Fence Sitter wrote:Doesn't it bother you that that a being whose existence cannot be proven also requires faith in him as a necessity?
Why would that bother me? Since I've found such pleasure in my faith, I would say quite the opposite.
And how convenient is it that the required faith is supposed to be a benefit to us?
Its very convenient sounding, sure. I don't doubt that at all.
It bothers me Stem because it rings of a con game. It reminds me a bit of 'The Emperor's New Clothes".
"Any over-ritualized religion since the dawn of time can make its priests say yes, we know, it is rotten, and hard luck, but just do as we say, keep at the ritual, stick it out, give us your money and you'll end up with the angels in heaven for evermore."
stemelbow wrote:Faith is evidence. That's how its defined in Hebrews. That's what faith is to me. It is evidence.
Actually you are incorrect. Faith is not evidence. I notice you can't even articulate how faith is evidence. This is because it is not. Faith is belief followed by action. James deals much better with what faith really is. I suggest you start there. Now faith can be based on evidence, and I would call this a good faith, but faith can also be based on little to no evidence, and may even have plenty of evidence against a certain belief/s. This would be a blind faith. Now what evidence do you have for your faith that is superior to those who have a different faith in regards to their God.
Socrates wrote:Why does God hide Himself from us, from detection through our empirical and scientific abilities? If He's real, that is?
So that we can have debates on internet message boards.
"Others cannot endure their own littleness unless they can translate it into meaningfulness on the largest possible level." ~ Ernest Becker "Whether you think of it as heavenly or as earthly, if you love life immortality is no consolation for death." ~ Simone de Beauvoir
hatersinmyward wrote:we can't come close to proving a big bang ever happend.
the solar system runs in a cycle.
look at them chemical makeups of the planets, their behaviors/activity science proves this to be true. if you don't believe me research it.
why all planets are moving closer to the sun. venus has magnetic deposits on 2 ends proving it had a moon, mars has an ice cap, no magnetic polls because it doesn't have a moon. then comes the astroid belt which is made up of the same material as earth's moon, jupiter is radio active and shrinking, saturn is made up of plazmas which are below solid's an above gasses, saturn's inner rings are lighter elements and the outer rings are heavier elements. neptune is made up of complex gasses, uranus is basicly pure hydrogen which is the simplest element. pluto is ice, hail bop is like pluto with less structure.
)0+ mercury, 0+ venus, (+) earth, <-0 mars, look at the rest of the "original planetary symbols.
3 will become 2, earth will become venus.
this cannot be refuted by science.
?#? What are you talking about and what is your point?
the big bang can't be proven. what i wrote about our solar system moving in a planetary cycle has the laws of physics behind it. the big bang does not.
basically i'm saying venus is an expired earth like planet, mars has the potential to be like earth. and the laws of physics support that.
its like looking at mars you see the past, when looking at venus you see the future.
hatersinmyward wrote: the big bang can't be proven. what i wrote about our solar system moving in a planetary cycle has the laws of physics behind it. the big bang does not.
If you think that the Big Bang theory is not supported by the laws of physics, then you understand very little about either.
basically i'm saying venus is an expired earth like planet, mars has the potential to be like earth. and the laws of physics support that.
its like looking at mars you see the past, when looking at venus you see the future.
Huh? What?
"Joseph Smith was called as a prophet, dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb-dumb" -South Park
Themis wrote:Actually you are incorrect. Faith is not evidence. I notice you can't even articulate how faith is evidence. This is because it is not. Faith is belief followed by action. James deals much better with what faith really is. I suggest you start there. Now faith can be based on evidence, and I would call this a good faith, but faith can also be based on little to no evidence, and may even have plenty of evidence against a certain belief/s. This would be a blind faith. Now what evidence do you have for your faith that is superior to those who have a different faith in regards to their God.
Your explanation is a pretty confusing one to me, Themis. James isn't defining faith so much as defining how faith relates to salvation--faith without works is dead isn't meaning faith isn't in existence so much as without works faith is ineffective. Anyway, i'll jsut have to disagree. I don't think I attempted to articulate how faith is evidence, but you seem to think I can't even do it. I'm not sure what you're wishing to argue based on that.
Love ya tons, Stem
I ain't nuttin'. don't get all worked up on account of me.