Left Powerless Over Sin? No!

[Gerr]

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.

And if atheists were in the majority, they'd be doing exactly the same thing - setting public policy according to THEIR agenda!!! In fact, as small as they are, they have successfully influenced public policy according to their own agenda - no nativity scene in public places, no school prayers, and they would like to remove "In God We Trust" from the US currency.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

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?

If god can't prove that he's god then he's not all powerful. So it would seem that if there was an all powerful, all knowing god up there, he would have some means of proving that he existed.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

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.

And if atheists were in the majority, they'd be doing exactly the same thing - setting public policy according to THEIR agenda!!! In fact, as small as they are, they have successfully influenced public policy according to their own agenda - no nativity scene in public places, no school prayers, and they would like to remove "In God We Trust" from the US currency.

It's because we want a government that favors no religion over another. We don't have "In Allah we trust" or "In Shiva we trust" or other gods.

What's interesting is that while Nativities are allowed on public property, clearly promoting the Christian god, when solstice celebration symbols or sayings are put up, which by the way was the original holiday, they are vandalized. This is typical Christian "values" at work. This is why we don't want Christianity to be the official religion of the United States. Ignorance always resorts to violence.

We would also fight for your right to display any religious icon or message on your own private property. It is the use of public property to promote religion that we are not in favor of.

The original motto of the United States was E pluribus unum. (Out of Many One) That's the motto the Founding Fathers chose for this nation. It was replaced by "In God We Trust" in 1956 by a typical fearful religious and superstitious reaction to communism. The McCarthy era is a particularly shameful period of American intolerance and fear.

So when we see "In God We Trust" we see a symbol of persecution of free thinkers. And it continues with the same religious intolerance and revisionism presented by modern Evangelicals and their desire to declare the United States a Christian nation.

[Gerr]

If god can't prove that he's god then he's not all powerful. So it would seem that if there was an all powerful, all knowing god up there, he would have some means of proving that he existed.

And just what kind of proof are you looking for?

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

If god can't prove that he's god then he's not all powerful. So it would seem that if there was an all powerful, all knowing god up there, he would have some means of proving that he existed.

And just what kind of proof are you looking for?

Well since Jesus stated that Christians would do greater miracles than he, I think raising people from the dead would be a start.

One particularly convincing test would be the restoration of an amputated limb.

This would get my attention.

We don't see miracles like Jesus or Paul did. We see a lot of convoluted excuses and complex theological apologetics or blaming the questioner.

Like fccool pointed out in an earlier post, this is like when psychic readers blame their mark for not interpreting what they had to say correctly, when it becomes apparent they are full of it.

[M. T. Cross]

Originally Posted By: cardw

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

Originally Posted By: Gerry Cabalo

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

If god can't prove that he's god then he's not all powerful. So it would seem that if there was an all powerful, all knowing god up there, he would have some means of proving that he existed.

That is a point I have been trying to make for a long time here. If the Christian God is so omnipotent then why does he not make his existence plainly known?

But this is where my view takes a twist from the atheist one.

I have had one or two experiences in my life that have proven to ME the existence of the deity I honour. They were simply powerful enough experiences that I simply could not deny them. Trust me when I say I spent a lot of time trying to deny them, trying to convince myself it was all in my head. But I couldn't in the end. Had they not happened I would not believe in what I believe in. They were not written in a book that has not been updated in a thousand or so years, they were not simple things that could be explained away by any science other than I hallucinated them. Trust me I looked into that as well.

Now twisting back LOL. Those are my experiences. They helped me grow, they helped me understand some things. But its not for me to run out telling others that they must get their lives in order with my experiences, to form any public policy around them would be abhorrent to me, and I can not PROVE them, I can't even really describe them.

So we have here two people like fcool and cardw. They say without proof they can't believe in any deity. They have offered up ample opportunity for people to give them proof. No one has done it. Because no-one can. The Christians here can't, I can't. It simply does not exist in a way that is provable at this time. Maybe some future day science will have a way of proving it..... who knows. I understand their argument 100%. I think many people choose to read what they say as an argument against faith. It does not strike me as that. I see them arguing against living in fear, against the guilt regime that a lot of Christianity represents, against the insistence that everyone should believe in this faith and against public policy ever being based on one religions dogma. So they are arguing for free will. They are asking for honesty. I fail to see the problem there.

[fccool]

Gerry, don't you think a true God would know what evidence would certainly convince people like cardw and myself?

[Gerr]

Well since Jesus stated that Christians would do greater miracles than he, I think raising people from the dead would be a start.

One particularly convincing test would be the restoration of an amputated limb.

This would get my attention.

These have already been done! As Jesus said, ESV | ýJn 5:46 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me," and again, ESV | ýLk 16:31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’ ”

Jesus raised Lazarus, yet the Jews except for a few believed in Him. Jeroboam had his withered arm restored, but that did not keep him from idolatry. Pharaoh saw all kinds of miracles, but that did not convert him. What you are asking for is nothing new. Paul had to deal with it. As he said, ESV | ý1 Co 1:22 "For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom." So Jesus said, ESV | ýMt 12:39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. ý40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

[fccool]

Quote:

These have already been done!

So, what would be the issue repeating them again?

[Gerr]

Gerry, don't you think a true God would know what evidence would certainly convince people like cardw and myself?

See my response to cardw. Also, God has left plenty of footprints in His creation, but these evidences are deemed not adequate "proofs".

[phkrause]

A true God to who? Those that require actual physical evidence?

Yes the same evidence that the Jews required! And what did Jesus tell them? And also the High Priest and what did Jesus do for him, or should I say, say to him.

[fccool]

Originally Posted By: fccool

Gerry, don't you think a true God would know what evidence would certainly convince people like cardw and myself?

See my response to cardw. Also, God has left plenty of footprints in His creation, but these evidences are deemed not adequate "proofs".

I think the sole reason that I'm not convinced should be indicator that these are inadequate.

Different people have different requirements to be convinced. If doubting Thomas was shown the wounds, then why not us today?

There's nothing wrong with believing otherwise unless adequate proof was presented. We are not Israelite who seen God and still decide to reject Him. We are people who have not seen God, and not quite convinced that the poor writing of superstitious and self-absorbed people 2000 years ago constitutes a sufficient enough proof of revelation of God.

Adequate proof would be similar to that which would make you believe in Allah, for example.

What would it take for you to believe that Allah is true God? Certainly, it's not the miracles of Allah recorded in the Quoran?

[fccool]

Likewise, the single fact that there are pastors today who live comfortable lives... owning cars, houses, never have to think about food on their table... claiming that "God blesses them", while there are hundreds of thousands of children who have nothing and who will starve to death... that my friend is a problem you just can't explain with "sin", or "free will".

What evidence can you really provide in light of something like that?

[Gerr]

Do you reject an evidence merely because it is 2000 yrs old? What would make a 1000 yo evidence more believable than a 2000 yo?

[fccool]

A true God to who? Those that require actual physical evidence?

Yes the same evidence that the Jews required! And what did Jesus tell them? And also the High Priest and what did Jesus do for him, or should I say, say to him.

It's like me hiring you for a month, and then telling you "Well, I've read this book, in which a guy was given a salary, and he gambled it away... so I'm going to do the right thing and avoid paying you because the character in the book did this awful thing"

I have to remind you that there were Characters in the Bible to whom God revealed himself and they believed and obeyed. But, of course, pointing to the unbelieving Jews is more convenient in this case.

[M. T. Cross]

There are plenty of miraculous happenings recorded by the Nordic Gods, the Tuatha De Danann of Ireland etc as well. Apparently these are not enough to convince you that they are also Gods.

Gerry, there are many amazing things in nature, the universe, all around us I agree. But they can be explained by science. They are also often attributed to deity other than the one you worship. It does little to prove that he is the one and only almighty GOD.

[fccool]

Do you reject an evidence merely because it is 2000 yrs old? What would make a 1000 yo evidence more believable than a 2000 yo?

No, I reject evidence because it's something you'd do given different circumstances.

If I told you that I believe that my dog can speak english, you would want more evidence than having my word. You would want to see my dog speak. You wouldn't just believe me.

I could tell you that my dog can speak when no-one is looking or recording it. But what's the point then?

This is exactly how Christianity presents God and the Bible. Jesus simply seems like a form of modern Elvis. There are plenty of "Elvis sightings" and myths and places surrounding these. Of course the story does not have the qualities to be turned into a full-blown cult religion, but there are conventions of people who believe all sorts of things. The further back you go in antiquity, the more cults of these you find.

So, yes. A modern evidence would be great.

[cardw]

Originally Posted By: cardw

Well since Jesus stated that Christians would do greater miracles than he, I think raising people from the dead would be a start.

One particularly convincing test would be the restoration of an amputated limb.

This would get my attention.

These have already been done! As Jesus said, ESV | ýJn 5:46 "For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me," and again, ESV | ýLk 16:31 He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.’ ”

Jesus raised Lazarus, yet the Jews except for a few believed in Him. Jeroboam had his withered arm restored, but that did not keep him from idolatry. Pharaoh saw all kinds of miracles, but that did not convert him. What you are asking for is nothing new. Paul had to deal with it. As he said, ESV | ý1 Co 1:22 "For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom." So Jesus said, ESV | ýMt 12:39 But he answered them, “An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah. ý40 For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

This is the level of hearsay. This isn't evidence of anything other than the ability of ancient writers to tell fantastic stories.

I almost quoted this text for you because I could have predicted this response. I thought you might have caught a clue when I included blaming the questioner, but alas, I was mistaken.

All I get as an answer is the implication that I'm evil and adulterous for requiring evidence, which is really insulting.

Like fccool said, this is like the psychic blaming the mark for doubting.

[phkrause]

He did not reveal himself till after the fact! Read Hebrews. One in particular is Abram, who left family, home, etc., to follow by "faith" the Bible says not by sight. Did David, Solomon see God? or did they see him through the many miracles that they witnessed, and the prophets that told them what God wanted from them? They first believed by "faith."

[cardw]

I could tell you that my dog can speak when no-one is looking or recording it. But what's the point then?

Good point! Just reverse the spelling and you have the same thing that Christians are claiming. :)

[Gerr]

Likewise, the single fact that there are pastors today who live comfortable lives... owning cars, houses, never have to think about food on their table... claiming that "God blesses them", while there are hundreds of thousands of children who have nothing and who will starve to death... that my friend is a problem you just can't explain with "sin", or "free will".

What evidence can you really provide in light of something like that?

I'm not sure if you are responding to Gibs or me. You have already rejected the explanation as to why God's original creation and plan is not what we see today. That's the same attitude many scientists take with regards to origins, i.e. dismissing God as the Author of creation.

[fccool]

Quote:

He did not reveal himself till after the fact! Read Hebrews. One in particular is Abram, who left family, home, etc., to follow by "faith" the Bible says not by sight. Did David, Solomon see God? or did they see him through the many miracles that they witnessed, and the prophets that told them what God wanted from them? They first believed by "faith."

PK. Have you read the Bible at all? Did Abram have a feeling to leave? That's not what the Bible says.

The Lord had said to Abram, “Go from your country, your people and your father’s household to the land I will show you.

2 “I will make you into a great nation,

and I will bless you;

I will make your name great,

and you will be a blessing.[a]

3 I will bless those who bless you,

and whoever curses you I will curse;

and all peoples on earth

will be blessed through you.”

[skyblue888]

Science has not been able to explain what "life" is and they never will be able to unless they become like little children and accept the Scriptures.

Scientists are still searching to discover its origin. They hope that by going into space they will some day discover it. So far all they have said is that life is a combination of forces!

Yet the Scriptures clearly teach that there is only one life and that is the life of God. Christ declared that He was the life. He is the life of everything that lives. Col.1:17; Acts 17:28.

"Not only is He the Originator of all, but He is the life of everything that lives. It is His life that we receive in the sunshine, in the pure, sweet air, and in the food that builds up our bodies and sustains our strength." Education,196,197.

Thus we read, "All creatures live by the will and power of God. They are recipients of the life of the Son of God." 1 S.M.301.

This is physical life.

In order for Him to be spiritual life to us, we must receive Him into the heart by faith, by bringing to God the merits of His infinite sacrifice. Then He is made unto us wisdom, righteousness, sanctification, and redemption.

sky

[cardw]

Science has not been able to explain what "life" is and they never will be able to unless they become like little children and accept the Scriptures.

The scriptures are not an explanation. They are a claim. And that's all they are worth in regards to the origin of life. You quote these because you think they have power. They don't. It just confirms that you don't get it and are relying on superstition.

This idea that I have to be simple minded to "get it" is an excuse to stay simple minded. It would explain the general lack of understanding of basic reason among advocates of simplemindedness.

[fccool]

Sky,

Scientists through George Lucas, who was inspired by The Great Force to write and produce the 6 films of truth have properly told that the life is a force.

Just watch Star Wars, based on true story, and you'll see what life is and how to properly know the force.

Star Wars is the true and only way to the force that's life.

Insert Star Wars quotes here.