God Returns to MoFo! ~ Why You Should Believe in God

Tools    





But I have come to that understanding because I've subjected myself to Scripture, and because of the actual Free Will vs Grace debate among scholars, Arminianism vs Calvinism. You're overruling explicit Scripture with your personal opinions. And you're claiming the title of the Arminian doctrine while not actually adhering to most of what it teaches.
The bible is full of scripture about choice, which as far as I can see, you pretty well don't believe in. It ticks me off a bit that you are suggesting that I have my stance based on what I want, and yours is based on careful study of the scripture. Especially when your stance depletes all the power of Christ. I'll use just one scripture to end my side of the discussion.

James 1:13-16

Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin, and sin when it is fully grown brings forth death. Do not be deceived, my beloved brothers.
__________________
Letterboxd



Would you say, then, that the universe is inherently hostile toward life?
Maybe a more accurate view would be that life is inherently hostile.



Originally Posted by Zotis
I'm not going to reply to that post. I read it entirely, but I don't want to argue with you anymore. I explained why already.

I seem to recall being very condescendingly informed that I would cop out at the debate's apex. And here we are.

You've made no argument against Devil's Advocate or why this is in any way an irrelevant tangent. You've accused me of ignoring what you have to say and yet I have produced arguments from direct quotes of yours across multiple pages and you have simply walked away.

Why should I or anyone else take you seriously if you're only going to present assertions, refuse to defend them, and then insult people by suggesting in concealed post comments that your justification for abandoning the argument is non-specifically self-evident and not a candid attempt to spare some dignity in a public format?

Just fess up, Zotis. I'd respect ya for it.

Let's not forget that I wasn't the one that responded to the first sign of disagreement with:

*pats on the head* Okay little one, now run along and play with your toys. The adults are talking.
Nah, I'm not buyin' that ****, I'm taking you to task.

I didn't stoop to insults,
I didn't ignore counterarguments,
I didn't condescend to you with winky tongue smileys, and
I didn't walk away.

You did. Don't put on airs like this is something other than what it is. Don't be Guaporense.
__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel



Can't wait to read through this thread (and computer is working at the moment).

I will share this (even though I haven't read all the posts)... at some time during my transition from faithful to Agnostic I feel like "God" may have spoken to me once in response to my lifelong questioning & struggle to understand the nature of life, death, fairness, apparent paradoxes & everything else.

One thought I always played with was: why doesn't God ever communicate by imparting to me some knowledge or thought I could not possibly know on my own? (That seemed to be a fairly definite way to prove his existence).

Now, on this one occasion a thought seemed to pop into my head as if it came from outside of my internal monologue, as if sent from some kind of transmitter directly to my mind.
It wasn't some knowledge or answer to a question I couldn't possibly know, but it also didn't "feel" like my own thought. It didn't feel like I formulated it. It came to me suddenly as if a neighbor across the street who I wasn't aware was there called out to me (but it was not audible).
And it came to me not in feeling or a vague instinctual perception as many thoughts do, but rather it came in precise wording. We can certainly postulate that it was simply generated by my subconscious or pre-conscious mind and sent from these areas of my brain to my conscious mind (and I could not deny that very logical possibility.)

The message was very simple and was this: "Just because you cannot understand everything about Me does not mean you cannot understand anything about Me."

Make of it what you will.



Originally Posted by Captaon Steel
"Just because you cannot understand everything about Me does not mean you cannot understand anything about Me."

Make of it what you will.
How topical.

What prompted you to shift toward agnosticism?



I will share this (even though I haven't read all the posts)... at some time during my transition
Oh, no. Not you, too.



Oh, no. Not you, too.
Well, you already knew this about me and called me out on it not too long ago.

I'm the "Agnostic who believes in God."


And to answer Omnizoa's question (...I still don't know how to multi-quote different posters)...

How topical.
What prompted you to shift toward agnosticism?


It's a long story.

First is a long study of comparative religions that began when I was a teenager. I find the more you learn about many religions, the less probable any one of them seems as to their being an absolute, objective truth.
They also all seem to become equally as far-fetched as those things we call "mythology" the more you learn about them.

But the most revealing thing about comparative religion is the psychology of the "believers." They may not have beliefs in common, but they certainly have many of the same emotion-driven behaviors, obsessions, biases, and thought processes in common.

Listening to zealots from different religions all claiming everyone else is wrong, and having them make their case as to why everyone else is wrong (and will somehow have to pay for their untrue beliefs) is a great way to discover that believers in a bunch of completely different religious dogmas (none of which can be backed up by any evidence) can't all be right...
So maybe none of them are right... or maybe some of them are only partially right, etc.

In addition - personal experiences where my faith (when I was one of those "believers") let me down: I followed the instructions, but did not get the promised results. And my growing discomfort with certain tenets or practices from my previous religion caused me to question further.

Then there's my interest in science. In no way do I claim that science & religion are mutually exclusive or cannot compliment each other, but I do find that science continually answers a lot of questions that only religion could in the past, and the answers are not what we thought.



Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity
Oh, no. Not you, too.
That response is pretty stock by this point, SC. You said that when I mentioned arguing with Yoda.

What specific bandwagon are you so appalled that we appear to be falling off of?

Originally Posted by Captain Steel
It's a long story.

First is a long study of comparative religions that began when I was a teenager. I find the more you learn about many religions, the less probable any one of them seems as to their being an absolute, objective truth.
They also all seem to become equally as far-fetched as those things we call "mythology" the more you learn about them.

But the most revealing thing about comparative religion is the psychology of the "believers." They may not have beliefs in common, but they certainly have many of the same emotion-driven behaviors, obsessions, biases, and thought processes in common.

Listening to zealots from different religions all claiming everyone else is wrong, and having them make their case as to why everyone else is wrong (and will somehow have to pay for their untrue beliefs) is a great way to discover that believers in a bunch of completely different religious dogmas (none of which can be backed up by any evidence) can't all be right...
So maybe none of them are right... or maybe some of them are only partially right, etc.

In addition - personal experiences where my faith (when I was one of those "believers") let me down: I followed the instructions, but did not get the promised results. And my growing discomfort with certain tenets or practices from my previous religion caused me to question further.

Then there's my interest in science. In no way do I claim that science & religion are mutually exclusive or cannot compliment each other, but I do find that science continually answers a lot of questions that only religion could in the past, and the answers are not what we thought.
*nods* Well said.

Do you feel that you are now missing out on anything by reaching these conclusions?



Originally Posted by Sexy Celebrity
.... I was just making a joke 'cause he said "transition." Like, you know, transitioning from male to female.....
Is there a different punchline each time because I don't recall using that word in my review.



That response is pretty stock by this point, SC. You said that when I mentioned arguing with Yoda.

What specific bandwagon are you so appalled that we appear to be falling off of?


*nods* Well said.

Do you feel that you are now missing out on anything by reaching these conclusions?
Well, the thing about being Agnostic is I have no "conclusions."
I don't have to try to convince others or defend or explain anything (especially things that have no rational explanation) and I don't have to try to prove anyone else is wrong.

I'm open to all possibilities. And there is a kind of freedom that is achieved when you stop trying to force yourself (or reinforce yourself) to believe in something when you have no way of being sure it's true. I have the freedom and humility to admit that "I don't know." It seems a much more humble and honest position than to claim to "know" and try to always be backing up your position of rightness by quoting passages from a book (which prove nothing except that you know passages from a book).



Is there a different punchline each time because I don't recall using that word in my review.
Sure.



That response is pretty stock by this point, SC. You said that when I mentioned arguing with Yoda.

What specific bandwagon are you so appalled that we appear to be falling off of?


*nods* Well said.

Do you feel that you are now missing out on anything by reaching these conclusions?
Well, the thing about being Agnostic is I have no "conclusions."
I don't have to try to convince others or defend or explain anything (especially things that have no rational explanation) and I don't have to try to prove anyone else is wrong.

I'm open to all possibilities. And there is a kind of freedom that is achieved when you stop trying to force yourself (or reinforce yourself) to believe in something when you have no way of being sure it's true. I have the freedom and humility to admit that "I don't know." It seems a much more humble and honest position than to claim to "know" and try to always be backing up your position of rightness by quoting passages from a book (which prove nothing except that you know passages from a book).
Deciding that competing religions are equally convinced and fallible is still a conclusion.

That mindset can ostracize people.



Deciding that competing religions are equally convinced and fallible is still a conclusion.

That mindset can ostracize people.

True. Except I haven't concluded that all religions are equally fallible, but that they seem to be from an objective standpoint.

(And those that have doctrines of intimidating others to believe, or in subjugation or in harming others who do not believe or who stop believing are beyond fallible - they are just wrong. No supreme or omnipotent creator being would need humans to terrorize & intimidate other humans into believing.)

So, I think the only people my conclusion of "I don't know" would ostracize would be zealots who choose to alienate themselves from anyone who doesn't believe what they believe - which are people I wouldn't mind staying away.



God is the supreme being.

I say that he must necessarily exist because all matter and energy in the universe deteriorates and thus can not be eternal but must have been created, and the only way for anything to exist at all is for someone to have eternally existed by infinite supernatural power beyond all known dimensions and philosophical ideology and by extension of that omniscience be able to create ex nihilo.
How can you feel comfortable assigning your inadequate (not YOU specifically, humans on Earth) and severely limited understanding of the universe to define something that you describe as not understandable? You've even given 'him' a body (being) and a gender.

Also God speaks for himself, so I have irrefutable proof that he exists, however that proof is not something that God gives to ignorant scoffers until after they die and it's too late. God is not out to prove anything to anyone. It's us who must discover the truth or perish. Life is not a game, it has eternal consequences.
And here you presume to know the mind of this 'being' who is beyond all that we can understand (according to your own definition). How do you know ignorant scoffers don't receive proof every day? How can you say what the intentions of such a 'being' would be? How can you even say what 'truth' there is to discover? Are you omniscient too? I would say you have irrefutable proof that you believe what you're saying.



For those that didnt grow up in it or around it, It must be absolutely brutal for someone to become a christian today.

The problem when people ask about God is.....what if the answer isnt what they want to hear? Then it gets dismissed, and becomes open for debate. The problem is on this topic is that its not a matter of opinion. Whats said is said, what was wrote is wrote, and it even says in the Bible that Gods word is a "hard word". There are supposed "contradictions" but that usually comes from misquoting, half-quoting, or mixing two seperate points from different parts of the book together.

Just read it. Its not gonna make you a hare krishna Thats exactly how God wanted it - read it, decide, and move forward. Church is a gathering of his believers, but over time Church became school. I think the best is to read it and not judge how others took what they read. It says in the Bible that people will take his word many different ways, its whats in your heart that matters, and no hes not an idiot.



For those that didnt grow up in it or around it, It must be absolutely brutal for someone to become a christian today.
That's one perspective. Another might be that you did grow up around it and it never 'stuck'. Maybe someone could be ridiculed and ostracized for questioning or for not believing.

Point of fact, more folk believe than not. Stats are readily available on that.

I'm personally agnostic. Some call us fence sitters but I see it as the only reasonable response to the question.



True. Except I haven't concluded that all religions are equally fallible, but that they seem to be from an objective standpoint.

(And those that have doctrines of intimidating others to believe, or in subjugation or in harming others who do not believe or who stop believing are beyond fallible - they are just wrong. No supreme or omnipotent creator being would need humans to terrorize & intimidate other humans into believing.)

So, I think the only people my conclusion of "I don't know" would ostracize would be zealots who choose to alienate themselves from anyone who doesn't believe what they believe - which are people I wouldn't mind staying away.
Gotcha.

Originally Posted by Sir Toose
How can you feel comfortable assigning your inadequate (not YOU specifically, humans on Earth) and severely limited understanding of the universe to define something that you describe as not understandable? You've even given 'him' a body (being) and a gender.

And here you presume to know the mind of this 'being' who is beyond all that we can understand (according to your own definition)... ...How can you say what the intentions of such a 'being' would be? How can you even say what 'truth' there is to discover? Are you omniscient too?


Originally Posted by TONGO
For those that didnt grow up in it or around it, It must be absolutely brutal for someone to become a christian today.
I thought this topic was about God?