Fact - not faith - is a statement of certainty. IMO, faith implies a degree of uncertainty simply because there is no explicit or tangible proof available.

I have heard some people spell faith R-I-S-K, simply because of the uncertainty involved. I'm a pretty sold-out solid believer (some traditional SDA's here may contest that statement); and I could give lots of reasons for my faith; but could I give a proof? no way.

I am taking a risk standing on my faith for the reasons that folks like you and cardw so eloquently and logically point out.

I believe that folks like you and cardw are taking an equal risk by holding on to your faith (I consider atheism a "faith", because atheists can no more prove there is no god than Christians can prove there is one).

Faith is a choice. For Christians, faith (truth) is a Person.

I totally respect where you are coming from, fc - you have made personal spiritual choices based on what you accept as stone cold evidence. I just don't agree with you, that's all.

I have made my choices based on what I consider to be stone cold logic as well. It may be based on esoteric/philosophical logic (e.g., "I think, therefore I am, I think!") rather than tangible evidence, but it works for me.

[cardw]

I believe that folks like you and cardw are taking an equal risk by holding on to your faith (I consider atheism a "faith", because atheists can no more prove there is no god than Christians can prove there is one).

[JoeMo]

You're really a smart guy, cardw. I really do respect you as one of the most logical, challenging, and reasonable people on CA. I'm glad the atheist thing is working out for you. The Christian thing is really working well for me. I'm sure we'll be talking again soon.

[cardw]

You're really a smart guy, cardw. I really do respect you as one of the most logical, challenging, and reasonable people on CA. I'm glad the atheist thing is working out for you. The Christian thing is really working well for me. I'm sure we'll be talking again soon.

Joe,

I'm not so much trying to convince you of my point of view, as I am trying to make sure that the Atheist/Agnostic view is accurately represented.

If you are creating meaning in your life through your belief system, that is outside of logic and is primarily an emotional connection that appeals to your humanity. You are certainly free to explore that as a human being and I have no point of reference to say that it isn't good for you.

Atheism is not a belief system. It is a default starting point. If I were to present what I use to create meaning, I would not use the word atheism. I would say I am a humanist, a pragmatist, and have a commitment to rigorous honesty as my method of searching for truth.

As a humanist I have confidence in the human capacity to have empathy and love. I don't worship humanity or believe that it is infallible. That is something people who are religious assume because that is how they order their belief system around worship and doctrine.

As a pragmatist I have found by looking at what works I have been able to gain insights into areas I would normally have closed my mind to. It is also the basis by which I introduce new mental and emotional tools into my practice of life. I am very results based.

And being rigorously honest I gain the gift of preventing myself from lying to myself. I have recognized that being rigorously honest is a tool that is useful in preventing my ego from keeping me from the truth.

None of these tools are defined by atheism. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god or gods.

[M. T. Cross]

For us to say there is a god would have no meaning because we don't have anything in reality that we can point to and say, "That's god." We can say there is no Yahweh or Jehovah or Shiva or Thor or Zeus or any other declared god because there is no evidence for their existence. None. So the default position is no god until there is evidence for one.

If you were born a Muslim you would be saying that we would be taking a risk by not believing in Allah or Mohammad.

If you were born Hindu you would say we would be taking a risk for not believing in Shiva.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Esoteric philosophy is not logic. If we are to communicate clearly we can't keep changing definitions to fit our claims.

I totally agree with that. Its not logic. Its a feeling. This is why I can't ever bring myself to say that I am right and you or the Christians or Muslims or whatever are wrong. I have no concrete evidence. I have a gut feeling that is strong enough that I personally can't ignore it. I will discuss it and compare notes with like minded people.

In a way atheism is a much more honest approach. You can't see any evidence of God, you can't prove that there are none. So you go with what you do know to be fact. We are born, we live, we die. That's the basics. In the living (and sometimes the dying) there is the choice of whether to do it in an honourable, respectful way, or to just live for yourself and to hell with everyone else. Thats something I totally respect and I wish more Christians would respect.

However I wish atheists would quit getting worked up about people that do believe there is something more. As long as we are not telling them they have to believe the same as us, how does it hurt them?

I think that atheists only get worked up about beliefs that start to set public policy based on those beliefs. I would say that atheists that have really looked at what religion has caused in culture when it has power are the most animate about staying away from imaginary worlds.

That being said I can understand how someone might in a Joseph Campbell sort of way pick a narrative as an emotional guide for personal exploration. This doesn't impose a public policy or value system based on imaginary authority. It might serve as a way to find out what one might really want or how to see some personal conflict differently.

As long as these narratives serve on a personal growth level I see no problem with them. Again, it is when they start to define reality that I would reserve the right to disagree and voice an opinion.

[Gerr]

There is no risk at all. There is simply no evidence for god.

What you mean, Richard, is evidence that you will accept! Just what kind of evidence are you looking for?