Which Would You Personally Prefer...

[element771]

What if your evidence is wrong but you have no way of knowing it?

For example, driving a car down the road and your speedometer reads 50 mph (or kph if you prefer). You think you are going 50 mph because of the reading but in reality you are going 40 mph (kph).

[37818]

If you start with premises that you see as true, but the person you are speaking to does not, then your argument has no chance of convincing. If your goal is to convince, then you have to start from a place where you can agree on the premises.

A common ground. Sometimes one needs to discover key points of disagreement to find the common ground. Points of disagreement, sometimes one needs to discover, if possible, the reasons for said disagreements.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I can tell you that, for me, it's not about hearing at all. I "hear" you quite well. But you begin with assumptions about what is true that I do not agree with - so I am not going to agree with your conclusion. You also have a tendency to speak in very arcane terms, so sometimes I truly have no idea what you are trying to say.

Sometimes some ideas share a word which can have different meanings. Such as "existence." Space-time versus Being. The latter referring to an entity whose Hebrew Name means Existence. Having a charateristic like space-time being everywhere - but not being the space-time. see Acts 17:28.

For me - forgiveness is a gift I give myself. I do not forgive someone because they deserve it - I forgive them because I wish to let go of the anger and animosity and move on. If I don't forgive, then I chew on the wrong I am holding on to, practicing what I would like to say or how I can get "even," and it eats at me inside - disturbing my peace. When I forgive, I let go of all of that and I move on.

Yes.

But the idea of obtaining forgiveness from God, without having to do something to deserve it. The issue of justice versus mercy. If mercy is given without justice, God is not being just. If justice is given without mercy. God is not being merciful. This is not found in except in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. see argument made by Paul, Romans 3:23-26.

Ultimately - the statement "god exists."

Yeah, that is the conclusion. The question becomes how did you get there. What was discovered that was not true which lead you to that conclusion?

As a Christian, I believed that Jesus was my god and that all one need to do is accept him as such. If the acceptance is genuine, it will come with a desire to follow the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth; to live one's life in accordance with his words. That is what I believed as a Christian, and how I spoke about those beliefs to those who did not hold those beliefs.

There are different ideas of Jesus being God. As to how Jesus is being both God and a man. As in Tritheism, Modalism, a god as in Arianism. And then the Trinity explanation(s). This becomes another sub discussion.
Such as some other Christians such as the owners here of Tweb think my Trinitarianism is heresy. Not merely secondary disagreement.

It is possible, my friend, that you are confusing "understanding" with "agreeing." Yes, I often have a hard time understanding you. But even when I actually do understand you, I disagree with you. My faith journey has taken me in a different direction. I still find great value in many of the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth. But he is, for me, one of many great men/women with profound things to say.

That could be. In my thinking here, just as understanding the concept of 1 + 1 = 2. One would agree with it. There are some truths, once understood, cannot be shaken as being understood as true. I am of the persuasion that the genuine gospel of grace is one such truth, which once correctly understood can then be believed. see Paul's argument to the Corinthian church, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4.

[carpedm9587]

A common ground. Sometimes one needs to discover key points of disagreement to find the common ground. Points of disagreement, sometimes one needs to discover, if possible, the reasons for said disagreements.

Sometimes some ideas share a word which can have different meanings. Such as "existence." Space-time versus Being. The latter referring to an entity whose Hebrew Name means Existence. Having a charateristic like space-time being everywhere - but not being the space-time. see Acts 17:28.

My friend, I have no reason to "see Acts 17:28." For me, Acts is a book of the bible, a record we believe was written down by the same author who penned the Gospel of Luke, and it provides some insight into how the early Christian community saw itself, and some of the activites of the various player. It also tells us a lot about their beliefs. Beyond that, it is not a text I would tern to for a scientific discussion (e.g., space-time), or for an understanding of the nature of existence. This is an example of a place where you have a premise that you accept as true but your audience does not share.

Yes.

But the idea of obtaining forgiveness from God, without having to do something to deserve it. The issue of justice versus mercy. If mercy is given without justice, God is not being just. If justice is given without mercy. God is not being merciful. This is not found in except in the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. see argument made by Paul, Romans 3:23-26.

See my note above about "seeing Romans." You're also talking about obtaining forgiveness from a being I (we?) don't believe exists, so your cart is WAY before the horse. I have no cause to seek forgiveness from a being I don't think exists, and I seek forgiveness when I have done something that harms someone else.

Yeah, that is the conclusion. The question becomes how did you get there. What was discovered that was not true which lead you to that conclusion?

That is a long story - and a long path. Ultimately, when I began to require from myself that I have a solid basis for any belief I held, I found that my existing beliefs in a god did not have that solid basis. When I began to explore religions in general, I began to see patterns that led me to the conclusion that all of the religions of humanity are exactly that - of humanity. To accept any of them as true requires me to accept a great deal without adequate supporting evidence. The combination of my lack of true direct experience of the supernatural, widespread fraud related to the supernatural, a perfectly reasonable historical path for how religions came to be, and the internal contradictions in so many religious beliefs, led me to the belief that we humans have created our gods in our own image and likeness.

There are different ideas of Jesus being God. As to how Jesus is being both God and a man. As in Tritheism, Modalism, a god as in Arianism. And then the Trinity explanation(s). This becomes another sub discussion.
Such as some other Christians such as the owners here of Tweb think my Trinitarianism is heresy. Not merely secondary disagreement.

I believe Jesus of Nazareth existed, that he was a rabbi in the Judaic tradition. I believe he was an itenerrant preacher who spoke a core message about love over legalism. I believe he was babarically executed, and a small core of his followers took up the message. These early Nazareans would probably have been forgotten to history were it not for the charismatic leadership of one Saul of Tarsus. Combining his leadership with a powerful message led to a small sect becoming a major religion. The same has happened around other leaders (i.e., Muhammed, Buddha, etc.).

That could be. In my thinking here, just as understanding the concept of 1 + 1 = 2. One would agree with it. There are some truths, once understood, cannot be shaken as being understood as true. I am of the persuasion that the genuine gospel of grace is one such truth, which once correctly understood can then be believed. see Paul's argument to the Corinthian church, 2 Corinthians 4:3-4.

I am aware of that, and there was a time when I would have agreed with you. I do not anymore. See my response (above) to "See 2 Corinthians."

[JimL]

Explain why you think man was always evil?

Never claimed that man was always evil.

How was man made good, without having the knowledge to understand the difference between good and evil, to know to choose to disobey is evil? Do you think not being able to choose is good?

It was you, not me, who claimed that god created man "good." Which you am I debating this with?

[Tassman]

What if your evidence is wrong but you have no way of knowing it?

For example, driving a car down the road and your speedometer reads 50 mph (or kph if you prefer). You think you are going 50 mph because of the reading but in reality you are going 40 mph (kph).

50 kph is an actual testable speed, if the speedometer is wrong it can be shown to be wrong.

[37818]

Never claimed that man was always evil.

It was you, not me, who claimed that god created man "good." Which you am I debating this with?

You argued,

. . . If a god made man, then he didn't make man good, if he did then that man wouldn't have disobeyed god in the first place. . . . .

Claiming that I was the one not understanding the Biblical text. Did you not?

[element771]

50 kph is an actual testable speed, if the speedometer is wrong it can be shown to be wrong.

But you don't have access to anything while driving and you have no reason to think that it is wrong.

Or what happens if all of the instruments that you have were calibrated wrong to give the exact same discrepancy.

Are you justified in holding this belief even though it is false?

[JimL]

You argued,
Claiming that I was the one not understanding the Biblical text. Did you not?

Yes, I did, and that was in response to your claim that god made man good. You claimed that god made man good and that then man did evil. Thats a contradiction. My reply was to say that, if man was created by god, then god didn't make him good else he wouldn't have done evil. In other words man is neither good or evil, he simply lacked knowledge of good and evil.

[37818]

So this is what I need to understand from you. How do you recognize a truth. And how would you explain how to recognize a truth?

But that does not answer my question. You need to explain what you mean by "substantive evidence." I for one do not believe in "Santa" or in multiple "gods." And explain how one is to recognize substantive evidence which constitutes truth.

[37818]

Yes, I did, and that was in response to your claim that god made man good. You claimed that god made man good and that then man did evil. Thats a contradiction. My reply was to say that, if man was created by god, then god didn't make him good else he wouldn't have done evil. In other words man is neither good or evil, he simply lacked knowledge of good and evil.

I did not make the claim God made man good. God it was good in the account. I explained why it was not a contradiction.

[37818]

That is a long story - and a long path. Ultimately, when I began to require from myself that I have a solid basis for any belief I held, I found that my existing beliefs in a god did not have that solid basis. When I began to explore religions in general, I began to see patterns that led me to the conclusion that all of the religions of humanity are exactly that - of humanity. To accept any of them as true requires me to accept a great deal without adequate supporting evidence. The combination of my lack of true direct experience of the supernatural, widespread fraud related to the supernatural, a perfectly reasonable historical path for how religions came to be, and the internal contradictions in so many religious beliefs, led me to the belief that we humans have created our gods in our own image and likeness.

For me I can no more deny God than I can deny I am typing this to you. Now if God was not God. I can make some, what I think, would be explicit arguments why here is no such thing as God. But God is God.

Secondly, Christianity is a supernatural, paranormal faith. And it has with it distinct phenomena. Such as those who are of age to understand, do not understand God's grace.

So I remain a Christian.

I believe Jesus of Nazareth existed, that he was a rabbi in the Judaic tradition. I believe he was an itenerrant preacher who spoke a core message about love over legalism. I believe he was babarically executed, and a small core of his followers took up the message. These early Nazareans would probably have been forgotten to history were it not for the charismatic leadership of one Saul of Tarsus. Combining his leadership with a powerful message led to a small sect becoming a major religion. The same has happened around other leaders (i.e., Muhammed, Buddha, etc.).

There is only one possible historic date for those events that happened to Christ. Most Christians do not see it - and it is not an essential.

[carpedm9587]

For me I can no more deny God than I can deny I am typing this to you. Now if God was not God. I can make some, what I think, would be explicit arguments why here is no such thing as God. But God is God.

And I can no more believe there is a god than I can believe that your responses are being spontaneously created by the TWeb server. All I know about life, the world, and the universe leads me to this conclusion. Until I have a reason to think otherwise, I cannot simply will myself to do so.

Secondly, Christianity is a supernatural, paranormal faith. And it has with it distinct phenomena. Such as those who are of age to understand, do not understand God's grace.

This is an example of a sentence I cannot parse. I understand the first and second sentence (generally). The last sentence makes no sense to me and I cannot work out it's relationship to the previous two.

So I remain a Christian.

So long as you genuinely believe it to be, there is no cause for you to believe otherwise.

There is only one possible historic date for those events that happened to Christ. Most Christians do not see it - and it is not an essential.

I'm not sure what this response has to do with what I wrote...

[JimL]

I did not make the claim God made man good. God it was good in the account. I explained why it was not a contradiction.

You didn't? Then go back and read post #154 and then tell me that you didn't make the claim that god made man good, and that a good man then did an evil thing. Maybe you need to explain what you mean by "good" when using it to define mans original condition.

[37818]

You didn't? Then go back and read post #154 and then tell me that you didn't make the claim that god made man good, and that a good man then did an evil thing. Maybe you need to explain what you mean by "good" when using it to define mans original condition.

Yes I said God made man good. I said it because God, after He made man, He said it was good.

[37818]

And I can no more believe there is a god than I can believe that your responses are being spontaneously created by the TWeb server. All I know about life, the world, and the universe leads me to this conclusion. Until I have a reason to think otherwise, I cannot simply will myself to do so.

The God I know is omnipresent. All caused things are in Him by reason He is the Existance in which even space-time has its existence in. God being infinite and personal being omnipresent.

This is an example of a sentence I cannot parse. I understand the first and second sentence (generally). The last sentence makes no sense to me and I cannot work out it's relationship to the previous two.

Let me say it in a more intelligible way. Salvation, that is, God forgiveness of men is by undeserved favor alone, through faith in God's Christ alone. And men who fail to believe it, do so not understanding its truth.

So long as you genuinely believe it to be, there is no cause for you to believe otherwise.

Some truths understood cannot be denied. [Like 1 +1 =2.]

I'm not sure what this response has to do with what I wrote...

I believe Jesus of Nazareth existed, . . .