Rationalising The Irrational - Hardcore Theists Apply Within

You have said before that people made the mistake of worshiping the messenger rather than heeding the message. Paul may have argued that the messenger(Christ) was the message.This gets back to jars tired mantra that Christianity is about what you do.(which you by-and-large agreed with) which leads to the question of whether the messenger was the message. (I preach Christ and Him crucified)I would tend to assert that what we do is a result of who we are (extensions of the medium?)

So you are suggesting that Paul was knocked off of his high horse by a rumor?

My point is that Paul thought that the messenger(Jesus) was the message...which Marshall McLuhan said in his quote. McLuhan was a Christian, FYI.

This applies to the whole take on the war on terror. People in Western nations by-and-large feel safe and secure. As a result, little change occurs between the haves and the have-nots.The majority of Islamic people in the middle east are not so much concerned with converting the world to Islam. They are more concerned with wanting the way of life that those in the West enjoy. Terror is in fact a military strategy to try and stir up the western nations to engage in a fight....the goal being to bankrupt the system and allow a global revolution to take place.

Could it be that the envelope and the message are the same thing?Jesus was the envelope that contained the Creators message. Chew on that one awhile.

that is simply your opinion and has no fact to back it up.

The sticking point hinges around the need for the message.(Original Sin or nah?)
It also hinges on whether an omnipotent messenger would need a unique envelope to reach a planet.

Actually I think that is the crux of most of my religious debates here at EvC.My opponents demand objective evidence. This is a logical request, but it has been brought up that there is no way to test of verify the supernatural--apart from any unique effects that it would have on testable things.Ringo brought up the point that he routinely tests what everybody says---and that it is expected for us to do so.I must be one who goes more with subjective feelings and that whole side of the argument. I feel that evidence is only necessary in the mind of the believer and that people can call me delusional or living in fantasy all they want.I have reasons for my beliefs and yet I appreciate the arguments presented here at EvC as they cause me to think outside my own box.

1) We would have no faith if we had evidence. God wants us to have faith.2) It would give no one the freedom to disbelieve. Its rather hard to disbelieve when the evidence can be replicated before your eyes by anyone or even by yourself.

Depends whether you want to communicate with the sender or not.
You know the old saying: Don't shoot the messenger!Apparently folks did. They didn't want to hear from home...they wanted to be ambitious orphans who could make it on their own.Perhaps they had a mental block where they thought they were orphans to begin with. Perhaps thats why it isnt evident to some folks.Edited by Phat, : added sentence

The downside is that you would have no free will to reject Him.When belief is eliminated as an option, we end up with what we get.Of course you can say that im clinging to belief because accepting evidence would kill my faith. I would say that clinging to the "obvious" kills your freedom.Its better to freely accept or reject. Facts rob us of free will.

Excuse for what? Blaming someone besides ourselves? Counting on someone besides ourselves?Why discourage belief as an excuse? What makes you think you can or should handle all of your responsibility by yourself? You may prefer to do it that way. You may find no evidence that anyone else is in the room besides yourself...but I ask you: Do you really want them there or are you rejecting help so as not to look irresponsible or weak?

the Bible clearly says that without faith....it is impossible to please God. It does nowhere say that without evidence it is impossible to "prove" God as if the Creator somehow needed proof. I am convinced that most people dont want God....its just that simple. Even jar...supposedly a believer (though he leaves wiggle room by saying he is most likely wrong) says that if the God of the Bible were really God, that God would be worthy of scorn and contempt.I can understand you rejecting organized religion.I cant understand you demanding evidence.Many of you know what it is you are rejecting. You may claim that it is impossible to know without evidence.I say you are lying to yourselves.I contend that God exists and that the lack of evidence is a purposeful reality.Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

You know darn well which God you are rejecting. Don't play dumb.

Lets discuss this. Yes He does know. You are just mad because He wants to fry your "friends"...which shows me that you have not been talking/listening very well. You stubbornly insist on evidence...little realizing that He never provided the type of evidence you want on purpose.So again I say that you really decided it is less painful to simply throw all that dogma and myth (as you may call it) away.the reason for Jesus is that God doesnt necessarily have ears. Imagine talking to a cloud. Can the "cloud" hear you?And I remember the argument that a "god" dying and coming back is no big deal.Which shows me that you understand the arguments logically very well but refuse to risk your emotions and hearts on anything less than evidence. Even then I doubt you would want to follow Him.