Page 72 of 89 FirstFirst ... 2262676869707172737475767782 ... LastLast
Results 1,421 to 1,440 of 1780
  1.    #1421  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    God stopped literally speaking to people or via people.
    When do you believe this happened? After the death of Jesus, or sometime earlier or later than this event? (thx)
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  2. #1422  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Your splicing of the words "incarnate" and "magic" together in a sentence is nothing more than "spin".
    Perhaps...but I'd ague that the same goes for the folks who "spin" incarnate as something real that actually took place.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  3. #1423  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    When do you believe this happened? After the death of Jesus, or sometime earlier or later than this event? (thx)
    I'm not Christian so will not have been looking for these stories in the news, etc. However I haven't been informed about any "credible" instances of god or incarnate beings speaking with the population in modern times.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  4.    #1424  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    Perhaps...but I'd ague that the same goes for the folks who "spin" incarnate as something real that actually took place.
    Well yes, and no. First no - Jesus was "in the flesh", so I guess you're real question might be whether he should be considered "God incarnate". I'm willing (and hopeful) that you consider this as possible "spin" in the other direction. In the book of Revelation, we learn that God "vomits" out those who are lukewarm in their faith. It's better to be either "cold" or "hot". I believe a merciful God may appreciate a well reasoned "defense" if you have based your belief on all that "was available" for you to know/learn from.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  5. #1425  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    Your splicing of the words "incarnate" and "magic" together in a sentence is nothing more than "spin". The Old Testament prophets predicted the coming of Christ in a place, of a genealogy, and for a specified purpose that was fulfilled in the New Testament writings that are corroborated with history. It's not magic - it's a hypothesis that I'm asking you to consider and evaluate. People have been waiting for 2000 or so years for this to be debunked and we're still waiting.
    This makes me think though, if I said an Alien abducted me and told me there is a god, but he is an actual immortal living being that lives in another solar system and is visible to those that can get there. And they showed me an image of "him", no one can disprove me unless they saw me at the time i said i was abducted. So I am right! (that's why scientology has followers!)

    This still falls Into:
    It cant be disproved so its true (religious)
    or
    It cant be proved so its false (atheist/agnostic)

    All religion is based on unprovable events (for the most part) with a touch of interprative language, and that can be very dangerous or beneficial depending on who uses it.
    Its like pharmaceutical drugs, can cure and help people for thousands of different problems but could have a laundry list of side effects, or worse if addicted (or abused) can be catastrophic!
    but really that can be said of anything abused or used in excess.

    IMO most atheists (if not scientists) are atheists bc of "Religions" not on the fact that there could be a god.
    Last edited by gsonspre; 03/22/2010 at 12:25 PM.
  6.    #1426  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    I'm not Christian so will not have been looking for these stories in the news, etc. However I haven't been informed about any "credible" instances of god or incarnate beings speaking with the population in modern times.
    I'm now better "remembering" (from earlier in this thread) what you mean.

    I'll say two things about this "lack of communication" that you are perceiving:
    1. God calls on his faithful people to communicate this message. (That's how it was done in the Old Testament.)
    2. Christ established a Church ("Christians", before the splits occurred around 1600 A.D.) to continue to communicate this message.


    I can easily see how you might be getting a "mixed message" as a consequence of the denominational splits that occurred between Christians.

    As "drastic" as this may sound to many, the idea of a "single Church" prevents this modern day "Tower of Babel" that you are now experiencing. This would be an extremely arrogant thing for "man" to do. Human nature is for us to not "trust God (Jesus)" that this is how he set things up. My choice to remain "Catholic" goes against what "we as man" may intuitively think is right and logical, but it still remains logical. When the "puzzle pieces" stop fitting together is time for each of us to reevaluate our current understanding. (Humans attempting to understand God can't figure out all of this on our own.) My Church says that we are Jesus' Church (and not the Pope's, or any man's). Christ's established the apostle Peter to have this role. The apostles (and today's current day bishops) discussed their understanding of Jesus' message but in all cases of conflict, final decisions were made by Peter himself (and his successors). Jesus gave Peter this authority in Matthew 16:18-19.

    Quote Originally Posted by Matthew 16:18-19
    18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
    19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
    I've quoted the above several times already (so my apologies if this is feeling "repetitive" to some here).

    @ryleyinst:
    So if God established a Church (as Christians believed until the time of Martin Luther), there remains a "teaching authority" to tell you exactly what God's message is (so my assertion is that God's communication did not "stop" as you believe it has).

    @non-Catholic Christians:
    Many non-Catholic Christians will either say that Peter was not given "primacy", or that he was, but after he died, all bets are off. If you look at the Old Testament context/meaning (from Isaiah 22:19-22) you'll see that the context behind "the keys" meant "authority of office". Eli'akim was called to take over and speak with the king's authority of his office. This context was understood by the author (the apostle Matthew) and his audience readers of the time (J e w s who followed Jesus). This Old Testament context also shows "succession of office". (For the sake of brevity, I'll refrain from further developing that point unless someone here want's to debate that.)

    So in summary (for Riley), there is a group assigned by God to continue His message. Some may argue whether or how effective this group has been. (That's a logical "next step" in the debate, but I don't want to advance my arguments without first allowing dissent (or even time for "understanding") about what I've reasoned so far.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  7.    #1427  
    Quote Originally Posted by gsonspre View Post
    This makes me think though, if I said an Alien abducted me and told me there is a god, but he is an actual immortal living being that lives in another solar system and is visible to those that can get there. And they showed me an image of "him", no one can disprove me unless they saw me at the time i said i was abducted. So I am right! (that's why scientology has followers!)
    I've sometimes envisioned "God as a supreme alien" too. I've never specifically studied Scientology. Maybe it's time for me to research them (sometime when I get a chance).

    Quote Originally Posted by gsonspre View Post
    This still falls Into:
    It cant be disproved so its true (religious)
    or
    It cant be proved so its false (atheist/agnostic)
    definitely!

    Quote Originally Posted by gsonspre View Post
    All religion is based on unprovable events (for the most part) with a touch of interprative language, and that can be very dangerous or beneficial depending on who uses it.
    Its like pharmaceutical drugs, can cure and help people for thousands of different problems but could have a laundry list of side effects, or worse if addicted (or abused) can be catastrophic!
    but really that can be said of anything abused or used in excess.
    Interesting analogy! I still assert that each "drug" should be tested (both for it's logical/scientific coherency and it's efficacy). You might extend the analogy to say that the Catholic Church is like "God's FDA" (but let's not take this analogy too far!).

    Quote Originally Posted by gsonspre View Post
    IMO most atheists (if not scientists) are atheists bc of "Religions" not on the fact that there could be a god.
    I don't think we can "generalize" that your insights do or don't apply to what "[most] scientists" may think (but that's your opinion and I think this opinion has merit).
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  8. #1428  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post

    Interesting analogy! I still assert that each "drug" should be tested (both for it's logical/scientific coherency and it's efficacy). You might extend the analogy to say that the Catholic Church is like "God's FDA" (but let's not take this analogy too far!).

    I
    I like that , "The Church is like Gods FDA"
  9. #1429  
    Quote Originally Posted by gsonspre View Post
    This still falls Into:
    It cant be disproved so its true (religious)
    or
    It cant be proved so its false (atheist/agnostic)
    Speaking as an agnostic, this is a false dichotomy. There may very well be a god or gods. Only a specific set of definitions of a particular god may be tested or refuted from a logical standpoint.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  10. #1430  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    @ryleyinst:
    So if God established a Church (as Christians believed until the time of Martin Luther), there remains a "teaching authority" to tell you exactly what God's message is (so my assertion is that God's communication did not "stop" as you believe it has).

    So in summary (for Riley), there is a group assigned by God to continue His message. Some may argue whether or how effective this group has been. (That's a logical "next step" in the debate, but I don't want to advance my arguments without first allowing dissent (or even time for "understanding") about what I've reasoned so far.
    In order to say that God assigned a group to keep his message alive you first have to concede that a god exists and also concede that the story Matthew is saying even happened.

    At any rate God speaking via the church hardly sounds like the direct communication type proof I would be looking to see for proof that God exists.
    Sprint|Samsung Epic
  11. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1431  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    In order to say that God assigned a group to keep his message alive you first have to concede that a god exists and also concede that the story Matthew is saying even happened.

    At any rate God speaking via the church hardly sounds like the direct communication type proof I would be looking to see for proof that God exists.
    Nobody seems to buy my argument that God exists simply by the fact that we're here. I don't mean in the biblical sense, e.g., flowing white robes, beard, cool sunglasses, etc.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  12.    #1432  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Speaking as an agnostic, this is a false dichotomy. There may very well be a god or gods. Only a specific set of definitions of a particular god may be tested or refuted from a logical standpoint.
    Logic requires the the dichotomy to be amended as per your assertion, but if there exists one set of divine inspiration that remains consistent with our physical/scientific observations of our known "world", it's more reasonable to conclude that such a revelation may be possible than to rule it out.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  13. #1433  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Nobody seems to buy my argument that God exists simply by the fact that we're here. I don't mean in the biblical sense, e.g., flowing white robes, beard, cool sunglasses, etc.
    I do! I believe that a God could exist, I just cant fathom the he wants us to live by his "rules" that humans say we do!
    The closest logic I can see in a God is one where he created this eco system, or Terrarium if you will, that was created for us to live in.

    When we keep a reptile in captivity we dont set rules to bide by, we just keep them for the beauty and the naturality they exude, and provide life sustaining things for them to survive.
  14.    #1434  
    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    In order to say that God assigned a group to keep his message alive you first have to concede that a god exists and also concede that the story Matthew is saying even happened.
    We've already had a discussion that the Bible better preserved than any book in history. Shadow-360 has claimed that the Bible has been corrupted but so far, he hasn't provided a shred of evidence (other than divine inspiration from Mohammed) that this has occurred. I've lightly argued that a conflict between J e w ish and Christian assertions of Jesus' role indicates that Mohammed's position that "Jesus was only a prophet, but not God" was not held by any set of stakeholders at the time of Jesus.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    In order to say that God assigned a group to keep his message alive you first have to concede that a god exists and also concede that the story Matthew is saying even happened.
    These factors (the Bible is better "known" than other books, and both the Bible as well as corroborating historical evidence), plus a Church who has yet to be proven wrong (despite making rash claims that humans might find "unbelievable") indicate to me that the position you're advancing will not be defendable. It might help your argument if you can show some solid evidence that supports your assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by ryleyinstl View Post
    At any rate God speaking via the church hardly sounds like the direct communication type proof I would be looking to see for proof that God exists.
    And Christ "hardly sounded" like the Messiah the J e w s were expecting either. I might argue that the "hardly sounding" part might actually be for your personal/eternal protection. God may simply see you as being incapable of accepting Him so he is shielding you from an understanding that might otherwise prevent you from eventually living eternally in Heaven. If you look throughout Bible history, you will see that God only communicated "directly" at key points in salvation history. This same Bible indicates pretty strongly that the next period of "direct communication" won't exactly be pretty. Shane mentioned this to you at least once. If you look at how his life changed after becoming a Christian (he stopped smoking and doing drugs - neither which is easy to do) once he became a Christian, that should be testimony enough from a "rank and file guy" in this world that God is transforming lives in ways that cannot be easily/scientifically explained. I advise you to stop "conveniently ignoring" evidence to the contrary. (Again, if you truly are "invincibly ignorant", I apologize for making a wrong assumption based on my current "perceptions". )
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  15.    #1435  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Nobody seems to buy my argument that God exists simply by the fact that we're here. I don't mean in the biblical sense, e.g., flowing white robes, beard, cool sunglasses, etc.
    I'm sorry (assuming that I never acknowledged your argument). Yes, your position is logical if one attributes "God" as a "first causer". As a human, based on your argument, my next curiosity is whether or not this God wanted me to know anything about Him.
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  16. #1436  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    Speaking as an agnostic, this is a false dichotomy. There may very well be a god or gods. Only a specific set of definitions of a particular god may be tested or refuted from a logical standpoint.
    You bring up something that hasnt been discussed much on this thread..
    "Gods"

    @sudoer or anyone else that cares to chime in....
    apparently God stated that no one should pray to another god other than me. (do I have that right?)
    So, if that is a message from God, he is saying that there are other Gods that he knows about?
    If there were no other gods he wouldve said that those who pray to another is wrong or praying to a false hope?
    I am curious where others stand on this?
    I am not asking if you worship other Gods but if our God can and does exist is it possible that others do as well?
  17. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1437  
    Quote Originally Posted by sudoer View Post
    I'm sorry (assuming that I never acknowledged your argument). Yes, your position is logical if one attributes "God" as a "first causer". As a human, based on your argument, my next curiosity is whether or not this God wanted me to know anything about Him.
    I'd say he did, because his work is pretty evident and all around, no?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  18. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #1438  
    Quote Originally Posted by gsonspre View Post
    You bring up something that hasnt been discussed much on this thread..
    "Gods"

    @sudoer or anyone else that cares to chime in....
    apparently God stated that no one should pray to another god other than me. (do I have that right?)
    So, if that is a message from God, he is saying that there are other Gods that he knows about?
    If there were no other gods he wouldve said that those who pray to another is wrong or praying to a false hope?
    I am curious where others stand on this?
    I am not asking if you worship other Gods but if our God can and does exist is it possible that others do as well?
    My thoughts are anything is possible. But logic points to one first causer. Something had to start all of this. From nothing, a universe filled with matter and galaxies? Possibly multiple universes? Yeah, this is one big trip, alright. But what started it?
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  19.    #1439  
    Quote Originally Posted by gsonspre View Post
    You bring up something that hasnt been discussed much on this thread..
    "Gods"

    @sudoer or anyone else that cares to chime in....
    apparently God stated that no one should pray to another god other than me. (do I have that right?)
    His revelation is that He is the one and only "true God". All other "gods" were created by man (mostly out of "ignorance", but sometimes also out of human pride (in man thinking he knows better than "God"). This is what the story of Adam and Eve is all about. I still owe you all an explanation of here (but I won't have time to write it up at least by "tonight")

    Quote Originally Posted by gsonspre View Post
    So, if that is a message from God, he is saying that there are other Gods that he knows about?
    If there were no other gods he wouldve said that those who pray to another is wrong or praying to a false hope?
    I am curious where others stand on this?
    I am not asking if you worship other Gods but if our God can and does exist is it possible that others do as well?
    My understanding is He's acknowledging man's desire to create their own "god" or "gods", but that He is revealing a truth that we would otherwise not understand. The key for me is whether this "divine" assertion has or will stand the test of time. (Again, He promised in Matthew 16:18-19 that it would stand the test of time, and so far, it's held up.)
    I'm both super! ... and a doer!
  20. #1440  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    My thoughts are anything is possible. But logic points to one first causer. Something had to start all of this. From nothing, a universe filled with matter and galaxies? Possibly multiple universes? Yeah, this is one big trip, alright. But what started it?
    A good point! Something had to start everything?
    This is the most mind bendingly infuriating question anyone can ask me! Where did it start and what started that etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc....
    But could it be possible that God or Gods started like Adam and Eve in pairs?
    And I was going to ask this before what is the role of other planets/galaxies (to God)? Are they failed attempts to sustain human life. Was there human life there that he wiped clean? Oh mysteries of the universe are far more complex to me then religion will ever be to me...

Posting Permissions