Religion and Superstition

[lucas mccain]

Originally Posted by El Burro Loco

Why are you interested in mine?

Because I've offered many examples of proof that you refuse to accept or explore. So the next step would be for you to offer what you think is valid proof.

I have no shadow of any doubt that God exists. I have proof that satisfies me. That is why God tells each person to seek Him with all your heart and you shall find Him.

Repeat after me "I must seek Him with all MY heart". Not my heart for you but your heart for you.

Fact is there isn't a variable or relative burden of proof. There either is, or there is not.

Again you start talking in circles. faith is faith. The Bible references faith, and faith as a requirement for salvation and/or entrance into heaven on multiple occasions

John 3:18

I do give you points for referencing scripture. However, you have a ways to go before you sound as if you know what you are talking about. Let's take the first verse in the examples you gave that reference faith.

You seem to have read it solely as faith that God exists. However, by the passage you quoted it clearly states at the end that "he who has not believed in the name of the only Son of God is already condemned". The name of the only Son of God refers to Christ the savior. He came to save His people from their sins. Like I said before, Judas Iscariot knew God existed but he didn't believe Christ was the Lord of salvation.

Christianity is built around the concept of faith. Yet you are running from the concept like a scalded dog. Is faith not enough for you? When someone asks for proof that God exists, why do you dance around in circles like this? are you threatened by the lack of proof that God exists? You constantly claim there is proof yet when pressed you speak in gross generalities and continue to claim proof while citing none.

Last I checked, belief in God does not require proof, so why do you continue to claim that proof exists and misrepresent the faith requirement in your own religion?

Of course you must have faith that God exists but that's not saving faith.
Jesus is God so if you believe His claims then of course you automatically have faith God exists.

Again I have to ask, what kind of proof do you personally need to satisfy yourself?

How about my Thomas Jefferson example? Do you believe he existed? Why is it any different than believing Jesus existed and that He claimed to be Savior?

faith comes from hearing the Word of God so keep listening and reading

[lucas mccain]

double post

[binz]

Originally Posted by lucas mccain

I believe Thomas Jefferson existed and helped write a document that formed a country even though I have no real "proof" that he actually existed. Same goes for many figures in history.

No. There is veritable evidence of Jefferson's existence. Birth records, property documents, pictures, relatives, etc. Proof galore.

I would concede to you that a traveling preacher named Jesus from Narareth also existed. But there is zero evidence that his dad was a magic man in the sky. Many many men around that time claimed to be the messiah.

Your analogy is not analogous.

[lucas mccain]

Originally Posted by binz

No. There is veritable evidence of Jefferson's existence. Birth records, property documents, pictures, relatives, etc. Proof galore.

I would concede to you that a traveling preacher named Jesus from Narareth also existed. But there is zero evidence that his dad was a magic man in the sky. Many many men around that time claimed to be the messiah.

Your analogy is not analogous.

Why isn't it analogous?
Scientifically you can't prove any event from the past unless you can recreate the event.

You make excuses why you don't believe what others have testified about Jesus while at the same time accepted birth records, property documents and pictures as proof Jefferson existed. All of which could have been forged. In addition one could argue none of those items prove Jefferson actually contributed to the Declaration of Independence. Maybe Jefferson is a poor example because he is relatively recent history but I trust you get my point. Use someone further back in history and I'm sure you will find examples of people or events you believe in with less evidence.

Curious to know why you concede Jesus from Nazareth was a traveling preacher.
Speaking of which, here's how it has been explained to me...

Jesus said He was God's only Son, the Messiah and God Himself. And you are correct binz, just like many others during those days that claimed to be the messiah. Now if anyone now or then makes those claims there are three basic conclusions you must choose from:

A. this guy is a liar
B. this guy is insane
C. this guy is telling the truth

If Jesus was a liar why would so many people testify of His miracles, resurrection and claim of being the messiah that previous prophets foretold? What would they have to gain? Many who believed suffered terrible deaths because they could not deny what they absolutely knew to be true. What would Jesus have to gain by lying? Who lies for the purpose of recieving pain, mockery and humiliation?

If Jesus was insane He would not have been able to sustain and grow a following as He did. Sure people can be duped but never for very long. The truth eventually gets out and gets told.
Then you also have proof by way of hundreds of eye witness accounts of His resurrection. Paul documented this to the Corinthians. Plenty of people would have been able to verify Pauls claim and dismiss it if it weren't true. If Paul was lying his ministry would have died.

[demvet]

Originally Posted by lucas mccain

Why isn't it analogous?
Scientifically you can't prove any event from the past unless you can recreate the event.

You make excuses why you don't believe what others have testified about Jesus while at the same time accepted birth records, property documents and pictures as proof Jefferson existed. All of which could have been forged. In addition one could argue none of those items prove Jefferson actually contributed to the Declaration of Independence. Maybe Jefferson is a poor example because he is relatively recent history but I trust you get my point. Use someone further back in history and I'm sure you will find examples of people or events you believe in with less evidence.

Curious to know why you concede Jesus from Nazareth was a traveling preacher.
Speaking of which, here's how it has been explained to me...

Jesus said He was God's only Son, the Messiah and God Himself. And you are correct binz, just like many others during those days that claimed to be the messiah. Now if anyone now or then makes those claims there are three basic conclusions you must choose from:

A. this guy is a liar
B. this guy is insane
C. this guy is telling the truth

If Jesus was a liar why would so many people testify of His miracles, resurrection and claim of being the messiah that previous prophets foretold? What would they have to gain? Many who believed suffered terrible deaths because they could not deny what they absolutely knew to be true. What would Jesus have to gain by lying? Who lies for the purpose of recieving pain, mockery and humiliation?

If Jesus was insane He would not have been able to sustain and grow a following as He did. Sure people can be duped but never for very long. The truth eventually gets out and gets told.
Then you also have proof by way of hundreds of eye witness accounts of His resurrection. Paul documented this to the Corinthians. Plenty of people would have been able to verify Pauls claim and dismiss it if it weren't true. If Paul was lying his ministry would have died.

You mean like Marshall Applewhite and the whole Heavens Gate UFO crew?

[lucas mccain]

Originally Posted by demvet

You mean like Marshall Applewhite and the whole Heavens Gate UFO crew?

Sure.
I was thinking more along the lines of Jim Jones, but you can include the Marshall if it floats you boat.

[energy1cls]

Originally Posted by El Burro Loco

Provide what you accept as "proof". An anecdote written by someone, the veracity of which can not be proven, is not proof. If it were, then not only would God's existence be proven, but so would the existence of Achilles, Apollo, Santa Claus and Br'er Rabbit. If everything in the Bible cold be proven as factual, then that would be a source of proof. But outside of evidence of some persons and places referenced in the Bible, the stories about them are largely unprovable, and do not establish proof of God's existence.

Your sources are nothing more than circular logic and dogma, not proof.

You also avoid the key question. What is the purpose of a faith litmus test for salvation, if there is actual proof that God exists? Proof negates faith, faith is not an issue where proof exists.

Originally Posted by lucas mccain

Like I said, you must first decide what you will accept as "proof". It is clear that not even a parting of the red sea will suffice. I offered an excellent source for your consideration. You flipantly dissmissed it as "dogmatic rhetoric". Just goes to prove the old adage that many blind squirrels will find their nuts.

There is proof without a shadow of any doubt. It is all around and even within you. That dogmatic rhetoric you choose to ignore is the key to discovering the proof you claim doesn't exist.

What are you afraid of?

I love that, Lucas!! Well said!

[fegary]

binz is correct:

Originally Posted by binz

No. There is veritable evidence of Jefferson's existence. Birth records, property documents, pictures, relatives, etc. Proof galore.

I would concede to you that a traveling preacher named Jesus from Narareth also existed. But there is zero evidence that his dad was a magic man in the sky. Many many men around that time claimed to be the messiah.

Your analogy is not analogous.

Originally Posted by lucas mccain

Why isn't it analogous?
Scientifically you can't prove any event from the past unless you can recreate the event.

There is no requirement to recreate an event for historical proof. Yet again, you demonstrate confusion over science.

Originally Posted by lucas mccain

You make excuses why you don't believe what others have testified about Jesus while at the same time accepted birth records, property documents and pictures as proof Jefferson existed.

Like Jefferson, there is also plenty of evidence that Jesus existed. As binz said there is nothing that proves he was anything more than a man. You're making a leap that requires faith.

Originally Posted by lucas mccain

The chart above is incomplete. e.g. Before you get to any alternatives beneath 'He is Lord and God' there should be a branch dividing between recognition that there is no actual proof and failing to recognize that there is no actual proof. Regardless, one can still choose to believe or not. Honest believers recognize that matters of faith are just that and don't engage in tortuous post-hoc rationalization to claim that their faith is proven.

[lucas mccain]

Originally Posted by fegary

binz is correct:There is no requirement to recreate an event for historical proof. Yet again, you demonstrate confusion over science.

No confusion on my part. Maybe you are confusing proof with evidence.

Like Jefferson, there is also plenty of evidence that Jesus existed. As binz said there is nothing that proves he was anything more than a man. You're making a leap that requires faith.

Incorrect. Binz offered birth records and property documents as proof that Jefferson existed. However, that is not proof. It is evidence that he existed. The proof we have that Christ is who He said He is comes from eye witness accounts, several hundred in fact. That would be considered actual proof in a court of law.

The chart above is incomplete. e.g. Before you get to any alternatives beneath 'He is Lord and God' there should be a branch dividing between recognition that there is no actual proof and failing to recognize that there is no actual proof. Regardless, one can still choose to believe or not. Honest believers recognize that matters of faith are just that and don't engage in tortuous post-hoc rationalization to claim that their faith is proven.

Any true believer should always be working towards giving an answer for the hope that lies within themselves.
I can fully understand how an agnostic would consider the chart a tortuous post-hoc rationalization. However, that is your own personal perspective. It was not offered as proof, rather as a visual aid to guide others in a logical sequence of possibilites.

I suppose being convinced that God exists and the subject of faith may seem like a paradox to unbelievers. However, doesn't reality itself require a degree of faith? Certainly the choice to believe "there is no evidence of God existing" requires faith in that statement.

I'll ask you the same question I asked EBL... What proof will satisfy you that not only does God exist but that He is who He says He is?


************************************************** ************************************************

Originally Posted by El Burro Loco

You absolutely hav offered zero proof. You've only tried to redefine the word in order to justify faith and anacdotes found in the Bible.

Where is the proof? Dogma and double-speak isn't proof. State clearly and concisely the proof that God exists.

As far as the proof to satisfy your mind...
Did you read the Lee Strobel book "A Case For Christ yet"?

God said "You will seek me and find me when you seek me with all your heart".
There is no doubt in my heart and mind that God exists. He is literally in everything I come in contact with on a daily basis including you. The only thing that clouds that reality is worldly distractions. So I can understand your reluctance to accept that others may have actually sought (and found) Him with all their heart.

Your belief is not proof. It is belief. faith. Not proof. Sorry. Where is the proof?

I never intended to implied my belief is proof for you. I can offer it as a testimony towards evidence for you, however I'm well aware my belief is not proof. In the end it all still comes down to the question you still will not answer.... "What kind of "proof" do you require'?

All this says is that god is relative. If god is relative then there is no one true God, which is in direct contradiction to the teachings of your religion

Not sure what you are talking about here. You'll have to elaborate about your relativity point.
Also, I don't have a "religion".

But if Christ is of God, whether you believe that Christ is the literal son of God, God's mind or soul in human form, or God's direct mouthpiece, it still requires faith that God exists. Unless there is faith in God, there can be not faith that Christ is God's sun.

Nice dance, but you're stepping on your own feet the whole way.

If you want to play semantics with belief in God before belief in Christs words then you are just choosing to spin your wheels over a non-issue.

Which came first the chicken or the egg?
Doesn't really matter just fry it up and lets eat!

ahhh, the old moving target trick! I love this one! See, we were talking about proof of God, not belief that Jesus existed and claimed he was Christ. Two different things.

So what proof do you have that God exists? It's okay to be honest and say "I have nothing but my faith". after all, that's the entire basis of your religion.

In a court of law... hundreds of eye witness accounts that attest to His resurrection after He was slaughtered and hung to die on a cross for the sins of humanity. Christ and the prophets said this would happen and the eye witness accounts confirm it to have been a true statement.

Again, there is a deeper and more personal proof that convinces me without a shadow of a doubt that not only does God exist but His Son is who He says He is.

That same proof (belief/faith if you prefer) that has convicted, assured and satisfied me and countless others is obviously not going to help you make up your mind, however it is available to you if and when you are ready.

Once (or if) you can get past your arguing for the sake of arguing, consider what I've told you and pursue Him with your heart.

[binz]

Originally Posted by lucas mccain

In a court of law... hundreds of eye witness accounts that attest to His resurrection after He was slaughtered and hung to die on a cross for the sins of humanity. Christ and the prophets said this would happen and the eye witness accounts confirm it to have been a true statement.

Hundreds of eye witness accounts? Do you mean to say that Paul wrote about hundreds of eye witnesses? So really, you have one guy telling a story.