God needs a super-natural visit today

[Hollie]

Regarding faith as a requirement:

If faith is a requirement then where does that leave Adam because he walked with God.
Lol.

The story is a myth.

 

[Chuckt]

Regarding faith as a requirement:

If faith is a requirement then where does that leave Adam because he walked with God.
Lol.

The story is a myth.

You are accepting that by blind faith with no evidence.

 

[Hollie]

If faith is a requirement then where does that leave Adam because he walked with God.
Lol.

The story is a myth.

You are accepting that by blind faith with no evidence.

That's so silly. Blind faith with no evidence is the requirement for belief in supernatural gods.

The simple solution would be for you to provide evidence for your gods and Adam consistent with the creation tale.

But of course, you can't. You believe with blind faith and no supporting evidence.

 

[guno]

Regarding faith as a requirement:

If faith is a requirement then where does that leave Adam because he walked with God.
Lol.

The story is a myth.

Excerpts from "Joseph Campbell - The Power of Myth, with Bill Moyers"
Extracts from The Power of Myth

 

[Hollie]

"in spite of proof", while not being an accurate definition of faith, seems to imply you have some......you don't.....

since you provide no evidence or proof for multiple claims you've made in this forum, do you acknowledge then that your claims are constructs of faith?......

I can see you're befuddled.

Things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence is the very definition of religious faith. Further, Christianity requires belief in an absurd nature where dead men don't stay dead, where snakes talk, bushes spontaneously erupt in flames and global floods wipe most of humanity from a flat planet.

That is a shallow definition of faith.. The word faith means "to be persuaded".

Feel free to cherry-pick definitions. However, in the construct of the Abrahamic religion, faith is to accept supernaturalism and absurdities of nature as somehow being real and extant. It's through faith alone that seas part, snakes talk and shrubbery spontaneously bursts into flames.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Well, you were implying that if I'm not physical matter then I'm not real. It seemed you were equating the two. Can you clarify your position?

human beings are made of physical matter....when you said you were not that negated the possibility that you were a human being......I chose to consider that illogical.....

Because "I" am my consciousness, my soul, not my body. That's the essential quality of sentience. Do you believe that human souls and bodies are the same thing?

I believe that a body/soul distinction is a false dichotomy.....a human being without a body, a human being without a soul, either way is a corpse.....there would be no sentience without a functioning, physical brain.....the soul of a psychopathic murderer is a very different entity from the soul of a poet is a very different entity from the soul of a mathematician is a very different entity from a Tibetan mountain guide.....human beings are the combination of inseparable parts.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

I rely on knowledge and enlightenment that science provides. Therefore, slogans derived from religious myth aren't required.

Ancient religious myths present An impossible dilemma. The religionist /supernaturalist cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence. The first thing we must understand is that faith is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence), there are no mechanisms to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the Hindu gods or the partisan gods you were given by virtue of parentage and geography.

no...."in spite of" doesn't appear in any of them....
faith - definition of faith by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Biblical matters of faith "in spite of evidence", are derived from one or more of the bibles.

Hebrews 11:1 defines Faith: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


Regarding faith as a requirement:

Mark 9:23
Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Mark 11:24
Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

Matthew 9:2
And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

Matthew 17:20
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Matthew 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.


And finally, a directive from Big Cheese Junior:

Mark 11:22
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

I'd say that makes it pretty clear, according to your "source material."

While I understand you would like to believe that the above is what “the hey-zeus” said, there is nothing to corroborate that any of the above was spoken by "the hey-zeus".

I know you will attempt to cite a reference in a “holy text” to substantiate your claim but using an unsubstantiated “holy text” to prove the validity of a “holy text” is not valid. In addition, The various bibles laud faith. Faith is needed only when reason fails. If reason fails, then anything outside of reason is irrational.

none of which changes the fact that your "in spite of evidence" is totally manufactured by you as part of the definition of faith.....you got caught in a cheap shot and missed....sorry....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Except the Children of Israel saw the Pillar of Cloud by day and the Fire of God by night. They saw the miracles. They heard the voice of God and they still disobeyed and fell away. Many of them died in the wilderness. They had everything including the most perfect lawgiver and still failed so when people want to find God on their own merit, these are the footsteps you are following in and the children of Israel who died in the wilderness will be many people's examples.

The "pillar of cloud" you are referred to was supposedly Yahweh's penis. They were phallus worshippers. That occult time thing was common back then. There is quite a bit of Egytptian stuff the authors of the Bible copied. But it carries over to the US with the Washington Monument

the way it was explained to me, your argument was your penis and you were worshipping IT.....are you sure you didn't mis-remember the argument?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Regarding faith as a requirement:

If faith is a requirement then where does that leave Adam because he walked with God.
Lol.

The story is a myth.

no, your rationality is a myth......

 

[PostmodernProph]

If faith is a requirement then where does that leave Adam because he walked with God.
Lol.

The story is a myth.

Excerpts from "Joseph Campbell - The Power of Myth, with Bill Moyers"
Extracts from The Power of Myth

hey guno, remember when you linked to a site that claimed the Bible copied pagan mythology and I provided evidence you were wrong and you ran away without even responding?.....I do......I sure wish you had stuck around and tried to defend the claim....I love that kind of debate......

 

[PostmodernProph]

"in spite of proof", while not being an accurate definition of faith, seems to imply you have some......you don't.....

since you provide no evidence or proof for multiple claims you've made in this forum, do you acknowledge then that your claims are constructs of faith?......

I can see you're befuddled.

Things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence is the very definition of religious faith. Further, Christianity requires belief in an absurd nature where dead men don't stay dead, where snakes talk, bushes spontaneously erupt in flames and global floods wipe most of humanity from a flat planet.

That is a shallow definition of faith.. The word faith means "to be persuaded".

Feel free to cherry-pick definitions. However, in the construct of the Abrahamic religion, faith is to accept supernaturalism and absurdities of nature as somehow being real and extant. It's through faith alone that seas part, snakes talk and shrubbery spontaneously bursts into flames.

lol....cherry picking definitions?......can you even find one that uses the words "in spite of".....at least he picked a real definition instead of making one up......

 

[Chuckt]

The story is a myth.

You are accepting that by blind faith with no evidence.

That's so silly. Blind faith with no evidence is the requirement for belief in supernatural gods.

The simple solution would be for you to provide evidence for your gods and Adam consistent with the creation tale.

But of course, you can't. You believe with blind faith and no supporting evidence.

Hollie,

Definitions for sin being "missing the mark" and your definition of faith is partly the Sunday School definition. They are good definitions for beginners but may I ask how many dictionaries, Bible versions or translations you have studied? You are missing it.

Biblical faith is really believe, trust and assurance in evidence:

Biblical faith is outward, fixed upon God, due to who he is, what he has done, and his infinite value. Hebrews 11.6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) famously says,

?What do you mean by ?have faith??? | Ordinary Pastor

Show me that you can go beyond the text and that you actually know something about the subject matter but right now you are using the children's explanation instead of the adult version.

Chuck

 

[dblack]

Well, you were implying that if I'm not physical matter then I'm not real. It seemed you were equating the two. Can you clarify your position?

human beings are made of physical matter....when you said you were not that negated the possibility that you were a human being......I chose to consider that illogical.....

Because "I" am my consciousness, my soul, not my body. That's the essential quality of sentience. Do you believe that human souls and bodies are the same thing?

I believe that a body/soul distinction is a false dichotomy.....a human being without a body, a human being without a soul, either way is a corpse.....there would be no sentience without a functioning, physical brain.....the soul of a psychopathic murderer is a very different entity from the soul of a poet is a very different entity from the soul of a mathematician is a very different entity from a Tibetan mountain guide.....human beings are the combination of inseparable parts.....

That makes sense, and I agree for the most part. The point I'm making is that that essence of what we mean when we say "I" isn't physical. It isn't my body, or even my brain. In fact, I think we intuitively acknowledge that when we say things like "my body" or "my brain". The physical body isn't me, its just my container. What makes me distinct as a human soul is the contents of my brain, the patterns of information - knowledge, memories, emotions, etc...

All this was in support of my claim that a being that exists in the minds of followers is every bit as powerful and amazing as the traditional conception of Gods. We're short-changing them to insist that they perform magic tricks to inspire our belief.

 

[Hollie]

no...."in spite of" doesn't appear in any of them....
faith - definition of faith by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Biblical matters of faith "in spite of evidence", are derived from one or more of the bibles.

Hebrews 11:1 defines Faith: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.


Regarding faith as a requirement:

Mark 9:23
Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Mark 11:24
Therefore I say unto you, What things soever ye desire, when ye pray, believe that ye receive them, and ye shall have them.

Matthew 9:2
And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.

Matthew 17:20
And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Matthew 23:23
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.


And finally, a directive from Big Cheese Junior:

Mark 11:22
And Jesus answering saith unto them, Have faith in God.

I'd say that makes it pretty clear, according to your "source material."

While I understand you would like to believe that the above is what “the hey-zeus” said, there is nothing to corroborate that any of the above was spoken by "the hey-zeus".

I know you will attempt to cite a reference in a “holy text” to substantiate your claim but using an unsubstantiated “holy text” to prove the validity of a “holy text” is not valid. In addition, The various bibles laud faith. Faith is needed only when reason fails. If reason fails, then anything outside of reason is irrational.

none of which changes the fact that your "in spite of evidence" is totally manufactured by you as part of the definition of faith.....you got caught in a cheap shot and missed....sorry....

Your desperate attempts to defend faith is expected. The various bibles laud faith in spite of evidence. You got caught in an indefensible position and can only lash out like a youngster who has been scolded.

 

[Hollie]

You are accepting that by blind faith with no evidence.

That's so silly. Blind faith with no evidence is the requirement for belief in supernatural gods.

The simple solution would be for you to provide evidence for your gods and Adam consistent with the creation tale.

But of course, you can't. You believe with blind faith and no supporting evidence.

Hollie,

Definitions for sin being "missing the mark" and your definition of faith is partly the Sunday School definition. They are good definitions for beginners but may I ask how many dictionaries, Bible versions or translations you have studied? You are missing it.

Biblical faith is really believe, trust and assurance in evidence:

Biblical faith is outward, fixed upon God, due to who he is, what he has done, and his infinite value. Hebrews 11.6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) famously says,

?What do you mean by ?have faith??? | Ordinary Pastor

Show me that you can go beyond the text and that you actually know something about the subject matter but right now you are using the children's explanation instead of the adult version.

Chuck

You somehow missed it but the children's explanation for faith are taken from the bibles.

I see no reason to be burdened by resorting to faith as an answer for anything especially when faith presumes the acceptance of logical fallacies, absurdities of nature and suspension of rationality. In the realm of reason and rationality, knowledge is knowledge or it isn't. Faith by definition is not knowledge, it is faith-- it is belief despite or regardless of evidence. The moment evidence is applied to faith, and that evidence is shown to support the claim of faith, the claim of faith must lose its status of "faith" and instead become knowledge.

Theism cleverly avoids this trap by asserting its claims only and always fall into the category of faith. Well, I for one agree with theists here: They have no knowledge of the truth nor can they by their own standards, they can only have faith.

 

[Chuckt]

That's so silly. Blind faith with no evidence is the requirement for belief in supernatural gods.

The simple solution would be for you to provide evidence for your gods and Adam consistent with the creation tale.

But of course, you can't. You believe with blind faith and no supporting evidence.

Hollie,

Definitions for sin being "missing the mark" and your definition of faith is partly the Sunday School definition. They are good definitions for beginners but may I ask how many dictionaries, Bible versions or translations you have studied? You are missing it.

Biblical faith is really believe, trust and assurance in evidence:

Biblical faith is outward, fixed upon God, due to who he is, what he has done, and his infinite value. Hebrews 11.6Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) famously says,

?What do you mean by ?have faith??? | Ordinary Pastor

Show me that you can go beyond the text and that you actually know something about the subject matter but right now you are using the children's explanation instead of the adult version.

Chuck

You somehow missed it but the children's explanation for faith are taken from the bibles.

I see no reason to be burdened by resorting to faith as an answer for anything especially when faith presumes the acceptance of logical fallacies, absurdities of nature and suspension of rationality. In the realm of reason and rationality, knowledge is knowledge or it isn't. Faith by definition is not knowledge, it is faith-- it is belief despite or regardless of evidence. The moment evidence is applied to faith, and that evidence is shown to support the claim of faith, the claim of faith must lose its status of "faith" and instead become knowledge.

Theism cleverly avoids this trap by asserting its claims only and always fall into the category of faith. Well, I for one agree with theists here: They have no knowledge of the truth nor can they by their own standards, they can only have faith.

Hollie,

Half a definition is better than none but your definition is incomplete.

I'll give you an example. I've been working for my employer for 15 years. They know me. They trust me because I do what they say and I'll tell them how I'm going to do something and when.

You don't know me so if you needed help, would you trust a stranger? The answer is probably, "no" and unless you were desperate, you might never turn to me for help because your faith isn't based on blind trust.

My employer can trust me because it is based on what I have done in the past, who I am and faith in me is just not blind faith but faith plus a little more. I've performed in the past, I did what I said and I looked out for them.

The difference is knowing. You don't know me so you would never get help from me.
You might be fearful of me, untrusting, and I'm just that mean guy on the internet.

Those that know me might fare better with me than you would trust me.

 

[Hollie]

If faith is a requirement then where does that leave Adam because he walked with God.
Lol.

The story is a myth.

no, your rationality is a myth......

Reason, rationality, knowledge and enlightenment terrify the religious extremist.

There's an ongoing internal collapse of models of gods as belched out by the more excitable of the fundies -- a contradiction in terms. So either the model needs to change, (a further re-writing of the bibles), or one if more new, improved Designer Gods needs to be invented, or you retreat into the "it's a mystery" safe room. All three are viable options of course.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie,

Definitions for sin being "missing the mark" and your definition of faith is partly the Sunday School definition. They are good definitions for beginners but may I ask how many dictionaries, Bible versions or translations you have studied? You are missing it.

Biblical faith is really believe, trust and assurance in evidence:



?What do you mean by ?have faith??? | Ordinary Pastor

Show me that you can go beyond the text and that you actually know something about the subject matter but right now you are using the children's explanation instead of the adult version.

Chuck

You somehow missed it but the children's explanation for faith are taken from the bibles.

I see no reason to be burdened by resorting to faith as an answer for anything especially when faith presumes the acceptance of logical fallacies, absurdities of nature and suspension of rationality. In the realm of reason and rationality, knowledge is knowledge or it isn't. Faith by definition is not knowledge, it is faith-- it is belief despite or regardless of evidence. The moment evidence is applied to faith, and that evidence is shown to support the claim of faith, the claim of faith must lose its status of "faith" and instead become knowledge.

Theism cleverly avoids this trap by asserting its claims only and always fall into the category of faith. Well, I for one agree with theists here: They have no knowledge of the truth nor can they by their own standards, they can only have faith.

Hollie,

Half a definition is better than none but your definition is incomplete.

I'll give you an example. I've been working for my employer for 15 years. They know me. They trust me because I do what they say and I'll tell them how I'm going to do something and when.

You don't know me so if you needed help, would you trust a stranger? The answer is probably, "no" and unless you were desperate, you might never turn to me for help because your faith isn't based on blind trust.

My employer can trust me because it is based on what I have done in the past, who I am and faith in me is just not blind faith but faith plus a little more. I've performed in the past, I did what I said and I looked out for them.

The difference is knowing. You don't know me so you would never get help from me.
You might be fearful of me, untrusting, and I'm just that mean guy on the internet.

Those that know me might fare better with me than you would trust me.

That was a horrible attempt at analogy, or metaphor, or something. Either way, it sidesteps addressing the requirement for faith in religion and the utter absurdities of nature that are furthered by religious dogma.

 

[AVG-JOE]

I could go along with your "questionable circumstances" if your depiction of them was accurate......Paul didn't "birth" the church 30 years after the resurrection of Jesus.....he persecuted the church for years before he was converted....the church actually started on Pentecost, forty days after Jesus's ascension.....so basically you are questioning the reality of God based on your own false information....sorry.....

I question the documentation of the events described in The New Testament in particular and I question the validity of The God of Abraham as described in The Torah, The New Testament and The Koran.

I question the validity of Abraham's relationship with God as unique among Monkeys.​

that doesn't give you license to make shit up and pretend its evidence.....

And what, pray tell, are the ancient stories but made up shit presented as evidence?

 

[AVG-JOE]

I had a co-worker who should have been fired. He argued with me about how to do his job instead of doing the work and business suffered as a result.

I've done business with a lot of stinky companies because I had to for work. Their quality of work or lack thereof didn't mean there wasn't a service.

Being able to question, doubt or argue doesn't determine the truth in all cases.

It is seeing the glass half empty instead of half full.

Perhaps... but questioning dogma remains the first step toward uncovering the truth - even if the dogma under question proves true.

The entire, underlying dogma of the Bible sits atop the first three chapters of Genesis. That's where the stage is set and it's the foundation upon which the rest of the Bible is built. If a person rejects the beginning of the story then the rest of the book will make little sense.

​