The Wisdom of God
Especially lately there has been a time of financial difficulty in my life, but money just always seems to find me through the most improbable means just when I need it.
new jesus says "here's 500 bucks"
Furthermore, what if you believe one belief and want to believe it, but come to believe that the other belief is actually the 'correct' belief?
there isn't an old jesus....unless you mean OT and NT.
I
In fact, you just said as much.
I guess it's funny that we are having this conversation, because just two days ago a Muslim coworker told me that I should be thankful, and grateful for all of the "daily blessings and miracles" in my life, and that he has never met anyone who has such "good luck. Nothing like what happens for you every day happens for me ever," he said.
In fact, you just said as much.
I guess it's funny that we are having this conversation, because just two days ago a Muslim coworker told me that I should be thankful, and grateful for all of the "daily blessings and miracles" in my life, and that he has never met anyone who has such "good luck. Nothing like what happens for you every day happens for me ever," he said.
I
Especially lately there has been a time of financial difficulty in my life, but money just always seems to find me through the most improbable means just when I need it. I believe he will be converted soon, and he has already recently agreed to come to my church, and not because of any arguments or debates that we have had (though we have had many), but because he is seeing first-hand that there is a peace and confidence through Christ-- through faith-- that cannot be found through the endless keeping of rules and regulations.
Especially lately there has been a time of financial difficulty in my life, but money just always seems to find me through the most improbable means just when I need it. I believe he will be converted soon, and he has already recently agreed to come to my church, and not because of any arguments or debates that we have had (though we have had many), but because he is seeing first-hand that there is a peace and confidence through Christ-- through faith-- that cannot be found through the endless keeping of rules and regulations.
INow, it is true that if you have faith, and a positive attitude, you can accomplish much, and it is better to have faith than not having any faith at all. I don't see how a person can accomplish anything great without the determination that faith brings and without a belief that you will succeed or accomplish whatever it is you are trying to accomplish. And this does not prove anything concerning the supernatural. It is just a better way to be, is all. In my thread on Pascal's wager I put forth the idea that Christianity spread so fast and so quickly because it improved the lives of its adherents. There are secular historians who agree, as also was shown in that thread.
IEven in my church, I see daily the positive and beneficial effects of our faith. I'd be willing to bet anything that our church has more financially successful black and latino members than any church in all of New Jersey and New York. Young men who grow up in the poverty of the city latch on here to the elders and men who have made it and "catch" what they got-- which is faith, positivity, and patient determination in the face of trials and difficulties.
On the opposite side of the pole, what does the government and secular institutions offer them? They offer free money, yes, which often just ruins lives as it makes people lethargic and dependent. They offer no spiritual counseling, no wise instruction, no hope, no personal hands-on care. They offer a cycle of dependance which-- quite frankly-- has already destroyed whole communities and inner cities.
On the opposite side of the pole, what does the government and secular institutions offer them? They offer free money, yes, which often just ruins lives as it makes people lethargic and dependent. They offer no spiritual counseling, no wise instruction, no hope, no personal hands-on care. They offer a cycle of dependance which-- quite frankly-- has already destroyed whole communities and inner cities.
IBut it does demonstrate that how and what we choose to believe determines the quality of our lives. It's a choice that matters.
I don't see how you could ever go wrong by wagering in the direction of Christ. If I'm wrong, then I still lived a good, clean life of service to others and communion with my neighbors, and maybe my funeral procession will be 100 cars long, which would say something of the life I lived and the impact it had on other lives, and my kids could be proud of me. I lived a life of faith, having a positive attitude and never giving up on people and goodness. If I'm right, well- then it's party time!
I don't see how you could ever go wrong by wagering in the direction of Christ. If I'm wrong, then I still lived a good, clean life of service to others and communion with my neighbors, and maybe my funeral procession will be 100 cars long, which would say something of the life I lived and the impact it had on other lives, and my kids could be proud of me. I lived a life of faith, having a positive attitude and never giving up on people and goodness. If I'm right, well- then it's party time!
I can only imagine how little value you must feel my godless life has. On the other hand, I feel sorry for people who blindly accept what they're told whilst believing that everyone else who is blindly believing what they are told, are wrong. Well, I do find the irony mildly entertaining.
Unfortunately, the points you make are often not addressed at what I say, but at what you think I believe.
I don't believe you are being honest with yourself.
If you truly follow evidence, then there is no need to ask stupid questions or make "gotcha-type" responses to believers. For example, if I am following evidence on some matter, or debating some question, I will look at the evidence for, and the evidence against. I do not simply look at the evidence for, and then run to message forums and challenge 'those stupid ignorants who are against' and then actively defend my position to the death until my position is so tied up with "who I am" that I will never relinquish it, because to do so would bring shame, because I identify myself with it, and others do too. No. I will calmly and coolly consider both positions.
And when I present the "for" argument, I will also present the "against" argument, and seek to debunk that argument in advance, if it contains inherit weaknesses.
For example, I've often bemoaned the fact that some atheist objections that I encounter here are just a simple google-search away from being debunked. "Oh no. Not this again."
Is it that the person making the objection is just stupid, and cannot think creatively enough to solve the problem on his own? Or is it that "if my position is going to be overturned, it will have to be toppled by someone else."
This is not the behavior of a truth-seeker, but someone whose position is hardened, and only an act-of-god would move them off of it.
This, to me-- is you.
Again, you just ignore what I say, and if by rote, just repeat your premise and conclusion over and over. If that works for you, by all means, keep on keeping on, dawg.
If you truly follow evidence, then there is no need to ask stupid questions or make "gotcha-type" responses to believers. For example, if I am following evidence on some matter, or debating some question, I will look at the evidence for, and the evidence against. I do not simply look at the evidence for, and then run to message forums and challenge 'those stupid ignorants who are against' and then actively defend my position to the death until my position is so tied up with "who I am" that I will never relinquish it, because to do so would bring shame, because I identify myself with it, and others do too. No. I will calmly and coolly consider both positions.
And when I present the "for" argument, I will also present the "against" argument, and seek to debunk that argument in advance, if it contains inherit weaknesses.
For example, I've often bemoaned the fact that some atheist objections that I encounter here are just a simple google-search away from being debunked. "Oh no. Not this again."
Is it that the person making the objection is just stupid, and cannot think creatively enough to solve the problem on his own? Or is it that "if my position is going to be overturned, it will have to be toppled by someone else."
This is not the behavior of a truth-seeker, but someone whose position is hardened, and only an act-of-god would move them off of it.
This, to me-- is you.
Again, you just ignore what I say, and if by rote, just repeat your premise and conclusion over and over. If that works for you, by all means, keep on keeping on, dawg.
I asked if you had considered why you place so much importance on them, given how unreliable they are, you haven't really responded.
I don't believe you are being honest with yourself.
If you truly follow evidence, then there is no need to ask stupid questions or make "gotcha-type" responses to believers. For example, if I am following evidence on some matter, or debating some question, I will look at the evidence for, and the evidence against. I do not simply look at the evidence for, and then run to message forums and challenge 'those stupid ignorants who are against' and then actively defend my position to the death until my position is so tied up with "who I am" that I will never relinquish it, because to do so would bring shame, because I identify myself with it, and others do too. No. I will calmly and coolly consider both positions.
And when I present the "for" argument, I will also present the "against" argument, and seek to debunk that argument in advance, if it contains inherit weaknesses.
For example, I've often bemoaned the fact that some atheist objections that I encounter here are just a simple google-search away from being debunked. "Oh no. Not this again."
Is it that the person making the objection is just stupid, and cannot think creatively enough to solve the problem on his own? Or is it that "if my position is going to be overturned, it will have to be toppled by someone else."
This is not the behavior of a truth-seeker, but someone whose position is hardened, and only an act-of-god would move them off of it.
This, to me-- is you.
Again, you just ignore what I say, and if by rote, just repeat your premise and conclusion over and over. If that works for you, by all means, keep on keeping on, dawg.
If you truly follow evidence, then there is no need to ask stupid questions or make "gotcha-type" responses to believers. For example, if I am following evidence on some matter, or debating some question, I will look at the evidence for, and the evidence against. I do not simply look at the evidence for, and then run to message forums and challenge 'those stupid ignorants who are against' and then actively defend my position to the death until my position is so tied up with "who I am" that I will never relinquish it, because to do so would bring shame, because I identify myself with it, and others do too. No. I will calmly and coolly consider both positions.
And when I present the "for" argument, I will also present the "against" argument, and seek to debunk that argument in advance, if it contains inherit weaknesses.
For example, I've often bemoaned the fact that some atheist objections that I encounter here are just a simple google-search away from being debunked. "Oh no. Not this again."
Is it that the person making the objection is just stupid, and cannot think creatively enough to solve the problem on his own? Or is it that "if my position is going to be overturned, it will have to be toppled by someone else."
This is not the behavior of a truth-seeker, but someone whose position is hardened, and only an act-of-god would move them off of it.
This, to me-- is you.
Again, you just ignore what I say, and if by rote, just repeat your premise and conclusion over and over. If that works for you, by all means, keep on keeping on, dawg.
Let's backtrack to my question about how you can so confidently trust your own personal experiences (and why they have led you to your current beliefs, that would be interesting too), do you have anything to say about that?
HU for rollz?
This is almost pointless. I said nothing about eternal damnation. Why you have couched all expressions of faith within that context is beyond me.
You have goals. I have goals. You have no faith that you will reach your goals. I do.
Who is more likely to reach them?
Wtf does eternal damnation got to do with that point?
Talk about offensive.
Those are just the groups that that Christ came to turn the world toward. 'The healthy have no need of a physician.'
It's all about you isn't it, which was kinda my point earlier. Absolutely nothing you've said has been proof of any kind, just wishful thinking and feel good acceptance.
I can only imagine how little value you must feel my godless life has. On the other hand, I feel sorry for people who blindly accept what they're told whilst believing that everyone else who is blindly believing what they are told, are wrong. Well, I do find the irony mildly entertaining.
Again, you just constantly do this. How you cannot see this is astounding to me. You already know what I "really" believe and who I "really" am, and in the end, no matter what I say or do, your predetermined bias will trump in the end, and you will return to it like a dog returning to his vomit.
I am not here trying to offer you proof of anything. If you really wanted proof, why would you come to me? I'm just an uneducated Christian, a mindless yahoo and a religoid Yankee. You -- on the other hand-- are a great intellectual mind, and you could do a much better job of providing evidence and proof for God's existence than I could...isn't that so? So, prove it, then.
You have goals. I have goals. You have no faith that you will reach your goals. I do.
Who is more likely to reach them?
Wtf does eternal damnation got to do with that point?
Those are just the groups that that Christ came to turn the world toward. 'The healthy have no need of a physician.'
It's all about you isn't it, which was kinda my point earlier. Absolutely nothing you've said has been proof of any kind, just wishful thinking and feel good acceptance.
I can only imagine how little value you must feel my godless life has. On the other hand, I feel sorry for people who blindly accept what they're told whilst believing that everyone else who is blindly believing what they are told, are wrong. Well, I do find the irony mildly entertaining.
I am not here trying to offer you proof of anything. If you really wanted proof, why would you come to me? I'm just an uneducated Christian, a mindless yahoo and a religoid Yankee. You -- on the other hand-- are a great intellectual mind, and you could do a much better job of providing evidence and proof for God's existence than I could...isn't that so? So, prove it, then.
Not really, because I don't know what you believe, only what you say and I've only been addressing things you've said. For example, your reliance on your personal experiences, which is the primary point I raised that you have failed to respond to. I think it's an important issue because it seems to be very common with both Theists and people who have spiritual beliefs generally. The ones you mentioned in passing were in the context of faith healing.
I asked if you had considered why you place so much importance on them, given how unreliable they are, you haven't really responded.
I asked if you had considered why you place so much importance on them, given how unreliable they are, you haven't really responded.
I'm not going to willingly take up a position that I think is weak, no matter how much you try to prod me into it.
You talk about yourself and your thought processes more than anyone else I've encountered on here. It doesn't really advance the discussion.
Let's backtrack to my question about how you can so confidently trust your own personal experiences (and why they have led you to your current beliefs, that would be interesting too), do you have anything to say about that?
Revelation 3:17-18
Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
i would just leave a comment on his newest video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_dbWK2-qQU
or tomff7@gmail.com
(i found that in the comments )
or tomff7@gmail.com
(i found that in the comments )
Still waiting on Tom getting back to me. Looks like he's able to make legs grow but not hands. I wonder why?
Much easier to grow little, stubbly toes than long, pointy fingers, ldo.
Poor Jeremy Beadle. There's no hope for him
I ask this because I can't think of any other 'Does entity X exist?' type questions where I would start with anything other than looking for reasons and evidence as to why we could accept it as possible, or probable. It seems odd to start with looking for reasons and evidence as to why an unseen entity does not exist (we might discover such things as we proceed, ofc).
IOW, I don't see 'Does X exist?' as a two-sided argument. You could later examine the For evidence that the entity exists and see if they are good reasons, but these aren't Against reasons, they are examinations of the For reasons. The only Against reason necessary is that there are, as yet, no convincing For reasons.
Revelation 3:17-18
Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see.
I don't believe in the kind of rational, unclouded objectivity that so many here believe that that they are beholden to. I don't see evidence of this pristine objectivity in anyone-- including myself.
So, I am not all that interested in the mental gymnastics of the philosopher. I'll leave the tedious, rabbit-hole debates to others (we know who they are).
God is not simply "an unseen entity." To say so is to be facetious, purposefully demeaning, and quite frankly-- strange. If your son comes home one day and tells you that he has turned his life over to God in some way, are you going to pull out a rule pad and paper and start scribbling down calculations and drawing flow charts? Is God then an 'unseen entity' in your life, or is "HE" now something more?
Father to child: Let us speak about this unseen entity, sir.
Son: Huh? Dad?
Son: Huh? Dad?
To be honest, I believe that all of the objectivity-worship done here is simply an act. It is mere dressing, mere smoke. And it makes the pretender who fancies this kind of idiom appear egotistical and silly, if not airy and incompetent.
I simply laid out a practical course of answering the bigger questions. The main thing most people lack is a good, old-fashioned sense of you-can-get-off-your-ass-and-do-it instruction. There is nothing wrong with practical, and simple things. Christ said that the mysteries were hidden from the wise, and delivered to the babes. Quite honestly, they are hidden to the learned and the wise because they are blinded by their own incandescent egos. If you are blinded in this way, you just cannot see anything -- nevermind a God who is everywhere.
I'm not chasing down questions until I find myself frozen in the face of the enormous complexity of the machinery that I myself have created. This would bring about a state of impotence, where, unfortunately, much of the elite reside. At some point you just gotta choose to have faith, or not.
In the mean time, you seem to have chosen to try to be as much a dick as you can.
God bless you, sir.
I don't know what you are trying to say, so I'll ask some specific Q's:
If I'm "approaching the question from the wrong attitude", what is the right attitude? Please bear in mind that this is not something I chose to believe suddenly, in a vacuum, but the conclusion I came to from decades of my lifes experiences. It doesn't require brilliance or scholarly study, why do you think it does?
Perhaps there is something relevant with the way you describe objectivity. Since I hold a minority opinion in the US, you might understand why it is so interesting to me that others don't see it the same way as me, when it appears such an easy conclusion. I expect you feel similarly from your position. But I can assure you, there are no mental gymnastics going on in my brain. I am not educated in Philosophy, in fact I find the particularly religious and apologists to be much more familiar with academic philosophy than I am likely to be. But when you describe objectivity so disdainfully, perhaps that is a clue about some differences between our ways of thinking?
The "is this true?" question is something I can ask about religion without any emotional considerations, I don't have family / friends that might stop talking to me if I do not believe the same way as them (you know this sometimes happens). I don't have to treat the God topic any differently than any other "is this true?" question. Don't you think that could be beneficial? And when you suggest that my position was "facetious, purposefully demeaning, and quite frankly-- strange", I wonder if you are at all aware of your Christian Privilege showing up in full force? If I don't believe what you believe, not that I am rejecting your God, or making derogatory comments (all I said was "unseen") and you called this "demeaning." Isn't this an emotional response?
I can't even tease out any questions about the paragraph about "objectivity-worship" and that you think objectivity is being faked. All I can ask is why do you think it is faked, for what purpose? The rest of that paragraph is basically littered with attempted insults, but the obvious point about those is that it says much more about you than it does about your supposed "egotistical, silly, airy, incompetent pretender" target. But hey, perhaps you're just having a ****** day (I thought you had been sounding in a better mood recently, despite this part of your reply ).
btw, you didn't answer my original Q about what you consider to be the main For and Against evidence, or reasons. Nothing in detail is necessary, and obviously I am more interested in what you considered as being in the Against column.
Perhaps that is all it comes down to. I just couldn't "choose to have faith" (about anything really, but certainly not something that is actually important), and for whatever reason, I am interested in why someone else sees faith as a good choice.
If I'm "approaching the question from the wrong attitude", what is the right attitude? Please bear in mind that this is not something I chose to believe suddenly, in a vacuum, but the conclusion I came to from decades of my lifes experiences. It doesn't require brilliance or scholarly study, why do you think it does?
Perhaps there is something relevant with the way you describe objectivity. Since I hold a minority opinion in the US, you might understand why it is so interesting to me that others don't see it the same way as me, when it appears such an easy conclusion. I expect you feel similarly from your position. But I can assure you, there are no mental gymnastics going on in my brain. I am not educated in Philosophy, in fact I find the particularly religious and apologists to be much more familiar with academic philosophy than I am likely to be. But when you describe objectivity so disdainfully, perhaps that is a clue about some differences between our ways of thinking?
The "is this true?" question is something I can ask about religion without any emotional considerations, I don't have family / friends that might stop talking to me if I do not believe the same way as them (you know this sometimes happens). I don't have to treat the God topic any differently than any other "is this true?" question. Don't you think that could be beneficial? And when you suggest that my position was "facetious, purposefully demeaning, and quite frankly-- strange", I wonder if you are at all aware of your Christian Privilege showing up in full force? If I don't believe what you believe, not that I am rejecting your God, or making derogatory comments (all I said was "unseen") and you called this "demeaning." Isn't this an emotional response?
I can't even tease out any questions about the paragraph about "objectivity-worship" and that you think objectivity is being faked. All I can ask is why do you think it is faked, for what purpose? The rest of that paragraph is basically littered with attempted insults, but the obvious point about those is that it says much more about you than it does about your supposed "egotistical, silly, airy, incompetent pretender" target. But hey, perhaps you're just having a ****** day (I thought you had been sounding in a better mood recently, despite this part of your reply ).
btw, you didn't answer my original Q about what you consider to be the main For and Against evidence, or reasons. Nothing in detail is necessary, and obviously I am more interested in what you considered as being in the Against column.
Perhaps that is all it comes down to. I just couldn't "choose to have faith" (about anything really, but certainly not something that is actually important), and for whatever reason, I am interested in why someone else sees faith as a good choice.
Also,
Huh?
First, what kind of calculations and flow charts do you imagine being drawn in this example?!
Second, if my son suddenly believed in god, how would that make it real, if millions of strangers believing now has not made it real? Why could I not ask the obvious: "what do you believe, and why?"
...
If your son comes home one day and tells you that he has turned his life over to God in some way, are you going to pull out a rule pad and paper and start scribbling down calculations and drawing flow charts? Is God then an 'unseen entity' in your life, or is "HE" now something more?
If your son comes home one day and tells you that he has turned his life over to God in some way, are you going to pull out a rule pad and paper and start scribbling down calculations and drawing flow charts? Is God then an 'unseen entity' in your life, or is "HE" now something more?
First, what kind of calculations and flow charts do you imagine being drawn in this example?!
Second, if my son suddenly believed in god, how would that make it real, if millions of strangers believing now has not made it real? Why could I not ask the obvious: "what do you believe, and why?"
HI,
thanks for providing bible words..it makes me take right decision in my life..it makes cool and calm..i have read this at right situation....
thanks for providing bible words..it makes me take right decision in my life..it makes cool and calm..i have read this at right situation....
Feedback is used for internal purposes. LEARN MORE