What's the utility of faith?

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I'm sorry, but what the “F” is a "diluted" sheep?

Jesus damned Christ.

You'd think the Extremists could at least get their syntax right.

V/R
Dr. Cam

[_mormonx]

K

[_beefcalf]

When you can't when an argument insult the opponent. Dies it Hert ure sensibilitesss whn I dnt spel wright

haha.. I didn't say faith was in 100% proof text, or even empirical data, that would be an atheist view. We would have to start a new thread for this but I think there is reasonable proof there is a God > I have "faith" that this evidential God is loving based on the evidence of love that is me and the desire to be loved > I think there is reasonable proof that this God is intelligent > I think there is reasonable proof that the old testament text is reliable, in that it has made it through history to us > I have reasonable proof that the New testament is reliable, meaning I believe we have most of, the jest of, what was written in antiquity > I think there is reasonable proof that Jesus was real and a rabbi > I have reasonable proof that he was crucified > I have reasonable proof that a group of jews thought something miraculous had happened and died for that belief > I have faith, and my eyes have been opened by a new birth, that these jews were telling the truth.

mormonx's evidence that God exists:
-mormonx desires to be loved.

mormonx's evidence that God is intelligent:
-not stated.

mormonx evidence that the Old Testament is reliable:
-it has survived to our time.

mormonx's evidence that the New Testament is reliable:
-not stated.

mormonx's evidence that we have 'the jest' of the New Testament:
-not stated.

mormonx's evidence that Jesus was real and a rabbi:
-not stated, but not in contention.

mormonx's evidence that Jesus was crucified:
-not stated, but not in contention.

mormonx's evidence that a group of people believed Jesus' claims about himself:
-not stated, but not in contention.

mormonx's evidence that a group of jews believed they were telling the truth:
-not stated, but not in contention.

mormonx: I haven't dug through all your subsequent posts, so if you addressed these observations later, I'd be happy to have you point that out.

Until then, the weight of the 'evidence' for your beliefs is about 2.2 pounds shy of a kilogram.

[_mormonx]

Until then, the weight of the 'evidence' for your beliefs is about 2.2 pounds shy of a kilogram.

Wow, did you just masterbate with my forum post. I'm sure it made you feel good to defeat me so easily. Come on man, cheap shots won't get you anywhere. You know what you did, I don't think I need to point it out. Seek the truth. This was not truth it was games.

[_beefcalf]

Until then, the weight of the 'evidence' for your beliefs is about 2.2 pounds shy of a kilogram.

Wow, did you just masturbate with my forum post. I'm sure it made you feel good to defeat me so easily. Come on man, cheap shots won't get you anywhere. You know what you did, I don't think I need to point it out. Seek the truth. This was not truth it was games.

You stated you have evidence that God exists, yet you didn't provide it. I would like to see your evidence. Wanting to be loved is pretty weak evidence.

You stated you have evidence that God is intelligent, yet you didn't provide it. I am inviting you to share this evidence.

You stated you have evidence that the Old Testament is reliable. I have evidence that it is not and I am willing to share some of that with you:

-Genesis creation story is provably false.
-The Tower of Babel story is clearly mythological.
-Noah's flood is clearly mythological.
-Moses couldn't write about his own death.
-Donkeys are not capable of human speech.

I invite you to share your evidence that the Old Testament is reliable.

You stated you have evidence that the New Testament is reliable.

I invite you to share this evidence with us.

That you spend time thinking about me masturbating isn't such a bad thing I suppose. But don't tell me about your personal fantasies, they should be kept private.

[_Rambo]

Nobel try. We were talking about eye witnesses not Diluted sheep.

It was not a try I just proved to you that dying for something you believe in is not evidence.

[_schreech]

Wow, did you just masturbate with my forum post. I'm sure it made you feel good to defeat me so easily. Come on man, cheap shots won't get you anywhere. You know what you did, I don't think I need to point it out. Seek the truth. This was not truth it was games.

You certainly think about manual stimulation an awful lot - you seem frustrated/jealous....that said, I find your posts hilarious...I am starting to think that you are an atheist attempting to mock/mimic clueless, dull, blind-faith "christians"...Please tell me you don't actually believe the sh%& you are (incoherently) typing...

[_mormonx]

Thanks for being a little more reasonable. I don't argue with atheist because it is futile. I got drawn into on this thread and was reminded why I don't do it anymore. A looney went so far with empirical evidence that he had to deny the existence of immutable mathematical laws even saying math was an invention of man. This is the first reason I don't debate atheist.. They think everything can be explained empirically. This leaves out evidences in philosophy, human nature, psychology and most important, immutable laws. my ontological argument is based on immutable laws (mathematics, logic, truth etc existing out side and independent of time, space and matter,) so if you think they don't exist independently and revert to using them when they help you, then there is no conversation.

Second, I'm not prepared for Atheist debates. I spent a few years in this study, but it's been years ago. I'm more geared towards debates of faith matters.

Third, Atheist are like bulls in a china shop, they have no ear for subtleties.

but i'll answer some of your questions.

You stated you have evidence that God exists, yet you didn't provide it. I would like to see your evidence. Wanting to be loved is pretty weak evidence.

Wanting to be loved comes from a the argument from desire, which is much more than wanting to be loved. look it up. One of my favorite arguments, but not suitable for atheist because it is not empirical. Better for agnostics. My evidences for God fall in that of Nature in it's design, inherent information structures, the big bang (Something coming from nothing), immutable laws, irreducible complexity, moral laws written on the heart of men (one of those subtle arguments)... and most importantly Christ raising from the dead.

You stated you have evidence that God is intelligent, yet you didn't provide it. I am inviting you to share this evidence.

Math, truth, logic and laws do not evolve they can not be explained by material, space and time. The exist wholly apart from all things and are eternal, immutable, and rule all things. I think they have a name, I AM.

You stated you have evidence that the Old Testament is reliable. I have evidence that it is not and I am willing to share some of that with you:

The evidence you quote from me is that the old testament is reliable in the fact that we have today a reliable text of what was written. I think there are very good arguments that we have, besides scribe errors etc.. a dependable historic document. I don't argue miracles, because miracles an act of God showing his power and ownership over creation.

-Genesis creation story is provably false.

The creation story I believe is a myth in the true sense of the word that was passed down verbally for thousands of years. I don't buy the age of creation from fundamentalist. Websters: a : a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon. I do not believe that it was intended to give a scientific explanation of creation. I think it's foolish to try to derive anything scientific from the literary style of myth. You have to look at each literary genera and explain it from the confines of that genera. Poetry, historical, Myth, wisdom saying, prophetic etc..

-The Tower of Babel story is clearly mythological.

Don't know anything about it but the story. And I do believe it is a myth in the true sense of the word: to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief,

-Noah's flood is clearly mythological.

believe it was a local devastating flood.. also a literary style of myth. Many of the statements are symbolic in nature.. 40 is a very symbolic number in jewish history. They were known for inserting symbology into their writings.

-Moses couldn't write about his own death.

pseudepigraphy, common in both the old and new testament and the out side world. look it up.

-Donkeys are not capable of human speech.

I thought when it said balam's ass spoke... it meant his ASS spoke. The sphincter of a human is abel to form human words, my brother can say momma momma with a fart.

I invite you to share your evidence that the Old Testament is reliable.

The dead sea scrolls were a great find, also archeology, linguistics, anceint tools and materials. etc..

You stated you have evidence that the New Testament is reliable.

that's a huge topic, and so is the Old Testament, but I think Paul is the starting point when looking at the New Testament. That kind of thing you have to take on a book by book basis.

I invite you to share this evidence with us.

I've shared some of it here, There is much more and if your around for the next 10 years I'm sure you will eventually here it all. I place my stock in the "person" Christ, that is enthroned on high at this moment. I have been born again and have evidences that are also spiritual, but they are of no use to someone who is not also born again and have their eyes opened. I also place stock in him historically, If it could ever be shown, like finding him in grave, not raised from the dead, I will leave the faith and have my first orgy with Mormon girls gone wild.

That you spend time thinking about me masturbating isn't such a bad thing I suppose. But don't tell me about your personal fantasies, they should be kept private.

I will try to control myself.

[_mormonx]

Wow, did you just masturbate with my forum post. I'm sure it made you feel good to defeat me so easily. Come on man, cheap shots won't get you anywhere. You know what you did, I don't think I need to point it out. Seek the truth. This was not truth it was games.

You certainly think about manual stimulation an awful lot - you seem frustrated/jealous....that said, I find your posts hilarious...I am starting to think that you are an atheist attempting to mock/mimic clueless, dull, blind-faith "christians"...Please tell me you don't actually believe the sh%& you are (incoherently) typing...

It's hard to type when your drunk on a iphone driving down highway 67 masturbating.

[_mormonx]

Nobel try. We were talking about eye witnesses not Diluted sheep.

It was not a try I just proved to you that dying for something you believe in is not evidence.

did you? You guys have a very low view of proof. You totally skirted my argument. yes many men have died for what they believe to be true, not many died for a lie. These were eyewitnesses to the resurrection. If they knew Christ did not rise, if it was a conspiracy thought up by them, then they knew it was a lie and probably wouldn't have died for that lie. The subtlety is lost on you. If the crazy muslims knew Allah was fiction, they probably wouldn't have cut their life short for him.

You, and everyone on here seems to think that all evidence must be 100% compelling. Have you been in a court room lately? it's the preponderance of evidence that you look for.