"Evidence and Faith"

This thread has pretty much run its course, but I think there is an important point in what you say above.That is, the Bible is simply NOT consistent, or even meant to be consistent. It is a collection of different stories written over many centuries by people from vastly differing cultures and mores.I think that is important enough to deserve a thread of its own.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

*sigh* Yes, I know that. I've expressed that it is a continuing process, and not just a one time statement of faith.
But, in the opposite direction, doing what He told us to do without believeing in Him, what is that? More than once.Don't get me wrong, I do not pretend to completely understand what that means. I do know what it means for me though. Let me share a story written by Rick Joyner. You tell me if there is God in it, or if you agree with it.Rick Joyner was taken to heaven with Jesus in a vision.
When he got there, there was a row of thrones.
In the lowest throne, there was a famous guy who with his works, saved many people, and introduced them to Christ.
Then on the highest throne, there was a bumb, that he recognized from the street. (there was everything in between)
He asked Jesus in his mind, why is this bumb on the highest throne?Jesus responded, IF I have 100 portions of love to give you, I gave that famous evangelist 75 portions, and only returned 35 portions.The bumb, I gave only 1 portion, but he doubled it, by turning his life around, and devoting himself to trying to share my love, then he died trying to save another bumb on the street, in the freezing cold.
As a matter of fact, you had a divine appointment with that bumb, but you shrugged him off.(this is a condensed version of the story, and probably missing a few points, but I wrote it to demostrate the relativeness of good fruits) Yes, I agree you have to do something, but if what is in heart is true, then you will do something. And it will be relative to where your at.There is no standard of what fruits are good and bad, they are relative.

Good stuff On Allah being the one true God.As far as other religions go, I can't say. God has allowed everything to happen. I don't think I should questions his reasons why, but try to understand why.If Jesus is the only way, then there must be a very good reason. and we should be able to express that reason to anyone, anytime. However, I can't tell why Christianity is better than any other religion. I don't even like religion, even though I am highly involved in one.I do know what works for me, at this point in time. I am sure it will grow. And as I question these things, and explore them, Jesus's way will either hold up, or not. I must say, He's given me a pretty good head start.Believing in God, or experiencing the Holy Spirit, does not make you an instant "know it all". The Holy Spirit, can change you dramatically. Yes, I can accept that as a possibility.
Even if I do not see it as that way right now. That is also a possibility. Because healings are relative. If God heals you, I think you will know it, or just choose to believe it.Oh, and btw, healings have a very small percentage to do with my belief. I see more scams than anything else, and it makes me wonder. It may be a week point of my faith.But when I first experienced what I believe to be the Holy Spirit, I was "high on God" and my prayers seem to be more effective, as I was trying to follow Him more. I have grown a little lax over the years, and I wonder if it is my own lack of following Him, that is leading to the lack of healings. Maybe if I was more righteous, I might get more prayers answered. I don't know.Lord knows I have many friends and relatives who are sick.

But the people who got directly healed by Him, recognized Him as Lord. and addressed Him that way.I can only think of one person that Jesus healed in the bible, who He wasn't standing next to.I think I get what you are saying, and I agree. Jesus did not heal people to "prove" He was Lord, as I have stated, but the people healed by Him, did recognize Him.
But this is not true for everyone, just look at Judas.

That's enough. The evangelist was on the lowest throne because he only "saved many people and introduced them to Christ". I'll repeat this again, since you don't seem to have heard it before: Getting to heaven depends on feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the prisoner, etc. Those things are more important than "saving" people or introducing them to Christ.The bum was on the highest throne because he was trying to give another bum some practical help. (Since he died in the freezing cold, I presume he was trying to save the other bum from the freezing cold.) Plenty of people who are not Christians "do something" for their fellow man. So you must be agreeing that being a Christian is not important. Having what is true in your heart must not have anything to do with being a Christian. Of course there is. You choose the good fruit from the bad at the supermarket. The fruit-picker chooses the good fruit from the bad on the tree. The gardener chooses to nurture the good trees and to destroy the bad trees.The standard is simple: Is the fruit useful?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Sounds great, but what do you have to back that up with?I can understand people who didn't have a fair chance to meet Jesus, but for people like me and you, I think otherwise. It was Him, that opened that door, the least we could do is respect Him. Yes, I've expressed that many times, but it is that introduction to Christ, that is supposed to change your life, so that these things might be enabled in us. If they aren't, then you are denying God, IMO.The sad fact is that many people who do feel something, choose to ignore it. I forgot the actual numbers, but a good example would be the power team show we put on in our church, and over 200 people came to Christ. Only maybe a few actually followed up, and started going to church. (which is not the important thing) The important thing is that they started a relationship with Christ, and started doing the work of Christ. We can't actually know those numbers unless they started going to our church, and we could see their good works. I can't agree to that, or disagree. I can't judge that situation, and it varies from person to person.I think of a little boy who might have been molested by a priest, and Think, what fair chance does that person have at getting to know Christ now. But that person may be a good person his whole life, and all I know is that if I was God, I would let someone like that into heaven, and punish the priest.So in my humble opinion, anyone can get into heaven, it is up to God. Comparing fruits of a human, to fruits in the supermarket, isn't fair. There is much more involved.Is the fruit useful, by who's standard?I am sure Hitler thought his fruit was good, or Jim Jones. If they truely thought in their hearts that what they were doing was for the good, then what will happen to them, in your opinion?Or do they have to all pass the ringo standard of what good fruit is?
Your idea of good fruit is subjective to you.On person may think that killing a robber is good fruit, while another would see it as bad.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

The topic is "Evidence and Faith". There is little (objective) evidence that He even existed, never mind that He opened any doors for you or me. Even ignoring the topic and assuming that He does exist, the way to respect Him would be by doing what He said. That supposition is worthless in a discussion about evidence. So what?I'll repeat this again, since you don't seem to have ever heard it before: Jesus Himself said that we are judged on what we do, not on the beliefs we profess. If you're going to assume that Jesus is real and respect Him, why keep ignoring what He said? Exactly what I've been saying. It's being a good person that counts. Believing in God is irrelevant. "Coming to Christ" is irrelevant. Argue with Jesus. He used the metaphor - if there are no good, useful (visible) fruits, the tree is cut down and cast into the fire. God's.And in case you haven't heard it before, God's standard of good fruit/behaviour is: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prisoner, etc. Where on God's @#$%ing green earth did you get the idea that a person's own idea of "good fruit" has anything to do with any @#$%ing thing?What is expected of us is: feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit the prsioner, etc. What is so hard to understand about that?Those are visible signs that we are "good people". That is the evidence of our faith (and notice that the evidence can be there even if the faith isn't).

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Jesus and Peter covered this very argument. In a threefold comparison to earlier events, Jesus asks Peter if he loves him. When Peter replies "Sure Boss, you know I do." Jesus replies, "Then feed my sheep."Jesus does not tell him to preach to the sheep, to teach the sheep to respect Jesus, or anything except "Feed them", "Take care of them."

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ok ringo, I agree with you, I was just asking your opinion on those things. Yes, God judges us on what we do, and the decisions we make, but how is it that faith saves us?
That is mentioned many times in the bible. I don't feel that way anymore, after having a chance to meet what I believe to be Him. That's all I can say about it, I guess. It made a huge difference in my life, and I hope what people see on the outside, shows an improvement, and I hope that it brings me closer to people, everyone, not just strangers.
The evidence in my life has shown that it has.{ABE}
This is perhaps my favorite bible verse, and until it happened to me, I did not believe it, or understand it.
Acts 1
8 But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you; and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the ends of the earth."To bear witness to something is to have seen or heard it.Can I get a witness? LOLEdited by riVeRraT, : Provide reasons for edit here, here you give reason for edit

But he does it because he loves him.There is a connection there.

The point is that he is told to do it.Jesus doesn't say, "Tell them about me" or "Bring them to me" or "Feed them but give them this tract first", Jesus just says "Feed my sheep".The reason is irrelevant, it is only the doing that counts.Jesus whole message is that we should try to do.It really is that simple.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The only way faith can "save" you is by prompting you to do something. If you do what God wants you to do because you have faith in God, it's still what you do that's important, not your faith. If you don't have faith in God but still do what He wants, you're still "saved". You said you were a "good person" before you became a Christian, so no "improvement" was really necessary. We all need to try to improve every day, but not by any magical "conversion". We need to give up the "let God do it" attitude and examine our own lives. In that sense, "becoming" a Christian can be a downright detriment to improvement. Back to the topic. The only evidence that means anything is what you do.
How you feel is not evidence. To bear witness is also to be an uninvolved bystander.
Isn't it better to be a participant than to just watch?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I think your tentativeness, though not well received by your church, is well received with me. I have always said that "proving God" is an impossible task from an empirical sense. I think we cannot prove God, but that God can prove Himself.For those that claim pragmatism and rationality, I encourage them to look at the questions with as much rationality as they can muster.Take for example the old question: "If God exists, then why is there so much evil in the world?"Well, lets look at it objectively. If there is evil, then there has to be some moral law that we abide by, or at least understand in principle, otherwise, where did the question itself derive?This must be so because evil cannot exist without good, and vice versa, because they make no sense without that critical comparison and contrast. So if evil exists, then so does good. If good exists, then there is a moral law determining which is which. If there is a moral law, then something must have instituted its policy, otherwise there are no absolutes. If there is no absolute, then there is no good and evil, just opinions.As we categorically run down the argument, it reads as such:If there is no God, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is no good. If there is no good, then there is no evil. If there is no evil, then what's your question?Didn't the question, "If God exists, then why is there evil," just cancel itself out?You, as a Christian, can answer these questions because the logic follows itself through. As a skeptic, even the very question is nullified.Origin, meaning, morality, and destiny. Those are the four big questions we all wrestle with. I've found, through much toil and heartache, that only following God and His precepts will answer these questions. Otherwise, we end up asking completely vapid questions that have no real answer because even the question itself is logically fallacious.Now, did I just prove God's existence? No. Did God present Himself His own case by pitting the philospher against his own logic? Yes. God is still not proved, but the question of His existence looks much prettier in the mind of the honest skeptic.

---

"I marvel that where the ambitious dreams of myself and of Alexander and of Caesar should have vanished into thin air, a Judean peasant”- Jesus ”-should be able to stretch his hands across the centuries, and control the destinies of men and nations." -Napoleon Bonaparte

Non sequitur. Not really.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

quote:

---

Take for example the old question: "If God exists, then why is there so much evil in the world?"

​

Well, lets look at it objectively. If there is evil, then there has to be some moral law that we abide by, or at least understand in principle, otherwise, where did the question itself derive?

​

This must be so because evil cannot exist without good, and vice versa, because they make no sense without that critical comparison and contrast. So if evil exists, then so does good. If good exists, then there is a moral law determining which is which. If there is a moral law, then something must have instituted its policy, otherwise there are no absolutes. If there is no absolute, then there is no good and evil, just opinions.

​

As we categorically run down the argument, it reads as such:

​

If there is no God, then there is no moral law. If there is no moral law, then there is no good. If there is no good, then there is no evil. If there is no evil, then what's your question?

​

Didn't the question, "If God exists, then why is there evil," just cancel itself out?

---

You are correct that without an idea of evil the queston makes no sense. And that the concept is not needed unless we have some degree of comparison. However if here is an absolute morality as Christians claim it is false to say that goodcannot exist without evil or vice versa. The absence of a need for the concepts in thought and speech would not mean that the things themselves do not exist.Secondly we neither need absolutes nor do we need anyone to set those absolutes even if they do exist (indeed it is questionable whether the latter idea even makes sense - it certainly doesn't fit with our intuitive ideas of morality)But even with all that your response is self-destructive. Ultimately you are arguing that the question makes no sense because God doesn't exist. Your argument amounts to admitting that the question is part of a valid reductio ad absurdam argument against God's existence (assume the premise you want to disprove and show that it leads to a contradiction).So it is the skeptic who has logic on his side while the Christian is reduced to self-contradiction .No you didn't prove God. But you did deny that he existed.Edited by PaulK, : No reason given.