Well, the best approach is to actually get to know the person and relate to them as a human rather than merely attempting to prove something to them. You would be a challenge, but IF the Spirit of God is real and alive in His people, you would feel it from me eventually. Being a native who is not clouded with modern intellectual egotism, you would not be biased against the possibility of such a heightened awareness.
If those ideas were proven true to you, and never had to change every 15 minutes would it still be bad? Besides the underlying theme is Love. Whats wrong with love?
You would be a challenge, but IF the Spirit of God is real and alive in His people, you would feel it from me eventually.
That's just it, though. If I would feel the spirit of god from you, what makes you think it is not the same feeling that I had with my tree god, which I and my ancestors worshipped before? In fact, does it make buddha a real deity, since many many many people have felt his spirit for millenia?
If you were paying attention, I siad that I don't have to prove anything to you. You have to prove it to yourself, thats Jesus comes to you, on your own personal level. I can only convey the method by which it worked for me. When I did that, I got a response like poppy cock or something.
I never said you need Christianity for love. But the Love that comes from true believers is unmatched. True unselfish love is what Jesus wanted from us. We as mortals have a hard time achieving that.
But to base your life on them, knowing full well that in 15 minutes there will be an update is just silly.
The problem is, none of the other ways to know anything are distinguishable from "just making shit up."
You're putting constancy over accuracy. That's pretty stupid. It doesn't matter if you have to update your knowledge when that's the one thing that's letting you know you're on the right track.
Sorry, Riverrat. I'm not so lazy that I prize never having to learn over being right. I'd rather be right and getting righter than eternally and unchangingly wrong.
That's just it, though. If I would feel the spirit of god from you, what makes you think it is not the same feeling that I had with my tree god, which I and my ancestors worshipped before? In fact, does it make buddha a real deity, since many many many people have felt his spirit for millenia?
On one level, you are correct. There is simply no way to "prove" emotional/spiritual issues. On another level, the majority of believers who are somewhat literalist believe that there are basically two spirits...two vibes. 1)The Holy Spirit...or God and 2) The "other" ones. It would not be impossible for the spirit known by you as the "tree god" to be the same as the holy Spirit. Test the spirits. How do we test spirits? Well, they have to have characteristics that are common and similar. If our final judge for accuracy is human wisdom, there is no way to prove anything. Thus, our standard should be the Bible. Why the Bible? Because human wisdom cannot prove anything except the familiar. Note the word familiar. Look at how it appears in the Bible:
Leviticus 19:31 'Give no regard to mediums and familiar spirits; do not seek after them, to be defiled by them: I am the LORD your God. Leviticus 20:6'And the person who turns to mediums and familiar spirits, to prostitute himself with them, I will set My face against that person and cut him off from his people. Leviticus 20:27'A man or a woman who is a medium, or who has familiar spirits, shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones. Their blood shall be upon them.'" Psalms 41:9 Even my own familiar friend in whom I trusted, Who ate my bread, Has lifted up his heel against me.
So what does this term familiar mean? Websters says thus:
familiar \fe-mil-yer\ n 1 : companion 2 : a spirit held to attend and serve or guard a person 3 : one who frequents a place 2familiar adj 1 : closely acquainted : intimate 2 : of or relating to a family 3 : informal 4 : forward, presumptuous 5 : frequently seen or experienced 6 : of everyday occurrence familiarly adv
I know that many science minded freethinking literalists will scoff at a supernatural reality, and the fact is that it can not be proven unless it has been experienced. Even then, it is a matter of belief.
I'm beginning to wonder if christians such as yourself ever put your beliefs on the line to be tested.
Why should our standard be the bible?
quote:Because human wisdom cannot prove anything except the familiar. Note the word familiar. Look at how it appears in the Bible...
This is not a valid answer. I can just as easily point out that my tree god left me a book called the lola-oh-ma-yada. Why not resort to the standard of the lola-oh-ma-yada? Why not resort to the koran?
This is not a valid answer. I can just as easily point out that my tree god left me a book called the lola-oh-ma-yada. Why not resort to the standard of the lola-oh-ma-yada? Why not resort to the koran?
Well, for one thing, the Bible is an all time best selling widely read book which can not be said for the lola-oh-ma-yada. You are coming at me with a relativistic argument that asserts that one man can have an individual truth which is every bit as valid as a collective truth. It may well carry weight if you asserted your source book to be the Encyclopedia, for this source is widely published. As for the koran, it is unlike the Bible, so give that argument to the jury. Can both be right, oh relativists? iiNet | naked dsl - broadband - adsl - phone - voip
Well, for one thing, the Bible is an all time best selling widely read book which can not be said for the lola-oh-ma-yada.
There you go. Do all religious people have some kind of sick sexual fantasies for logic fallicies?
You are coming at me with a relativistic argument that asserts that one man can have an individual truth which is every bit as valid as a collective truth. It may well carry weight if you asserted your source book to be the Encyclopedia, for this source is widely published. As for the koran, it is unlike the Bible, so give that argument to the jury. Can both be right, oh relativists?
I am not a relativist. In fact, I don't like relativists.
To me, there is truth. However, you can never know truth for sure. This is the reason why I asked for definite evidence or proof in the first place. Appeal to popular opinion isn't a definite evidence or proof.
The Laminator
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!
Well, for one thing, the Bible is an all time best selling widely read book
Hey Phatboy good to see you in the 'hood again.As to the above statement. The Dr.Seuss book Green Eggs and Ham {my favourite}is an all time best selling book as is Harry Potter.Fictional works do not mean that something is valid as other than entertainment or moral instruction.
Hope you hang around for awhile.Where you been anyway?
Hey, Sidelined! I've been busy. I lost my job here in Denver as Cub Foods pulled out of town so I slummed it on Unemployment and took a job with a Natural Foods store until Safeway took me on last month. I agree with Lam about voting democratic because Unions are democratic and I need the protection. One thing I disagree with about unions, however, is that they would rather drum up support for 100 people gaining a dollar rather than helping me get five! Oh well! ================================================================
Lam writes:
To me, there is truth. However, you can never know truth for sure. This is the reason why I asked for definite evidence or proof in the first place. Appeal to popular opinion isn't a definite evidence or proof.
Lam, what IS truth? Is truth merely a verifiable scientific fact? Is truth originating from a source other than humanity and our wisdom?(or lack thereof) I will agree with you on one thing. This debate will never be settled. If you ask for definite evidence, you are asking me to present you with God, in a manner of speaking. I cannot drag Him out of Heaven and lay Him at your feet. I can tell you that I pray to Him. I can tell you that many close friends have had answered prayers. I can tell you that as a group, believers know Him rather than knowing merely about Him as a story or legend. Still, we will never prove anything to you. You have the right to accept proof in your life for whatever you choose to believe in. If you go for the tree god, however, you are selling yourself short. gods of creation and nature are much less efficient.
The historical evidence points to the Torah being written by the temple priest of Judah. It has material from Babylon and other influences. The priests were attempting to consolidate their hold on the people and "found" in the temple a "lost" book of laws, presumed now to be Deuteronomy. (Who Wrote the Bible, by Richard Friedman) The bible at any rate is obviously written by people, as was the Koran, Book of Mormon etc. Religious authorities work this way in various era's and parts of the world.
I think many religious experiences are real "experiences" but given interpretations. If you feel a strong encompassing love you might explain it as "Jesus", or "Jehovah", or "Krishna", or whoever. The experience is real, but authorities use that to consolodate power over people, i.e. to collect money, votes, whatever.
Almost all religions have similiar content regarding "supernatural" manifestations both of the good kind from prayer, and of demonic sorts. Christianity (and later Islam) inherited the Jewish priests religious intolerance. That intense desire to have total religious control by claiming all who don't accept your authority are "evil" or influenced by evil demons seems to have come from Zoroasterism in Babylon. Zarathustra seems to have been the first to make explicit religious intolerance as an aspect of the divine (A Wandering God by Morris Berman). By comparison the Greeks and Romans were remarkably tolerant, but we see what that got for their religion!
However, the grecian philosophy eventually developed in the Renaissance into the forerunner of science. This tension between Greek rationality, tolerance, and humanism and the Judaic/Christian prerational religious intolerance and emotional control by claiming to represent the ultimate power of the universe and hence as representatives of that power the priest, or Pope, or whoever is to be "Obeyed" is a fertile tension in our culture and has even made this forum possible!
To me, there is truth. However, you can never know truth for sure.[/qs]
That is a self-refuting statement. If you can't know truth for sure, then how are you sure that you can't know truth for sure? Is it the truth that you can't know the truth?
Here is one truth that I can know for sure: I think, therefore I am.
If you say there are no absolutes, I ask you, are you absolutely sure about that?
™ Version 4.2