T1B

Van wrote:I am, and I can also guarantee you that I am hardly alone.

I believe you dude. I consider myself fortunate. I'm not qualified to address this issue with you but I'm quite certain you can find someone or some people who might be able to you help you with it.

If of course, that was your true desire.

BSmack wrote:

Van wrote:Either way it's just a belief, so it doesn't matter.

Not if what Poptart said is true. He seems to think that you should be able to Google Jesus and presto! Instant proof that Jesus was raised from the dead.

Just the opposite, actually.

This is closer to your take, if you can't prove it empirically it must not be true.

You might want to look up the definition of "faith".

Tom In VA wrote:
The concept of communion is more or less the compliance with Christ's request to "Do this in memory of me".
I think much of it stems from the Jewish roots of Christianity wherein during passover a lamb was slaughtered and eaten.

True, but incomplete. "Communion" literally means sharing, or coming together. That definition applies very specifically to the Catholic concept of communion.

You are right, of course.

Tom, other people aren't going to be able to help me with it. They have no more knowledge of the subject than I do, and their faith isn't an airborne contagion.

Assuming any of this is true, bare minimum, God royally fucked up. He allowed flawed people to put out his Word. He sent a boy to do a man's job, then he let the boy's knuckleheaded friends and their corrupt offspring take over the family business.

The whole plot was compromised.

At this point, his silly brochure ain't going to get it done, nor will looking into the eyes of a beautiful child, or even seeing Megan Fox's ass descending upon my face. Nope. With as much slackery in His name that he's allowed to occur, He's going to need to pay me a personal visit and prove to me that he exists. His minions ain't up to the task. I'll sooner believe Nick before I'll believe brainwashed, thought-bereft types like Rog or sad, lonely young men who grow up to become pedophiles in His name.

Van wrote:Tom, other people aren't going to be able to help me with it. They have no more knowledge of the subject than I do, and their faith isn't airborne.

I disagree. Prayer, meditation, conetemplation, etc.. is a discipline. Not unlike learning the guitar. And when one picks up a guitar and cannot play automatically, does one quit ? Yes, those who didn't REALLY want to play guitar. Others keep doing it, keep banging away it, consult those that have exhibited some proficiency in the discipline.

The same applies to prayer.

DAMN, thaat was one of the best things I've ever read on the internet..


A question for 88. Did you make that up yourself or has this been going about for years? Awesome Read!

Tom, you're just plain wrong. Guitar playing is a learned, quantifiable skill which can only be achieved through practice. Faith is not an acquired skill. What you're basically saying is that with enough effort and repetition a person can come to believe anything.

That's true, and it's called brainwashing. Dervishes can spin themselves into bizarre mental states too, but they're merely doing it to themselves; they're not achieving some Higher Knowledge.

88 wrote:Tom-

I respect your right to believe in anything you want. I have a sister-in-law who is super-religious. And I honestly believe that she honestly believes she has some sort of relationship with God. I wish I had that kind of a relationship with a God. But I don't. And to say otherwise would be lying, both to me and the world around me. And I won't do that. So I'm happy for her. I don't tear at or question her belief system. It seems to work for her, so great. Again, no skin off my nose. If you have the same situation in your life, good for you. Seriously.

As far as the role of science and its intersection with morality (which, by the way, is a concept that does not require any belief in a deity), that scalpel cuts both ways. One cannot argue that science is a force for bad things without rejecting the benefits, like medical imaging, live-saving surgeries and pharmaceuticals. Without science, many people would have already "met their maker" if such a maker exists. Yes, chemical warfare agents and bunker-busting bomb technology sucks ass. But your God gave it to man, didn't he?

And I don't buy into the prayer thing at all. I'm sure there were a lot of very great people inside and outside of the WTC when the planes struck. Those who had a near miss and survived likely chalk up their continued existence to the benevolence of God. What about the poor bastards that were buried under thousands of tons of rubble? It happens every day. A car blows a red light and you don't get T-boned, you chalk it up to God saving your life. But if you get T-boned, someone will say "It was all part of God's plan." OK. Whatever. What is the point.

I personally think religion is a big scam. There is the promise: Do what we tell you to do, and you'll get something great after you die. And the hammer: If you don't do what we tell you to do, you are fucked beyond belief. Not much of a choice now, is there? But since I don't have to play, I really don't care.

I'm not specifically religious as much as believe there is a God, and that I am not Him - nor is any man.

I was putting forth my philosophy in the overall "Atheist vs. Theist" dialogue. I am what one might call an "Agnositc Theist", in that I believe in something - yet I cannot define what that something is - I believe that Jesus Christ was who he said he was. I understand his path to be that of doing what "this something" inspired him to do. I find self sacrifice for the benefit of others - inspirational. It gives me strength.

I can't answer your questions and quandry with respect to human suffering. Perhaps God allows it, based on this notion of "free will" and that the folks issuing the suffering will be taken care of - as will the victims.

Only God knows. If I could make sense of it and answer for God, I'd be issuing an opinion and pure speculation. God has yet to reveal those answers to me and I'm not sure He will. Perhaps he reveals the answers to those who are actually in the midst of suffering. Texts, books, and personal testimony of victims suggest he has done just that.

I believe, I don't know. But I do have first hand experience with the power of prayer.

Van wrote:Tom, you're just plain wrong. Guitar playing is a learned, quantifiable skill which can only be achieved through practice. Faith is not an acquired skill. What you're basically saying is that with enough effort and repetition a person can come to believe anything.

That's true, and it's called brainwashing. Dervishes can spin themselves into bizarre mental states too, but they're merely doing it to themselves; they're not achieving some Higher Knowledge.

I was referring to the discipline of prayer. You implied you and others have prayed for faith and received none. So I was suggesting that maybe you didn't fully comprehend that prayer is in fact, a discipline.

Faith is a gift, not a skill. You're right. But I had no intention of suggesting otherwise. Again, my poor writing skills have more to do with this disconnect than our perceived differences. So far, we share in common the fact that faith is not something "learned".

I believe it is a gift. Do you ?

It can be a gift, or a burden, or both.

Tom, if you believe that there is a God and Christ was who he said he was, then you're not at all agnostic. You're a Christian. Full stop.

I'm agnostic. I don't know that any of it is true, and I don't know that any of it isn't true. Lacking knowledge, I have no faith in atheism or divinity.

And no, prayer is not a discipline, at least insofar as merely practicing it will not enable one to become better at it. Prayer is simply an activity practiced by one who has faith; the results of which are explained away in any matter the person sees fit.

Jesus Christ was who he said he was

And they let him out the tomb!

Van wrote: And no, prayer is not a discipline, at least insofar as merely practicing it will not enable one to become better at it.

Severe disconnect. No real point in discussing it further at this point. It is, of course, a discipline. Evidence of this can be seen throughout human history in every culture.

I wish I could educate you but I am not qualified, I am not the person to do so, and in the end ... even if I did possess the necessary qualifications to educate you ... I'm confident you don't think you need to be educated. You are content with your limited knowledge as it pertains to the discipline of prayer.

Frankly, I think that's cool. Being content is a good thing.





Comic relief RACK for Mgo.

Mikey wrote:

BSmack wrote:Not if what Poptart said is true. He seems to think that you should be able to Google Jesus and presto! Instant proof that Jesus was raised from the dead.

Just the opposite, actually. This is closer to your take, if you can't prove it empirically it must not be true. You might want to look up the definition of "faith".

Poptart said that anyone who doubted should "investigate". He also said there was "an abundance of evidence" that Jesus rose from the dead. I took that to mean that Poptart was implying that there was tangible evidence of such a thing. But apparently poptart's kind of evidence is gathered by sticking one's head up one's own ass and gazing about.

Tom, yes, I believe that faith is a gift. True, abiding faith, i.e., that thing the majority of 'practicing' Christians do not have, can only be received. It cannot be earned through practice, anymore than faith in satanism can be earned merely through disciplined practice.

It is not my choice to acquire or deny my faith. It's God's job to instill it in me. It's not my fault that he's too fucking lazy or too much of a prima donna to get off His ass and come down to Earth and make himself known to me. Entrusting his entire operation to a bunch of primitive douches and their corrupt offspring, then expecting people two thousand years later to just buy the flawed results of that corrupt offspring? Wtf was He thinking?

Show Yourself, dude. Remove all doubt. You have the power; I don't, so don't lay it on me.

BSmack wrote:

Mikey wrote:

BSmack wrote:Not if what Poptart said is true. He seems to think that you should be able to Google Jesus and presto! Instant proof that Jesus was raised from the dead.

Just the opposite, actually. This is closer to your take, if you can't prove it empirically it must not be true. You might want to look up the definition of "faith".

Poptart said that anyone who doubted should "investigate". He also said there was "an abundance of evidence" that Jesus rose from the dead. I took that to mean that Poptart was implying that there was tangible evidence of such a thing. But apparently poptart's kind of evidence is gathered by sticking one's head up one's own ass and gazing about.

Based on his faith regarding Obama and the inevitable collapse of the US economy, I'd say you're pretty much spot on.

Van wrote: Show Yourself, dude. Remove all doubt. You have the power; I don't, so don't lay it on me.

If He answered that and instilled in you a burning, zealous Faith for Him - not unlike what you have in GG with respect to guitar - would you "testify" ?

Tom In VA wrote:

Van wrote: And no, prayer is not a discipline, at least insofar as merely practicing it will not enable one to become better at it.

Severe disconnect. No real point in discussing it further at this point. It is, of course, a discipline. Evidence of this can be seen throughout human history in every culture.

Yes, there is evidence of people maintaining the discipline of practicing prayer. There is also evidence of people maintaining the discipline of practicing guitar, yoga and bestiality.

What we don't have is any evidence of a single person every achieving improved results through the strict maintenance of practicing prayer. They can become the Wayne Gretzky of prayer, and they'll never have a single clue as to whether their prayer resulted in anything real. At best, they can assign credit to it for good things, while rationalizing it away when good things don't come. When it's not a prayer of petition, they can also feel good within themselves about the conversation they believe they had with God.

They'll never know, however, whether they weren't merely jibbering to themselves, and neither will anyone else.

Yes, it's a practiced discipline; one with no tangible results.

I wish I could educate you but I am not qualified, I am not the person to do so, and in the end ... even if I did possess the necessary qualifications to educate you ...

Unless you're God in Virginia, no, you do not. It isn't just you; no human has the ability to convey truth to me on this matter. They can merely convey their understanding of how it's all supposed to work, and that's not good enough for me.

I'm confident you don't think you need to be educated.

You're confident about a lot of things you don't truly know, and this would be one more of those things. See, I want to be educated. I've just come to realize that only God can do it. I already know man's take on it, and they screwed up the presentation so badly that there was no sale with me. Now it's up to God to make it right, and if He doesn't care enough to understand that some of his kids botched His message, leaving people like me out in the cold, then he's either stupid or callous, so fuck him. If He wants me, He knows where to find me. Any time He wants, He can fix me up, right quick. The fact that He doesn't, well, what am I to make of that?

You are content with your limited knowledge as it pertains to the discipline of prayer.

You are content with ad hominems.

Frankly, I think that's cool. Being content is a good thing.

Like I said then, you seem to have no clue, for being agnostic is the least contenting feeling possible. One way or the other, whether it be faith in atheism or faith in divinity, I would much rather believe in something. Both mvscal and poptart have much more serenity than I do regarding these matters, simply because they have faith.

Van wrote:Tom, yes, I believe that faith is a gift. True, abiding faith, i.e., that thing the majority of 'practicing' Christians do not have, can only be received.

If faith can only be received, then it must be given by God (or maybe Tigger?). Since you seem to believe that at least some Christians have a true, abiding faith, it follows you must believe in God.

You may now stop denying this and admit that you are actually searching for your own faith.

Tom In VA wrote:

Van wrote: Show Yourself, dude. Remove all doubt. You have the power; I don't, so don't lay it on me.

If He answered that and instilled in you a burning, zealous Faith for Him - not unlike what you have in GG with respect to guitar - would you "testify" ?

Yes. I'd be one ecstatic dude, and I'd eagerly do His bidding.

The fact that other people claim to have received such a gift, it does nothing for me.

Van wrote:Both mvscal and poptart have much more serenity than I do regarding these matters, simply because they have faith.

My confidence on the issue has nothing to do with faith. It is a question of reason and rational thought. If some people gain comfort from awkwardly derived bronze age fairy tales, they're free to knock themselves out.

Personally, I recognize mythology for what it is. I have been studying the mythologies of various cultures since I was 12. The Christian mythos is merely one among many and not a particularly original one at that.

Mikey wrote:

Van wrote:Tom, yes, I believe that faith is a gift. True, abiding faith, i.e., that thing the majority of 'practicing' Christians do not have, can only be received.

If faith can only be received, then it must be given by God (or maybe Tigger?). Since you seem to believe that at least some Christians have a true, abiding faith, it follows you must believe in God.

Not at all. I didn't specify from whom they received the gift of faith, so your conclusion is incorrect. Just because they have faith, it doesn't mean they are correct in what they believe. They may have received that faith from an acid trip, a killer orgasm, winning a World Series during their lifetime or the birth of their first child. By no means must the gift of faith come from God.

You may now stop denying this and admit that you are actually searching for your own faith.

You may now step back and realize two things:

1-You completely botched your argument.
2-I've always sought faith, and I've never said otherwise. Being agnostic doesn't mean one has given up on searching; it means one hasn't found anything. I'd be equally content to be gifted with an abiding faith in atheism or divinity; I just want to have faith in something.

mvscal wrote:

Van wrote:Both mvscal and poptart have much more serenity than I do regarding these matters, simply because they have faith.

My confidence on the issue has nothing to do with faith. It is a question of reason and rational thought. If some people gain comfort from awkwardly derived bronze age fairy tales, they're free to knock themselves out.

While I tend to agree with you regarding the silliness of having faith in fairy tales, the fact remains that you merely have faith, not Ultimate Knowledge. Your intellect tells you that man invented God and Jesus was just a well-intentioned Jew, yet you cannot possibly know whether God exists or Jesus is his divine son.

Such things are literally unknowable to Earth-bound man. Atheism is a faith, same as Christianity, Islam or being a follower of the Grateful Dead; I agree that it's a more well-reasoned faith, but it's still only faith. My intellect also tells me that atheism is more likely to be correct than The Judgmental Fairy In The Sky/Eternal Salvation If You Follow Our Rules/Banishment to Hell If You Don't, yet I do not and cannot know that I am correct in such a conclusion...and neither can you.

You merely think it, with the confidence borne of faith.

BSmack wrote:Then drop a link in. Because for the last 500 years, serious scholars have attempted to find this evidence you speak of and can find nothing.

Lawyers routinely produce evidence in a court of law.

It's not necessarily PROOF that they are presenting.

Proof unequivocally ... PROVES ... something.

Evidence can be "merely" that which directs one's mind to consider the possibility that something is so.

Van wrote:While I tend to agree with you regarding the silliness of having faith in fairy tales, the fact remains that you merely have faith, not Ultimate Knowledge. Your intellect tells you that man invented God and Jesus was just a well-intentioned Jew, yet you cannot possibly know whether God exists or Jesus is his divine son. Such things are literally unknowable to Earth-bound man.

"Ultimate Knowledge"?!? "Earth-bound man"? You're halfway to Thumperville already.

Sorry, the issue at hand is whether or not one accepts Christian mythology and theology as literal truth. That is, of course, completely absurd. Recognizing fact from fiction is an act of reason not faith.

pop, you'll need to do a lot better than that.

poptart wrote:Evidence can be "merely" that which directs one's mind to consider the possibility that something is so.

Yeah, well you don't have any of that either.

Van and mvscal, if you don't recognize that there is evidence that Jesus is the Christ, I seriously question your intellectual integrity.

I'm no thumper, but when some of you who beg for evidence also throw out there that Thomas Jefferson said this or that, what proof do you have of that? Because it is written somewhere? Sounds familiar with the thumper's argument, no? For those who only believe what they can see on youtube, you may only use youtube as YOUR source of evidence.

mvscal wrote:

Van wrote:While I tend to agree with you regarding the silliness of having faith in fairy tales, the fact remains that you merely have faith, not Ultimate Knowledge. Your intellect tells you that man invented God and Jesus was just a well-intentioned Jew, yet you cannot possibly know whether God exists or Jesus is his divine son. Such things are literally unknowable to Earth-bound man.

"Ultimate Knowledge"?!? "Earth-bound man"? You're halfway to Thumperville already.

Nope. Just using easy-to-understand phrasing.

Sorry, the issue at hand is whether or not one accepts Christian mythology and theology as literal truth. That is, of course, completely absurd. Recognizing fact from fiction is an act of reason not faith.

Doesn't matter. Man's ability to reason has its limits, and the issue of knowing to a certainty the answer to the question of divinity is well beyond those limits. As you sit typing away at your computer while launching one against trev's adoring forehead, you may be dead nuts certain that there is no such thing as God, and you may be dead nuts wrong. You don't know, you can't know, and unless He comes and tells you otherwise, you will never know.

Lacking such knowledge, all you have is well-reasoned faith.

poptart wrote:

BSmack wrote:Then drop a link in. Because for the last 500 years, serious scholars have attempted to find this evidence you speak of and can find nothing.

Lawyers routinely produce evidence in a court of law.

It's not necessarily PROOF that they are presenting.

Proof unequivocally ... PROVES ... something.

Evidence can be "merely" that which directs one's mind to consider the possibility that something is so.

Quit bullshitting and show me some of this "evidence".

pop, without quoting from the Bible as your 'evidence', since "I say so, so you have to believe me!" is not evidence, go ahead and describe for me any evidence you have that:

1-Christ rose from the dead.
2-Christ is the son of God.
3-God exists.

If you mention anything other than mere feelings and grasping interpretations of those feelings, you're being intellectually dishonest.

B, the behavior of the apostles is powerful evidence.


Do your own research (open minded) into Old Testament prophecy, and the stunning manner in which Jesus uniquely and unwittingly fulfilled all that the coming Christ was to fulfill.

Very amazing stuff.


Jesus assuredly IS the Christ, imo.

poptart wrote:imo.

Key addition to your argument.

Van wrote:Just using easy-to-understand phrasing.

In what context?

Man's ability to reason has its limits, and the issue of knowing to a certainty the answer to the question of divinity is well beyond those limits.

Nonsense. There is nothing beyond reason. There cannot be anything beyond reason. Your statement is a sophomoric cop out which applies equally to all works of fiction.

How can you know that Zeus didn't turn himself into a white bull so he could rape Europa and then set her up as queen of Crete?

How can you know that vampires and werewolves do not walk the earth?

How can you know that professional wrestling is fake?

The first trick of religion is to convince you that you can't really know anything. Everything else flows from that.

poptart wrote:B, the behavior of the apostles is powerful evidence.

No, it isn't. To those who require more proof than what's mentioned in the Bible, the apostles are a nonissue.

Do your own research (open minded) into Old Testament prophecy, and the stunning manner in which Jesus uniquely and unwittingly fulfilled all that the coming Christ was to fulfill.

No. Prophecy comes from man, not God.

Prove God exists. Prove Christ was his son. Prove Christ rose from the dead. Offer real evidence of any of these things, without using the Bible, since the Bible offers no proof. It merely offers fairy tales and silly oral histories, followed by a little bit of historical data, none of which offers any evidence of divinity; it merely states it as fact.

Very amazing stuff.

So is Star Trek, to Trekkies.

Jesus assuredly IS the Christ, imo.

He's also a middle infielder for the San Juan Asshumpers. Your opinion doesn't matter.

poptart wrote:the stunning manner in which Jesus uniquely and unwittingly fulfilled all that the coming Christ was to fulfill.

Unwittingly? Really? Are you seriously attempting to suggest that a man who was, quite likely, a rabbi of some sect or another was unfamiliar with Old Testament prophecies?

poptart wrote:B, the behavior of the apostles is powerful evidence.

No it isn't. There is absolutely zero inference that can be drawn from their behavior. Even if they truly believed in the resurrection, a more rational conclusion would be that Jesus did not die from his wounds the day of the crucifixion and was prematurely cut down from the cross after passing out, only to die of complications from his wounds 40 days later after spreading a bullshit story about his "defeating death" to his disciples.

Do your own research (open minded) into Old Testament prophecy, and the stunning manner in which Jesus uniquely and unwittingly fulfilled all that the coming Christ was to fulfill. Very amazing stuff.

Jesus assuredly IS the Christ, imo.

THAT is what you say passes for evidence?

OK, then you point out the OT prophecy and link me to some non biblical source validating that Jesus fulfilled that prophecy. I'll be over here not holding my breath.

the behavior of the apostles is powerful evidence.

Their behavior as such, or the interpretation that King James lent to their behavior?