|
Post by amyghost on Dec 8, 2019 19:23:38 GMT
Please understand that quoting the bible does not strengthen your case. Atheists view it as about as realistic as The Lord of the Rings, so when it becomes a primary reason why you believe your religion, it makes you less believable. Why do you believe anything in the bible ? a good short word from the Chicago statement on biblical inerrancy. God, who is Himself Truth and speaks truth only, has inspired Holy Scripture in order thereby to reveal Himself to lost mankind through Jesus Christ as Creator and Lord, Redeemer and Judge. Holy Scripture is God's witness to Himself.
Holy Scripture, being God's own Word, written by men prepared and superintended by His Spirit, is of infallible divine authority in all matters upon which it touches: it is to be believed, as God's instruction, in all that it affirms; obeyed, as God's command, in all that it requires; embraced, as God's pledge, in all that it promises.
The Holy Spirit, Scripture's divine Author, both authenticates it to us by His inward witness and opens our minds to understand its meaning.
Being wholly and verbally God-given, Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving grace in individual lives.
The authority of Scripture is inescapably impaired if this total divine inerrancy is in any way limited or disregarded, or made relative to a view of truth contrary to the Bible's own; and such lapses bring serious loss to both the individual and the Church.
scripture says all things pertaining to life and godliness are written for our instruction. the proof of God's hand is revealed from Genesis to Revelation.
Jesus the Son of God Himself used the word of God against the devil when he was tested. this is why the attacks on the bible continue to this day -
only the word of God can reveal the lies and false doctrines of the devil.
i started reading and learning the word of God because i Know He speaks to us through every word. there is no other way for us to
know the One True Living God the Father, Jesus the Son of God and the Holy Spirit revealed in His Words.
GOD IS the ULTIMATE ETERNAL REALITY. this is the only true testimony of the invisible spiritual realm we all Must Consider
All of that is dandy if you believe in god and 'revealed truth'. If you don't, it's meaningless fribble. If you care to believe that your life is ruled by the religious texts that sprang from a group of nomadic Bronze Age sheepherders, that's fine. Just keep in mind that not everyone views those texts as having any relevance to themselves. As there is no external, objective evidence to back your beliefs, only 'faith', your views are no more correct than those of the non-believer. And repeating "well, the bible says..." in no way changes that.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Dec 8, 2019 21:01:03 GMT
Some things are so simple and sensible that it's a marvel that not everyone sees it that way. We believe things for two reasons. Either because evidence has convinced us, or because we want it to be true. And the longer we have believed something, the more we want our beliefs to be true. After all, if you've lived your entire life believing in God, then in order to believe otherwise you would have to admit to yourself that you've wasted a significant portion of your life in the worship of a fable. Perhaps made decisions you now wish you hadn't made, because of your faith back then. So the more you have invested in your belief, the more entrenched you'll be - the more you will delude yourself. Take this story, for example: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076502/Arthur-Stimson-cons-friends-1m-hes-duped-2-7m-Spanish-lottery-scam.htmlLong story short: A respectable man who should have known better was taken in by a Spanish lottery scam. You know, "congratulations, you've won a million billion zillion dollars in a lottery you didn't take part in! But in order to give you the money, we need you to pay for the red tape first." He was a fool for having fallen for it in the first place, and as more and more demands for more money to cover "administrative fees" were made, anyone with half a brain would see what was going on. But, because he was so firmly invested in the scam, his options were either to concede defeat and personal ruin, or to see it through to the bitter end - hoping against all odds that "maybe it's not a scam anyway". It was hard for me to admit that I had wasted a significant portion of my life in the worship of a fable, and made decisions I now wish I hadn't made, because of my faith back then. But, when given the fact that advances in medical science had put me in remission from Stage 2 Adenocarcinoma, after scores of my older relatives had died of it - and I had seen that as a child - was very convincing that science had answers, albeit incomplete answers, when it came to cancer. I was only 35 when diagnosed; I am now 66. My parents had prayed for me, as my father had prayed for his mother, who died in 1942, and his sisters, one of whom died in 1965, and many other female relatives on his side of the family who died. But my atheist husband demanded that I accept whatever treatment the doctors recommended, horrible as those treatments were, because, as he said, "This time, you have a shot at remission. It may not be a cure, but I want you here, and if you have a recurrence, the science may have advanced again to give you more time here." He was right. I am still here. Prayer was a constant in my family; advanced medical science was not. I credited science. And I had made a lot of decisions in the past, based on my faith, that had not been good decisions in the long run. I trusted too easily anyone who shared the same belief system. Many of those people manipulated me and took advantage of me. There were many wolves in sheep's clothing, to quote Aesop, who predates Christianity. It is part of human nature to take advantage. But I married an ethical Secular Humanist, and it was one of the best decisions in my life. His behavior was more caring and genuine that many so-called Christians. I know a few Christians that I consider genuine and sincere, but they are rare. I respect them, and don't argue religion with them. But I know too many others that profess one thing, yet do another. Quod erat demonstrandum.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 8, 2019 21:53:41 GMT
We believe things for two reasons. Either because evidence has convinced us, or because we want it to be true. And the longer we have believed something, the more we want our beliefs to be true. After all, if you've lived your entire life believing in God, then in order to believe otherwise you would have to admit to yourself that you've wasted a significant portion of your life in the worship of a fable. Perhaps made decisions you now wish you hadn't made, because of your faith back then. So the more you have invested in your belief, the more entrenched you'll be - the more you will delude yourself. Take this story, for example: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2076502/Arthur-Stimson-cons-friends-1m-hes-duped-2-7m-Spanish-lottery-scam.htmlLong story short: A respectable man who should have known better was taken in by a Spanish lottery scam. You know, "congratulations, you've won a million billion zillion dollars in a lottery you didn't take part in! But in order to give you the money, we need you to pay for the red tape first." He was a fool for having fallen for it in the first place, and as more and more demands for more money to cover "administrative fees" were made, anyone with half a brain would see what was going on. But, because he was so firmly invested in the scam, his options were either to concede defeat and personal ruin, or to see it through to the bitter end - hoping against all odds that "maybe it's not a scam anyway". It was hard for me to admit that I had wasted a significant portion of my life in the worship of a fable, and made decisions I now wish I hadn't made, because of my faith back then. But, when given the fact that advances in medical science had put me in remission from Stage 2 Adenocarcinoma, after scores of my older relatives had died of it - and I had seen that as a child - was very convincing that science had answers, albeit incomplete answers, when it came to cancer. I was only 35 when diagnosed; I am now 66. My parents had prayed for me, as my father had prayed for his mother, who died in 1942, and his sisters, one of whom died in 1965, and many other female relatives on his side of the family who died. But my atheist husband demanded that I accept whatever treatment the doctors recommended, horrible as those treatments were, because, as he said, "This time, you have a shot at remission. It may not be a cure, but I want you here, and if you have a recurrence, the science may have advanced again to give you more time here." He was right. I am still here. Prayer was a constant in my family; advanced medical science was not. I credited science. And I had made a lot of decisions in the past, based on my faith, that had not been good decisions in the long run. I trusted too easily anyone who shared the same belief system. Many of those people manipulated me and took advantage of me. There were many wolves in sheep's clothing, to quote Aesop, who predates Christianity. It is part of human nature to take advantage. But I married an ethical Secular Humanist, and it was one of the best decisions in my life. His behavior was more caring and genuine that many so-called Christians. I know a few Christians that I consider genuine and sincere, but they are rare. I respect them, and don't argue religion with them. But I know too many others that profess one thing, yet do another. Quod erat demonstrandum. Sorry you have gone through cancer, but very happy for you that it has been in remission and the treatments have been so effective!
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Dec 8, 2019 22:19:36 GMT
It was hard for me to admit that I had wasted a significant portion of my life in the worship of a fable, and made decisions I now wish I hadn't made, because of my faith back then. But, when given the fact that advances in medical science had put me in remission from Stage 2 Adenocarcinoma, after scores of my older relatives had died of it - and I had seen that as a child - was very convincing that science had answers, albeit incomplete answers, when it came to cancer. I was only 35 when diagnosed; I am now 66. My parents had prayed for me, as my father had prayed for his mother, who died in 1942, and his sisters, one of whom died in 1965, and many other female relatives on his side of the family who died. But my atheist husband demanded that I accept whatever treatment the doctors recommended, horrible as those treatments were, because, as he said, "This time, you have a shot at remission. It may not be a cure, but I want you here, and if you have a recurrence, the science may have advanced again to give you more time here." He was right. I am still here. Prayer was a constant in my family; advanced medical science was not. I credited science. And I had made a lot of decisions in the past, based on my faith, that had not been good decisions in the long run. I trusted too easily anyone who shared the same belief system. Many of those people manipulated me and took advantage of me. There were many wolves in sheep's clothing, to quote Aesop, who predates Christianity. It is part of human nature to take advantage. But I married an ethical Secular Humanist, and it was one of the best decisions in my life. His behavior was more caring and genuine that many so-called Christians. I know a few Christians that I consider genuine and sincere, but they are rare. I respect them, and don't argue religion with them. But I know too many others that profess one thing, yet do another. Quod erat demonstrandum. Sorry you have gone through cancer, but very happy for you that it has been in remission and the treatments have been so effective! Thank you! It was one heck of a learning experience!
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Dec 9, 2019 6:08:23 GMT
I have comprehensively PROVEN your stance is not held by the qualified professionals, you clearly have not read the things I posted. Please dont reply unless you can stop being a broken and incorrect record. You have proven nothing that related to DNA evidence of whatever 'religion' is defined as. It would help if you answered my question about what is religion defined as, so it can be compared to DNA components, which MUST appear in the links that you posted. It is not for me to hunt. It is your claim that DNA had been linked to 'religion. WTF is religion, in scientific terms? So, goz, I am not sure where I was (working, I think) between October 11th when this thread started, and November 3rd when I posted this... I also posted more recently about my personal experience with advances in medical science, which you have read and liked. I am interested in your reaction to my earlier post. Granted, I am quoting a fictional character on a television show in the US that you may not be familiar with. I will say that throughout this series, which is based on scientific evidence, this character, Gil Grissom, is the epitome of the concept of following the science. There is no behavioral analysis in this series; crimes are solved purely through scientific analysis of evidence. Would this concept address your question to gadreel about what, in scientific terms, is religion? "We're genetically hard-wired to believe living forces that we cannot see." You know that I am an agnostic atheist, also, so this is not coming from a theist - quite the opposite. This supposes that all of humanity has a genetic predisposition to believe in living forces that we cannot see. It does not suppose that any individuals might be more or less likely to believe in whatever religion they are raised in - clearly that is environmental. Just curious... Edit: Additionally, Karl posted this: This is a more broad-stroke explanation of our nature, but that would require DNA to transmit from generation to generation. It's not claiming that an identifiable, testable DNA sequence can be found, but that it is an overall human trait.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Dec 9, 2019 15:21:15 GMT
Bump...
|
|