ur moms a troll with a low post count (lol~~~1111!!!)

Lookout the atheists might disown you.

They do like their intellectual superiority arguments and in your last 2 posts in this thread I think I detect a serious lack of intellect.

Nevermind you undermine their everyone operates from morality argument too.

i dunno wot ne of that means (esp tha last sentince.. wtff u talkn bout?).. but basically i red ur posts n i can deduce from ur argaments that uur moms a troll w a low post count. shamwow ull be sayin wow everytime

No offense. I don't know if you're drunk or having some type of episode but whatever it is I really don't have time for it.

I'll just put you on ignore then you won't feel compelled to direct posts towards me any more.

Have a nice day!

I love the way when you see something you cant explain or come up with a logical argument against, you feel a need to get out of it by insulting someone to cover it up. I'm open to questions about Christianity if people will be civil and non-abusive and I will do my best to answer then.

I don't know why you assume I've never experienced it. I was a Christian most of my life.

Your argument is that to believe in God, first you have to believe in God. If you don't think that's circular, I don't know what to tell you.

Well I think you're a victim then of what I call "The Dolly Parton/Sweetness and Light Syndrome".

I was a Christian for a number of years and used to wonder why I wasn't filled with sweetness and light all the time. Sort of like a sugary sweet Dolly Parton or one of these teleevangelists that smile all the time. Now some people do experience that and some people will experience it gradually over time. But basically we're all unique with unique personalities.

You do have to have patience in the practice of your faith and you have to stick with it. Book work I think is the best. Very few people are immediately enlightened and don't suffer from drawbacks but you stick with it. That's the core of faith: sticking with it thru thick and thin.

The syndrome probably comes from the pressure that church people have to inspire their flocks and or the "sell mentality" of some Christians. If you read a lot of the prophets these are people struggling all the time. It doesn't mean you won't achieve it but you do have to work at it. That's why I liked Brother Lawrence's bio so much. He manages to achieve it a lot.

lif u werr logical u wudnt be christian (duh!)

lol @ splendour hes just like the rst of them

when they get outsmrted (w/ empeerical evidence aka (his mum being a troll w low post cnt) and the bible duznt have n answer they just ignor it (truth/me).

Right, he must have forgotten that you define true Christians based upon whether or not they are still Christians, and so no Christian has ever left the faith.

Lets take this statement in the manner for which it is intended in this particular setting. In poker, a suggestions must be be understood, considered, and verified. If you come up with a logical argument for (for example) the beginning of the universe, besides intelligent design, then I'll hear it and consider it in the way this forum intends it - a logical and scientific manner. Lets forget one-liner anecdotes that mean nothing like the one above, which bring nothing new to the discussion, and get down to cold, hard facts which this community thrives on. If you want to have a pop, do it in an easy-to-understand and logical way and we'll go from there.

Let's make one thing clear - my faith means nothing if I can't back it up - I'm willing to change my views if I can't answer a question - blind faith is no faith at all.

(Also I note that a large amount of the banter in this particular thread leads to Christians describing things in a way not completely understandable to the layman - I will try my best to avoid this - maybe a new thread or PM me might be best!)

Regards

This is called Ex post facto reasoning (first reaching a conclusion, then finding evidence later) and is an incredibly destructive practice.

It's clearly destructive because it can be used to solidify ANY belief. If a method of reasoning can be used to solidify any and every possible (and contradicting) belief, then it can't possibly be a sound method of reasoning.

It's almost hard for me to believe you would own yourself like this.

The Bible claims to be the inspired, inerrant, living Word of God. Either this is true, or it isn't; any logical test will show that there is no in-between (even though in practice many people do try to stand on middle ground).

So we start with the central and most important claim of the Bible: Jesus Christ is/was God in the flesh. This, and not anything else, is the POINT of the Bible. It is the central thesis. A study of the text will show that the things in the Old Testament - history, prophecies, encounters with God - were there to show God's character, and to point to the coming Messiah (which Christianity claims is Jesus).

Examine this claim. Start with one question - did Jesus exist? Some people get hung up on this point. If you get past it, start to examine the historical record. As I understand it, the sheer number of copies of the early gospel manuscripts, and the relatively short time between the events and their records (compared to, say, Julius Caesar and other important works of that time), make it more reliable a text than anything else. This has been scrutinized by people much smarter than me, and it is widely accepted that the New Testament is at least reliable in a general historical sense, to my knowledge.

So do you take it a step further, or do you let it sit there and go on with your life like most people do?

For my part, I believe the Bible when it claims to be the Word of God. This has come over time and it's hard for me to simply pin down the "why" to answer your question. It's been the result of experience, study, and faith.

It's my understanding that Christianity is unique in an important sense: Many religions offer advice on how to reach God/heaven/nirvana, how to live a good life, what you have to do, what is good, etc. Christianity says, "You are sinful and there is nothing you can do to earn your way to heaven." Fortunately, there is a step beyond that where God sacrifices his son, etc., the stuff you've heard about. But I think it's that claim which separates Christianity from most of the other major religions.

Okay, I've gotten wordy. I still want to say this: Nobody ever converted because they lost the argument. If you're an atheist, nothing I say on a message board is going to convince you, and a lot of Christians have lost sight of that. I apologize. It's my hope that we would live lives that show you something good, shine the light of Jesus, and in so doing attract you to what we've got. In fact, the Bible is pretty clear about this being the right way to make Christians - not through the hatred, inquisitions, and in-your-face tactics that we've been guilty of. On behalf of 2 billion people or so: I'm sorry.

Mmmm

As a poker player I rely on deductive reasoning, hard facts and prob poker stove

As a Christain I don't feel I need to apply the same to my faith. Oh and faith is what it's all about folks.

Sure we could debate apologetics but when it comes down to it - it's a personal relationship with Jesus who you see working day to day and feel in your heart. If you Poker Stove it - you'll get odd results - it can't be PS or PT3 it's faith and that faith the bible says does not rest in everyone all the time but it is also a gift from God given at certain points of a persons life - then they have a chance to see and truly believe.

Not sure how well I've explained this - come back at me for clarification.

Bru

You know what this isn't a practical objection to faith.

You better study up on a little thing known as divine revelation. Its the main way its been done for the last 2000 years whether you approve of it or not.

Intrinsic to that revelation is an acknowledgment of the goodness of the object being worshipped so you just don't apply it to every belief.

So I wouldn't confuse it with ex post facto reasoning because its not.

i rofl'd

Well you and Pletho's experience is much different than mine. I was baptized into the CAtholic Church after my mom stopped going to some Fundamentalist church. I was confirmed but for the most part didnt care too much about Church and religion. I went through the motions and didnt think much beyond. After college I ran across some apologetic literature and started to read up more. It answered a lot of intellectual doubts I had. I'll be the first to say that that are times when I doubt. I imagine that most people do. Doubt is the default position of the human experience in my opinion. If it werent for doubt we wouldnt have science, math, etc.

BTW, I fully agree with the guy who said that we should be exploring the universe and natural phenomena in order to find God. He gave us a brain and the power to reason and deduce. No reason not to use them.

Seriously? You just picked out something completely arbitrary that happens to be true about Christianity and claims that it sets it apart. I think the fact that Islam starts with an I separates it from the major religions.

It's not arbitrary. It's a really important idea that ought to resonate with people. The idea of salvation by grace through faith alone is unique (and central) to Christianity.

The 144,000 are Messianic Jews from the Tribulation.

This is what the JW's teach.

Was just going to say that I originally heard the number form an x Jehovah's Witnesses friend of mine.

This is what all religious people suggest about the ideas of their religion. They "ought" to resonate with people. And I agree - if Christianity were true, then the idea of salvation would resonate with people.

But it doesn't resonate with non-Christians. Any more than the idea of jihad resonates with non-Muslims.

True, and the idea of Christianity being the truth isn't what I meant would resonate. I meant the idea that we are, both as a species and as individuals, incomplete and imperfect. If you can't honestly agree with that... I donno.