"Evidence and Faith"

I think you just went prophetic on me. I think there is a line that can be drawn, where there is objective evidence involved, and subjective evidence.
With subjective evidence, the experiment is not repeatable, and the conclusion is up to the believer.
With the objective evidence, we can get the same result everytime, it obviously isn't real, and God is not communicating to us through this medium.If we start believing in orbs/gems/water cyrstals/ creation science, Then everything that Jesus did for us, is a waste.He died, not only that we may be forgiven, but when He died, the curtain was torn at the temple, and yyou no longer have to go to the temple, or the gem/orb/tower of fire/whatever, the temple is us now. We all know, that those studies, are highly subjective, and a million exuses can be made as to why they are.The water crystals/gems/orbs are not. Honestly, I've searched for 13 years for a church, and I know this is the best I am going to get. This stuff I am worried about, is not the norm for my church (more the people, than the Pastor). I am here in a position of l;eadership, and I can make a difference. I don't want to run, that is what everyone does. That is why religion is dying, people are finding out the truth.You don't have to go to church to have a relationship with the Lord, but where two or more are gathered, you can be more effective in helping others. You can fellowship, and do many more things that you could not do by-yourself.

I didn't say "always". But if the effects of our love are not seen, if there's no evidence of our love, how is the love "real"? As I've already said, I don't define a miracle as a violation of the laws of physics. I'd define a miracle more like a highly improbable event. I gave an example. Just out of curiosity, have you proven the gems "miracle" false? Can you duplicate the trick? In my example, if I believed that our rescuer was sent by God, nobody could prove that false.(Incidentally, "love" can easily be proven false: just look for the bruises.)

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

So then my answer about the objective, and the subjective should do well. We have come close:
http://EvC Forum: Revealing the Truth to People (false signs and wonders) -->EvC Forum: Revealing the Truth to People (false signs and wonders)Seems like, they will not let us scrutinize the gems. The same gems are easily purchased on ebay, and if we had the originals, I am sure we could show they are the same.The orbs are proven wrong.Tell me something, why would God choose to communicate with us, this way, in this day and age? My answer is, there are many levels of love. That is why it is subjective.The only love that is not subjective, is God's love for us.
I believe God has shared just a smidgen of that love with me, and has shown me much by doing so.Edited by riVeRraT, : Tell me something, why would God choose to communicate with us, this way, in this day and age?

That's kinda what I'm asking you. Why would God choose to "communicate" by defying the laws of the universe? Is He so insecure that He needs us to "believe" in Him? Should law-defying miracles improve our faith in Him?It seems to me that "miracles" are meaningless unless they have some practical, real-world effect - like saving somebody's life, or feeding somebody, etc.That is why I don't see the gemstones as a miracle: because they weren't used for any practical purpose. They were only held up as a miracle, as a sign of God's ability to break His own physical laws. That's the hallmark of a fraud.A "real" miracle would be a soup kitchen that never runs out of donations. God's love for us is the most subjective of all.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

While I would have phrased this differently, I know what you're saying, and this is precisely correct, but now you have to follow this to the inevitable conclusions.One obvious conclusion is that unreplicable experiments mean that from a scientific perspective the phenomena is unconfirmed. In lay terms, it's baloney.The other obvious conclusion is that it gives us a clear understanding of the meanings of subjective and objective. If something is subjective it means how it is experienced depends upon the person. If something is objective it means everyone experiences it the same way.This places prayer clearly in the subjective category, and from a scientific perspective it makes it, again in lay terms, baloney.In other words, you can't draw a line. The same scientific techniques that show Dr. Emoto, the water-prayer guy, a fraud will show your prayers a fraud, too. And you can't with any fairness claim that his claims about prayer should be subjected to scientific scrutiny while yours should not. I think you're stuck. Emoto is a very obvious quack, or fraud if you prefer. He and his claims are not even worth discussing. If you want to learn about him just type "emoto quack" or "emoto fraud" into Google. The same type of people who believe this type of nonsense also believe in spoon-bending, past-lives and alien abductions.The modern flim-flam game is played like this: call attention to yourself, then sell something. I suggest you visit Emoto's website (Page not found – Spirit of Ma'at) where you can buy 12 ounces of gasoline fuel conditioner for just $35.90, or 2 ounces of Female-Aid for just $49.95, or a Water Energizer for just $24.00, or 1 ounce of Nano-2+ for just $30.00.As Jar keeps trying to remind you, the religious are just ripe for the pickin' by any con-artist who can spin an appealing yarn with a religious twist. I think the biggest contribution you could make to your church would be to start a weekly seminar titled, "Cons and how to detect them." I think that's what you really need, because sincerely devout religious types are as easy as shooting fish in a barrel to these people.AbE: I wish I could find this old comic I'm thinking of, it's priceless. I think it was by Gary Larson, but I could be wrong. Two adults are watching a televangelist who is saying, "God wants you to send me money." The caption says, "Sounds good to me, Orville, let's send him little Jimmy's college fund."--PercyEdited by Percy, : Add an AbE.

I must say, after reading the last page of posts on this thread, that we should give credit where credit is due. Rr is being extremely courageous, honest, hardworking, and is a shining star of rationality where he is - in a position none of us have. Even if someone doesn’t exactly match up with each of us in every way, we should focus a bit more on the positive, on the areas of agreement among friends. Helping push back the tide of orbs/gems/water crystals, etc is often a thankless job, it’s silly for us to castigate an ally in that. Plenty of people have pointed out that we have as much evidence for miraculous water crystals as for miraculous water walking, but we don’t have to dwell on that point exclusively - that’s not what this thread is for.Rr asked for help with a very logical and clear question (evidence for creationism, etc.), which I hope we did a decent job of answering. Regardless of religion one way or the other, I think as a society and a community we could remember the old saying “because nice matters.”. It does, today as much as ever.Plus, Rr is right that some things are more clearly hoaxes than others, and even if that wasn't the case, it helps everyone for us to at least expose the hoaxes we agree on, then worry about others.Rr wrote: Rr, good luck in your efforts.Take care all--EquinoxP. S. Oh, about the water boy - yep, that's a hoax. It's nice art, but it is art, not science. Notice that his degree is not a real degree. He's just a person who has some nice art. See Masaru Emoto - Wikipedia Edited by Equinox, : added water boy part

There is a wonderful exchange between Jesus and Peter in the Bible. As you know they had a long and somewhat stormy relationship. The image we get of Peter is of someone who is really, really close to getting it but that just falls short. He is so convinced in Jesus charisma that for a time, he can even walk on water, yet he denies Jesus three times when he is really called upon.After the Resurrection Jesus continues to try to help Peter Really Get It but we are left with the feeling that even at the end, Peter still doesn't really understand.The exchange begins with Jesus asking Peter "Peter, do you love me?"A simple question and of course, Peter replies "Hell yes Boss, you know I love you."Jesus replies, "Then feed my sheep."That is the message.Peter failed every test. Yet Jesus not only forgave him, Jesus placed him in THE position of authority.Peter denied even knowing Jesus.Peter never quite got the Gospel.But it is really very simple.Loving GOD is not praise, not worship, not fellowship, not hymns, not even prayer.Loving GOD is trying to do, even when, like Peter, you fail.Loving is doing.Not big things.Not Bringing the world to Christ.Not preaching.Just doing.Doing little things.Doing boring things.Sitting on a hillside watching the sheep in the valley day after boring day.Slopping the hogs.Getting the box down from the high shelf for someone.Squatting on the ground to talk to children.Returning the grocery cart.Opening doors for folk that have their hands full.Saying "good morning".Feeding the sheep.It is not the miracles, not the supernatural, not about salvation, but just trying to do your best.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

this may not go along with what has been previously said (I don't have time to read everything, but has anyone ever wondered how the so-called "information" in Genesis I and II was collected and verified? As far as I know, no-where does the Bible say who was told of the creation of the universe, or how, when, or over what period f time?

---

..."the story the oversoul tells me fits all the facts that I see. Your story, in which I'm endlessly deceived, can also explain all those facts. I have no way of knowing that your story is not true-but you have no way of knowing that my story isn't true. So I will choose the one that I love. I will choose the one that, if it's true, makes this reality one worth living in. I'll act as if the life I hope for is real life, and the life that disgusts me-your life, your view of life-is the lie."

The Bible never identifies the author(s) of Genesis, nor does it explain where the stories came from.The Flood story is fairly clearly a variant of a similar story found in the Epic of Gilgamesh.The first creation story is, IMHO, largely a creation of the author, a priest writing at about the time of the Babylonian Exile who wrote it to emphasise the Sabbath and the superiority of Jewish religion over Babylonian beliefs.The second story is older, and its origins more obscure.

how can Peter not understand the Gospel when they weren't written during Jesus' time on Earth and he wrote one himself? Does that mean that we should renounce his Gospel in the Church and carefully scrutinize evrything credited to him for fear of our being mislead or decieved? I thought you became a Pope by accepting and loving God, not by misunderstanding him and his message... I understand how there is the spoken Gospel and the written Gospel, but what we say and write is not always exactly what we mean, and words written thousands of years ago are even harder to proofread due to the absence of an author who knows and understands what they wrote. But wait, Peter didn't understand the Gospel, did he?

---

..."the story the oversoul tells me fits all the facts that I see. Your story, in which I'm endlessly deceived, can also explain all those facts. I have no way of knowing that your story is not true-but you have no way of knowing that my story isn't true. So I will choose the one that I love. I will choose the one that, if it's true, makes this reality one worth living in. I'll act as if the life I hope for is real life, and the life that disgusts me-your life, your view of life-is the lie."

so how can we be sure that they are true?

There are many "Gospels" if you are referring those written documents that are labeled as "Gospels", but I was speaking of the actual message itself. We should DEFINITELY scrutinize everything. Period! You become a Pope by being elected. We don't know if Peter ever wrote a Gospel, there are fragments of what claims to be "The Gospel of Peter" but both the authorship and creation date are uncertain.The picture though that we get of Peter from the other works is one of someone very close to understanding, but never quite getting it. That is what the exchange recorded between Jesus and Peter is really all about. Jesus is saying, "Peter, you still don't get it. Loving me is in doing, not what you say. If you love me then just go do it. Don't talk about it, do it."I honestly think that many if not most Christians still don't get it.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I agree completely...nice comment about the Pope...and it is unfortunate that more people don't understand the massage, I mean, it's right there, spelled out, but people still don't understand. Very good points, too, about Peter and such. And we should scrutinize everything...............but what if we haven't scrutinized enough, could we be wrong?

---

..."the story the oversoul tells me fits all the facts that I see. Your story, in which I'm endlessly deceived, can also explain all those facts. I have no way of knowing that your story is not true-but you have no way of knowing that my story isn't true. So I will choose the one that I love. I will choose the one that, if it's true, makes this reality one worth living in. I'll act as if the life I hope for is real life, and the life that disgusts me-your life, your view of life-is the lie."

Of course. That is why you do not stop questioning.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

What you say makes a lot of sense.For now, I wll have to agree, since I have never witnessed any law breaking miracles. But I will not discount the possibility either. I think only in our perception of it, it is subjective, but from His point of view, it is 100% pure love, something we are not capable to do, or perceive.