[pyro-manic]

Currently undecided on religion. I've gone on about it before, so I won't again, but basically, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone (directly OR indirectly), people should be free to believe what they want without fear of persecution.

The whole fundamental-extremist thing is downright evil, IMO, because it makes everyone miserable - the extremists are miserable 'cos the world isn't being run how they want, and the rest of the world is miserable 'cos they're getting murdered.

The other thing is people who can't accept others' views or beliefs. People who say "you're a sinner because you don't believe in Allah/God/whoever, so you're going to HELL!!!11" aren't helping anybody. They're just alienating themselves from the people they're talking to, rather than trying to understand and accept that we're all different. That ain't gonna change. EVER. So just accept it and stop blowing **** up and the world can be a nice, happy, wonderful place. Alright?

Oh, and if i do take up a religion/belief system, then it'll be Buddhism. Actually considering it at the moment, to give me some focus and perspective on things. Dunno, thouogh, 'cos it means I have to stop drinking...

[Woolie Wool]

The definition of agnostic in the poll is incorrect. Agnostics believe nothing is known or can be known about the existence of deities and spirits.

[Nico]

Originally posted by Sandwich
There is only one truth.

Now that's an argument. Muslims will say the same. Shintoists too. Everybody will say the same. Let's here the reason that makes YOUR truth ( which is not the only one since MY truth is that you're completly wrong . Will you deny the fact that MY truth does exist? ) is the one?

[diamondgeezer]

Originally posted by Sandwich
150 years ago no one would have imagined in their wildest dreams that that section of Amos would - or even could - be fulfilled so literally. And yet it has. And I'm living right in the middle of fulfilled prophecy.... sooo cool.

So I'd say that God's been quite busy, if you're willing to see it.

[/b]
All you forgot to mention was that He was working through America and the UK and other countries, without the support of whom Isarael would not have been established and without whose arms trade would have had much more difficulty in winning those wars. I don't mean to try and burst your bubble but the Jews were given that land cos the west felt pity and guilt over what had happened to them in the past. Course that's not to say that God didn't engineer that generosity, but it could have been prevented by, say, a strong challenge by an opposition leader in one of those countries.

This is dangerous territory for me cos I doubt I know more about Israeli history than you

But I suppose now we have to get really deep and start discussing free will. Those countries which helped establish Israel for the Jews - I say they chose to do so of their own volition. You would say that maybe that God was guiding their actions and working through them and the Jewish people to build Israel. The difference is I don't think human decision making is goverened by the Man™, I suppose.

And yet, if you "took the rap" for your own actions - if any of us did - then it would be impossible for us to attain entry into heaven. So you complain that His actions provide you with a way to make it there?

It's almost like feeling really sorry for yourself, and wanting to be cheerful. But when someone comes along and says, "I love you, brother - accept that and I'll cheer you up", you resent him for trying to cheer you up? Doesn't make much sense to me.

You're twisting what I'm saying. If I wanted to wriggle out from my responsibilites and let someone else suffer for my mistakes then Jesus' would have done me a great favour. And while I appreciate the gesture of goodwill, I maintain that my mistakes are mine to atone for - I will not unload the punishment on other people even if they volunteer and have got themselves nailed to a cross before I can even say 'thanks but no thanks'.

Again, it comes down to freedom and the right of a human being to makes his or her own decisions without God having the final say: if I want to feel sorry for myself then it's my damn right to. I personally enjoy a good sulk now and then, during which time I keep to myself and don't bother anyone else, and thus no-one else suffers because of it.

Your other mistake is to assume getting in to Heaven is everything to me - it's not. It's not the be-all and end-all of my life. I'm more concerned with how I conduct myself down here for the sake of it, not for the sake of buying myself a place in the club class of the afterlife. These debates go around in circles because the religious camp is convinced that everyone believes in and is  obssessed with Heaven while the rational camp will not accept that one's life will be judged after it's over. Or something.

Anyway, the realisation I'm comming to is that my dislike of organised religion stems from my belief in the intrinsic equality of people and not liking being told what to think and do. I instinctivly rebel against any autority which hasn't commanded my respect somehow (for example my teacher is more knowledgable than me, so I do what they tell me since they probably know better) and to be honest what I've learned about religion over the years has [/i]not[/i] impressed me sufficiently. Or, that is to say, has not convinced my of the credibility of all this wonderful stuff God is meant to have done. Even your favourite argument, Sarnie, the Israel prophecy, can be explained by western politics and the hard work of regular human beings. Israel was not pulled out of a hat - that would have gotten my attention - but was built by people. I credit the dedication and suffering that was endured by the people who built Israel. I do not credit God with it as He wasn't the one busting His arse with a spade digging over the desert.

Perhaps I ought to be grateful to God for creating me and allowing me to enjoy this world? Well I am certainly grateful, but to human beings - my parents. Not God. They created me, they protected me and now I want to work hard to look after them in kind. As far as I know, no higher power has ever intervened in my life. I don't see any divine being watching over me and guiding and guarding me. And again, to be honest, if I could I'd say 'thanks but no thanks'. Just as I don't want to be dependant on my parents all my life, I wouldn't want to live in a world where every achievment I make is God's doing and not my own. I will take credit for what I achieve just as I will take responsibility for my failures.

When things go wrong I will not shrug and say 'meh, it's God's will'. When I win I will not say 'thanks for another hand-out Lord'. My life is mine to lead until God comes down here and shows me some damn good reasons to think otherwise.


[EDIT]Woolie, we've already been through that. We debated it for a page or two then dropped it and discussed more interesting topics. So if you please...

[Stunaep]

Originally posted by Sandwich


There is only one truth.

I can buy that. Prove me yours is right?





Thought so.

I'm inclined to agree. There is one absolute truth. Probably in religious matters as well. But face it, so far none of us have any idea what it is. That's why we call believing in God, *believing*. Because we don't know for sure.

Which is why I see no reason why not to express your opinion about god, and spread it, but to go around slap people with it, or worse, kill people because of it is just plain wrong.

Ok, that's fine - great, actually. But what good is that faith in her, or her faith in you, if you never do anything that shows your faith?

It reminds of that "game" we all played one time or another as kids.

"I know such-and-such!"
"Oh yeah? Prove it - tell me!"
"Uhmmm... No! I don't want to!"

Without substance, your faith is meaningless.
 

On the other hand, the virtue of marriage will be all the more beautiful, if you can trust your other half blindly, that she will not cheat on you, and will respect you, and will not talk harm about you. If you constantly have to prove your faith, it already means there is a chance of being unfaithful. Thus being faithful without proving it, is a far greater virtue than proving it all the time.

This is assuming your g/f/wife does the same, of course. I forget that sometimes.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by mikhael
Faith is, after all, a belief that does not require proof.

That's one of the biggest misconceptions about the Christian belief.  Our definition of faith is like trust.  We see and hear what God has done in the past, and we believe and trust (or have faith) that he will continue to do it.

And faith isn't without evidence.  If there were no evidence, it wouldn't be faith so much as wild speculation.  But there's definitely a lot of evidence to support our faith.  That doesn't mean it categorically proves it, just that it supports it.

[Su-tehp]

Originally posted by Sandwich
There is only one truth.

In my line of work (lawyer), I encounter a lot of people claiming to tell me the truth. My buddy is also a criminal defense lawyer, so you know he regularly encounters clients who claim to tell the truth but who very likely aren't. By the same token, the prosecutor who's arguing against my buddy's client is also claiming to be telling the jury the truth.

So who's telling the truth? Well, the jury decides that from the evidence.

There's a lesson here, if you care to look.

I've encountered lots of things that were true, not just one. The only absolute truth I've ever seen is that there is no absolute truth.

Originally posted by Sandwich
Sorry, I was grouping secularisim with the decline of morals in the world. In my eyes, and in the "eyes" of the Bible, things such as sex with anyone other than your wife (whether you have a wife or not) are simply wrong, a sin. Yet secularisim repeats the mantra of "As long as you don't cause others harm, everything's cool. If you both consent, it's fine."

Hence the disapproval secularisim finds in my eyes, and I would hope, in the eyes of anyone who believes in the Bible as the Word of God.

Does that include me, Sandy? I'm a secularist and that mantra of "As long as you don't cause others harm, everything's cool. If you both consent, it's fine" is one of my most ferverently cherished beliefs. Does that make me immoral in your eyes? You've met me face-to-face on more than one occasion, Sandwich. You know that I hold to a code of honor and I live my life according to that code, including that mantra of causing no others harm. I'm a lawyer with a sworn oath to uphold the laws of the United States of America, so how can I do any less? By all rights, I am a moral man AND a secularist; the two ideas are not incompatible.

Sandwich, you know me and I consider you one of my greatest friends, despite the fact we've met only twice in person and live thousands of miles from each other. After all this time we've known each other, do you really think me immoral?

After my stating it publicly that I'm a secularist, I need to ask: do you disapprove of me, Sandwich?

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Goober5000
That's one of the biggest misconceptions about the Christian belief.  Our definition of faith is like trust.  We see and hear what God has done in the past, and we believe and trust (or have faith) that he will continue to do it.

And faith isn't without evidence.  If there were no evidence, it wouldn't be faith so much as wild speculation.  But there's definitely a lot of evidence to support our faith.  That doesn't mean it categorically proves it, just that it supports it.

Interesting. It looks like the evangelicals and fundamentalists where I live are either lying to me, or they don't understand their own religion.

When I looked up 'faith' in the dictionary, I found this:

  1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
   2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
   3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
   4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
   5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
   6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Definition 1 might apply, but makes no claims about proof or the lack thereof. Definition 3 has a different semantic loading, specifically when combined with the example used. Definition 4 is more on topic, but irrelevant here, because this is faith in my wife. Definition 5 is on topic but does not apply, due to inapplicability to my marriage. Definition 6 applies, but again, doesn' t make any claims for or against proof.

Definition 2, however, makes a specific claim about what 'faith' is, and its relationship to proof and/or evidence.

If it will make you feel better: the only proof, the only evidence I need is the fact that she's there, right now. Does that satisfy your "testing"? She's there, that's proof enough.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by karajorma
Suppose something happens to the nation of Israel 50 years from now. Would you conceed that the prophecy must be false? Of course not.

Erm... no. This particular prophecy is pretty specific about that: "I will plant Israel in their own land, never again to be uprooted from the land I have given them." Therefore, if any nation(s) succeed(s) in destroying Israel, God's word will have been proven false, God a liar, and Jesus a lunatic.

[diamondgeezer]

*presses big red button marked "do not press EVAR"*

*watches nukes rain down on Israel*

*hears God dissappear in a puff of logic*


Harsh but true

[Singh]

Originally posted by diamondgeezer

Now, this Jesus fellow died for our sins I'm told. Don't take this too seriously, but I must ask you - what's he done since then? I mean, we've not seen or heard from either Jesus or his pappy for some 2000 years now aside from unsubstantiated 'miracles' here and there and the odd vision. I'm not at all convinced they're still paying attention based on that evidence. Again, no offense, but I must use the phrase 'one-trick pony'. Granted, dying for our sins is a jolly decent thing to do, except that I didn't ask him to do that for me, and I would not have done. I prefer to face up for my own actions and would not ask someone to take the rap for me. Jesus provided this service 2000 years ago, without asking me if I wanted it, and is now demanding payment for it in worship if I want in to Paradise? No chance, matey.
[/color]

He did come back...just migrated to the far east in the form of the Sikh Gurus (around 600 years ago) and Ghandiji. Both had the same conviction, the same willingness to help and die for their sins (most of them did. A lot of Sikh Gurus were killed by the muslims, despite showing no hatred or apethy to them. Ghandiji was killed by a terrorist Hindu despite being a hindu himself. If people actually knew much about his works, you would quite literally see something almost identical to what jesus did, but in a more modern sense.) but both were ignored since they were the matters of the east, rather than that of the christians of the west.

[Singh]

Originally posted by Sandwich


There is only one truth.

All I can say to this, is that logically speaking, this is Wrong.

At humanity's level, we have different truths according to different views. Who's the say the same isn' t true (again, subjective)for God's level as well? If we have a single God, then again, we have a single style of thinking of that viewpoint (forgive my english, i have no idea how to actually put what i am thinking about).

And again, if he/she/it does see it from all angles, then it won't matter, since we still have a single way of thinking about that truth, automatically invalidating it when a different way of thinking comes into the picture, or a totally different viewpoint

This is almost totally garaunteed - as large as the Infinite number of viewpoints is, it is, after all, infinite - never ending. God may be equal to infinity, but who's to say he/she/it is larger than it? God will still have to go through those viewpoint, and as soon as one is done, there will be a million more each time. Sort of like a race where you try to catch up more and more with an opponent, but he just remains the constant distance away, despite your best attempts.

[/rant]

[Nico]

And so, btw, before the christ, before god was even considered, all the people, what happened to them?

[Singh]

Originally posted by Nico
And so, btw, before the christ, before god was even considered, all the people, what happened to them?

hmm...i guess they would just be satisfied with eating, sleeping and making children without worrying much other than the occasional predator.

[Sandwich]

Originally posted by mikhael

So basically, all the Buddhists, Hindus, Shintos and the rest are doomed to go to Hell because they never got a visit from the Christ Faerie? Its rather interesting how your minority faith gets a claim over the majority of the world.

Do you hold the viewpoint of there being many "truths"? I certainly don't. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man can come to the Father but by me." That doesn't leave much room for other ways to reach fulfilment/nirvana/God/heaven/whatever.

BTW, I've stopped wasting bandwidth hedging my statements in this thread as "my POV" or the way "Christianity views things". You all know by now that I believe in what I believe in, and that all my statements are from my POV. So forgive the lack of political correctness.

Originally posted by mikhael
I could group judeo-christian morality with the rise of slavery or the hate crimes that continue here in the American South, but that doesn't make it a true link.

Yes, you could. And certainly the typical American "Christian" family isn;t setting a good example on retaining morals and being the model family... heck, divorce rates are higher within the church than without. Just goes to show what happens when people think that they're free to do anything and live life however they want, since Jesus will forgive them. Nigh on blasphemous if you ask me.

Originally posted by mikhael
I wasn't being sarcastic. Besides, why would a movie change my mind when the Book and its followers have never been able to offer anything to sway me? I'm far less likely to have my mind changed by a MOVIE than by rational debate with my colleagues.

No, I didn't mean for it to covince you to become a follower of Jesus or anything... it was simply in response to your (seemingly) sarcastic comment about Jesus allowing the world to be stuck without salvation. The movie, which portrays the last 12 hours of his life, by all accounts I've heard does an excellent job at conveying what he suffered for our sakes.

That's all I was wanting you to see in the movie - the price and the pain.

But if that comment truly wasn't sarcastic (which I honestly still find hard to believe), then nevermind.

Originally posted by mikhael
If I require proof, then my faith is false. Faith is, after all, a belief that does not require proof.

No, there's a different between false and meaningless. I have faith that there's a little old lady in China who stand 5'4" tall. That faith is (most likely, and for arguments' sake, definitely) true. However, it's also a completely meaningless faith for me - unless that faith in her existance causes me to take action in one way or another - pray for her wellbeing, send her a basket of food, whatever.

Originally posted by mikhael
That's a dodge because it doesn't address the question at hand.
In science, there is a school of thought called 'positivism'. Loosely, positivism is the idea that if two explanations of a phenomena both exactly desribe and predict that phenomena, then both are interchangeable for each other and equally valid. An example of this is the wave/particle duality of light. Wave theory and particle theory are both valid, if applied correctly. Usually such dualities are signs that the theories involved are actually subsets of a larger, more complete theory.
Both your explanation of the situation and mine fit the facts. I suggest that they are interchangeable.

I agree, but you said it yourself:  if applied correctly. I personally know one person who is quite well off - through her own brilliant business mind and hard work - and is quite humble and reliable with how she spends that money. Her goal is not the money.

But there are other people - a larger percentage, unfortunately - who do not have the self-discipline and wisdom to handle ever-increasing amounts of money wisely.

Originally posted by Nico


Now that's an argument. Muslims will say the same. Shintoists too. Everybody will say the same. Let's here the reason that makes YOUR truth ( which is not the only one since MY truth is that you're completly wrong . Will you deny the fact that MY truth does exist? ) is the one?

Of course they will. And of course Christians do too. I mean, look at it objectively for a minute... if you see a building on fire, would you run into that building screaming at those people who don't know about the ire yet that they need to vacate the premesis, or would you go in and tell people that there's a fire, and accept it when they say "I don't see it, therefore I don't believe you."

Now I know that that's what everyone says, but I'm just trying to help you see from my perspective. I know something you don't, and you refuse to believe me because you've had too many fire alerts recently that were false alarms, and besides, you don't see any fire.

Yet.

Did that make sense?

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
All you forgot to mention was that He was working through America and the UK and other countries, without the support of whom Isarael would not have been established and without whose arms trade would have had much more difficulty in winning those wars. I don't mean to try and burst your bubble but the Jews were given that land cos the west felt pity and guilt over what had happened to them in the past. Course that's not to say that God didn't engineer that generosity, but it could have been prevented by, say, a strong challenge by an opposition leader in one of those countries.

This is dangerous territory for me cos I doubt I know more about Israeli history than you

But I suppose now we have to get really deep and start discussing free will. Those countries which helped establish Israel for the Jews - I say they chose to do so of their own volition. You would say that maybe that God was guiding their actions and working through them and the Jewish people to build Israel. The difference is I don't think human decision making is goverened by the Man™, I suppose.

Like you said, aside from the last sentence, we agree completely. Small example, but a cool one: According to the book of Revelation, when Jesus returns and His feet touch the Mt. of Olives, it will split in 2 down the middle, north and south (a crack from east to west/west to east).

Gess what they've recently (a few years IIRC) discovered running under the Mt. of Olives? Yep - a branch of the Syrio-African rift, running from east to west.

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
You're twisting what I'm saying. If I wanted to wriggle out from my responsibilites and let someone else suffer for my mistakes then Jesus' would have done me a great favour. And while I appreciate the gesture of goodwill, I maintain that my mistakes are mine to atone for - I will not unload the punishment on other people even if they volunteer and have got themselves nailed to a cross before I can even say 'thanks but no thanks'.

I understand that, an respect you for it, even though I'm not completely convinced that you understand the ramifications of paying the wages of your actions. But we've been over that one already...

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
I personally enjoy a good sulk now and then

Nothin like it in the world.

Originally posted by diamondgeezer
Israel was not pulled out of a hat - that would have gotten my attention - but was built by people. I credit the dedication and suffering that was endured by the people who built Israel. I do not credit God with it as He wasn't the one busting His arse with a spade digging over the desert.

You really should look into the formation of Israel then, because it pretty much was pulled out of a hat... or a grave, to be precise. 3 years after the Holocaust, Israel is formed and fights a defensive war against invading Arab armies from all around her. And prevails. It's really quite bizarre, and, dare I say it? Miraculous?

Originally posted by Stunaep
Thus being faithful without proving it, is a far greater virtue than proving it all the time.

How can one be faithful without proving it? You can have faith (in something/someone) without proving it, but you cannot be faithful without proving it.

Originally posted by Su-tehp
So who's telling the truth? Well, the jury decides that from the evidence.

Exactly... which is the truth? I merely contend that the Bible is true.

I'm not talking about little nuances of "truth", which, when you get down to it, are not really truth or untruth, but differences of opinion. "She deserved it for what she did to me / He made me feel unloved and was ignoring me" - those are differing opinions, neither of which can be said to be truth or untruth. Smell the color nine, y'know?

Originally posted by Su-tehp
Does that include me, Sandy? I'm a secularist and that mantra of "As long as you don't cause others harm, everything's cool. If you both consent, it's fine" is one of my most ferverently cherished beliefs. Does that make me immoral in your eyes? You've met me face-to-face on more than one occasion, Sandwich. You know that I hold to a code of honor and I live my life according to that code, including that mantra of causing no others harm. I'm a lawyer with a sworn oath to uphold the laws of the United States of America, so how can I do any less? By all rights, I am a moral man AND a secularist; the two ideas are not incompatible.

Sandwich, you know me and I consider you one of my greatest friends, despite the fact we've met only twice in person and live thousands of miles from each other. After all this time we've known each other, do you really think me immoral?

After my stating it publicly that I'm a secularist, I need to ask: do you disapprove of me, Sandwich?

Chris, I consider you a person who is moral according to the ever-shifting morals of this world. I don't disapprove of your life in your situation.

But the morals you live by are not morals that I could allow myself to live by. Of course, many of them are... you're not gonna go on a killing spree, you're not gonna go break into someone's house and steal something. These we definitely have in common. But there are other ares, such as (I assume, and forgive me if I'm wrong and/or out of line) sexual relations, where we do not have the same morals. By the morals I live by, in such areas, you are immoral.

That does not mean that I disrespect you. It simply means that I try to hold myself to the stricter standards set in the Bible, whereas you try to hold yourself to the looser standards set by the world. And, I freely admit, I'm not a stranger to failure in that regard.

[Nuke]

ok, this thread has offitially been a long winded course at scoring lots of points in scrabble. i hearby resign from the religion thread on account that it contradicts my belief that overexplanation of any penonema creates chaos and causes me to halluucinate and want to kill things.

[mikhael]

Originally posted by Sandwich

Do you hold the viewpoint of there being many "truths"? I certainly don't. Jesus said "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man can come to the Father but by me." That doesn't leave much room for other ways to reach fulfilment/nirvana/God/heaven/whatever.

Actually, I don't hold that there's a single truth or multiple. I do hold that the one to which you cleave is, in fact, wrong. There's a distinct difference.
On what do I base this? These "facts":

• God is a careing God and treats the people of the world as His children
• God creates the world and the people in it.
• God sets up the path to salvation in such a way that only one third of the population can attain it.
• God leaves the rest to either burn or suffer for the situation which he set up.

Sorry. If that's the one and only "truth", its a law. The source of your morals is as immoral as is possible to be: He's condemned two thirds of the world for no crime other than being who and what He made them.

Yes, you could. And certainly the typical American "Christian" family isn;t setting a good example on retaining morals and being the model family... heck, divorce rates are higher within the church than without. Just goes to show what happens when people think that they're free to do anything and live life however they want, since Jesus will forgive them. Nigh on blasphemous if you ask me.

I'll let you take that up with them. They certainly seem to think that you are absolutely wrong about that. They're pretty sure that they're going to heaven because Jesus forgives them. I know: they tell me every second sunday morning when they wake me up.

No, I didn't mean for it to covince you to become a follower of Jesus or anything... it was simply in response to your (seemingly) sarcastic comment about Jesus allowing the world to be stuck without salvation. The movie, which portrays the last 12 hours of his life, by all accounts I've heard does an excellent job at conveying what he suffered for our sakes.

That's all I was wanting you to see in the movie - the price and the pain.

I can read your Book for that, and that way I don't have to pay into Mel Gibson's coffers and help push his little vehicle for self aggrandisement ever higher. But, and I ask this with the best of intentions, shouldn't you see it yourself before you recommend it?

But if that comment truly wasn't sarcastic (which I honestly still find hard to believe), then nevermind.

I tell you again, I meant that in all seriousness. See, again, the first part of my response. Anyone who can be part and party to a system that damns two-thirds of His people for no crime other than being what they were made to be is immoral and cruel and not worthy of worship or faith.

I agree, but you said it yourself:  if applied correctly. I personally know one person who is quite well off - through her own brilliant business mind and hard work - and is quite humble and reliable with how she spends that money. Her goal is not the money.

But there are other people - a larger percentage, unfortunately - who do not have the self-discipline and wisdom to handle ever-increasing amounts of money wisely.

You're dodging. Both interpretations are equally correct and both WERE applied correctly. The both accurately described the situation, albeit mine more cynically.

Of course they will. And of course Christians do too. I mean, look at it objectively for a minute... if you see a building on fire, would you run into that building screaming at those people who don't know about the ire yet that they need to vacate the premesis, or would you go in and tell people that there's a fire, and accept it when they say "I don't see it, therefore I don't believe you."


Now I know that that's what everyone says, but I'm just trying to help you see from my perspective. I know something you don't, and you refuse to believe me because you've had too many fire alerts recently that were false alarms, and besides, you don't see any fire.

Yet.

The difference being that I can go get a piece of wood, set it alight and take it to the person and show them, indeed, fire. Can you go get God, Jesus or Heaven itself and show it to me? Or can you only offer indirect 'evidence' (... because 'x', God must exist, because 'x' couldn't just happen!). Your argument makes sense, on the the surface, but fails under even cursory scrutiny.

Exactly... which is the truth? I merely contend that the Bible is true.

I'm not talking about little nuances of "truth", which, when you get down to it, are not really truth or untruth, but differences of opinion. "She deserved it for what she did to me / He made me feel unloved and was ignoring me" - those are differing opinions, neither of which can be said to be truth or untruth. Smell the color nine, y'know?

That's easy enough. You can't prove anything outside of the realm of the universe to be 'true'. Every time you have to resort to 'faith' or 'belief' or 'religion', you are resorting to opinion (def: "a personal belief or judgment that is not founded on proof or certainty").

[Bri_Dog]

god gives us free will then expects us to do as he says or go to hell

[Grey Wolf]

You know what's fun to try to do? Reconciling religion with quantum physics and string theory. It's a bit difficult, but can cause rather interesting effects.  Basically, having the idea of having a God who rather than directly guiding creation, more or less weights probabilities.  Rather than the rather odd one week story found in Genesis, you instead have the far more interesting eons of history of slow development.  Also, there are quite a few ratios which, if off by even a small percentage, would prevent stars, let alone life, from developing. There, in my opinion, can you see the hand of God.

As a note, no reason you can't reconcile different faiths, either. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all off the same base, and Hindu (and it's closer derivatives) often borrows concepts and figures from other religions and intereprets them as incarnations of their god/gods (it's a bit odd in that aspect.

[Goober5000]

Originally posted by mikhael
The difference being that I can go get a piece of wood, set it alight and take it to the person and show them, indeed, fire. Can you go get God, Jesus or Heaven itself and show it to me? Or can you only offer indirect 'evidence' (... because 'x', God must exist, because 'x' couldn't just happen!). Your argument makes sense, on the the surface, but fails under even cursory scrutiny.

But Jesus did in fact come to Earth and do miracles.  Some believed him and some didn't.  If somebody has made up their mind to believe or not believe, they're not going to change their mind even if someone shows them direct evidence.

And there's a lot of evidence if you're willing to look for it.  People who've had their entire lives transformed after becoming Christian.  Improbable historical events predicted in the Bible, like the formation of Israel.  Even actual miracles, like in Biblical times - a friend of mine went on a missionary trip to India last year and was directly involved in the miraculous healing of a deaf man.