I'm sorry.

[emilynghiem]

Well Bezukhov
At least the Messiah's name wasn't on the spelling list.
To turn the whole contest into a debate whether his name
is REALLY spelled Yeshua, Yashua, Joshua, Jesus etc etc.

But seriously, the miracle of God and Jesus is being everywhere at once.
If we equate JESUS with JUSTICE, it's like saying there can be
Justice for All everywhere, in all people and relationships.

The spirit of Justice or Jesus watches over and guides all humanity.
The more we forgive one another, the more Perfect Justice we
can receive in relationships. And where we agree to receive
forgiveness and correction, then our relations are made new
through "Christ Jesus" or "Restorative Justice" for lasting peace.

Yet we all know there isn't justice for all. Cliches like that sound sweet, but we both know they are bullshit. This is where you say something about "free will". With your definition of fee will, justice will be denied to countless people, blowing your claim that it is universally possible into tiny pieces.

Sure BULLDOG
if you are SO SURE there is NO such thing as "Justice for All"
why STATE that in our national Pledge of Allegiance?

Why have "Equal Justice Under Law"
emblazoned on our Supreme Court as the Motto?

We still believe it is the standard to STRIVE for, right?

If not, YOU ARE RIGHT -- we should quit promoting FRAUD and have it REMOVED!!

Just like removing Jesus, God and Crosses from public buildings
if these things are IMAGINARY FAITH BASED OR OTHERWISE NONEXISTENT.

BULLDOG do you want to be the first to write up
and promote a Petition to REMOVE "Equal Justice Under Law"
and ALL references to "Liberty and Justice for All" if
these ideals are nonexistent?

Do you agree to argue to stop
perpetuating FRAUD by false claims
and misrepresentations of things our
Govt and laws PROMISE but can NEVER deliver.

If, as you argue, Justice for all is nonexistent?

Wow, You didn't even sneak up on it. You just jumped right into the deep end of absurdity right off the bat, didn't you? I never said that wasn't something to strive for, only that it doesn't exist. Our Pledge of Allegiance also says we are One Nation, indivisible. You can tell by reading posts of crazy right wingers here who are having wet dreams at the thought of an armed civil war that we are very much divisible. I assume that you are smart enough to know your absurd remark is bullshit, but I'm a bit offended to see you think I'm not. I will continue to argue for things like justice for all, while knowing that does not exist to the extent that it should,, and probably never will.

The Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.

Re:
I will continue to argue for things like justice for all, while knowing that does not exist to the extent that it should,, and probably never will.

BULLDOG this makes no sense if you were CERTAIN it is completely nonexistent and would never be possible.

Why would you even ask for it?

Clearly it means something in SPIRIT.
And we can work in that SPIRIT even if we aren't perfect in reality.

Thank you anyway BULLDOG
the fact you don't really think it is possible
but you still seek it anyway says everything.
That's the beauty of human nature and conscience.

Even if we are not consciously aware of how we can ever achieve this standard, we are still driven by conscience to seek justice, peace and truth.

Thanks for this BULLDOG
This is what it means to have faith in humanity,
to see that drive that exists even when justice is nowhere in sight. You have that beautiful drive in character built into you. So having faith that this "drive toward justice" exists, and we can still connect in this faith, that's what drives us forward. It doesn't even have to be perfect, and we will still work for it anyway.

I am not certain that universal justice will never happen any more than I am certain that there is no god. I just haven't seen any reason to believe either exists, or will exist in the future. I ain't gonna hold my breath for either

Dear BULLDOG
one reason it helps to believe in Justice
is that it works more effectively when trying to resolve conflicts, abuses or wrongs.

If people don't have faith they can have justice and peace,
this is what can drive people to murder/suicide, committing terrorist attacks, etc.
because they give up on a democratic process of redressing grievances that
can push for justice by peaceful productive means.

When people lose hope, they resort to worse reactions
that just make the problems escalate.

On the other hand, when people have vision and faith in justice
as Dr. King's gift, then this changes HOW we interact and communicate with others.

It's like the difference between having a teacher who loses faith in the
class, gives up and stops trying to teach and help overcome obstacles causing failure.
VS. a teacher who believes and sees the potential in each student,
and can communicate to target that talent and bring it out so the class can succeed.

If we don't have faith justice is even an option,
how could we take steps to work for it.

It is said it only takes the faith the size of a tiny mustard seed
for a whole bush to blossom forth.

When we ASK with faith that people are driven by truth and justice,
this invokes and compels that part of people to respond in kind.

If we don't even ask, then we will never know.

I like how you are honest about not knowing.
As long as we keep asking, we receive answers that
will lead in the right direction, one step at a time.

 

[BULLDOG]

What evidence?

Just as important, what gods is there evidence for?

The creation of space and time, physical laws, biological laws and moral laws.

Those things exist. They are not proof that a god exists.

How would you know? You’ve never given it any serious consideration.

You assume a lot with no reason to do that.

Dear ding
BULLDOG is right in that it can neither be
Proven NOR Disproven that either
God exists or God does not exist.
Both are faith based.

What we can establish is that we AGREE on certain PRINCIPLES that "God represents" or "Jesus represents"
So we can discuss those abstract concepts, even though these REMAIN FAITH BASED.

For example, I was discussin with BULLDOG how a
SENSE and DRIVE Toward JUSTICE exists in people by conscience.
My point is that even though "JUSTICE" remains FAITH BASED
and can neither be proven nor disproven to exist,
we can AGREE to seek that and can admit when we don't have it.

Completely faith based and unproven.
Yet we can agree on principles anyway, and whether we
are being fair to this "projected standard" or if we object to
wrongs, abuses or inconsistencies that are off the mark.

Faith has nothing to do with justice. It might have something to do with a person's belief that justice might be more widespread in the future, but justice is an agreed upon principal. Faith is just a wish that you have a good feeling about.

 

[BULLDOG]

Yet we all know there isn't justice for all. Cliches like that sound sweet, but we both know they are bullshit. This is where you say something about "free will". With your definition of fee will, justice will be denied to countless people, blowing your claim that it is universally possible into tiny pieces.

Sure BULLDOG
if you are SO SURE there is NO such thing as "Justice for All"
why STATE that in our national Pledge of Allegiance?

Why have "Equal Justice Under Law"
emblazoned on our Supreme Court as the Motto?

We still believe it is the standard to STRIVE for, right?

If not, YOU ARE RIGHT -- we should quit promoting FRAUD and have it REMOVED!!

Just like removing Jesus, God and Crosses from public buildings
if these things are IMAGINARY FAITH BASED OR OTHERWISE NONEXISTENT.

BULLDOG do you want to be the first to write up
and promote a Petition to REMOVE "Equal Justice Under Law"
and ALL references to "Liberty and Justice for All" if
these ideals are nonexistent?

Do you agree to argue to stop
perpetuating FRAUD by false claims
and misrepresentations of things our
Govt and laws PROMISE but can NEVER deliver.

If, as you argue, Justice for all is nonexistent?

Wow, You didn't even sneak up on it. You just jumped right into the deep end of absurdity right off the bat, didn't you? I never said that wasn't something to strive for, only that it doesn't exist. Our Pledge of Allegiance also says we are One Nation, indivisible. You can tell by reading posts of crazy right wingers here who are having wet dreams at the thought of an armed civil war that we are very much divisible. I assume that you are smart enough to know your absurd remark is bullshit, but I'm a bit offended to see you think I'm not. I will continue to argue for things like justice for all, while knowing that does not exist to the extent that it should,, and probably never will.

The Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.

Re:
I will continue to argue for things like justice for all, while knowing that does not exist to the extent that it should,, and probably never will.

BULLDOG this makes no sense if you were CERTAIN it is completely nonexistent and would never be possible.

Why would you even ask for it?

Clearly it means something in SPIRIT.
And we can work in that SPIRIT even if we aren't perfect in reality.

Thank you anyway BULLDOG
the fact you don't really think it is possible
but you still seek it anyway says everything.
That's the beauty of human nature and conscience.

Even if we are not consciously aware of how we can ever achieve this standard, we are still driven by conscience to seek justice, peace and truth.

Thanks for this BULLDOG
This is what it means to have faith in humanity,
to see that drive that exists even when justice is nowhere in sight. You have that beautiful drive in character built into you. So having faith that this "drive toward justice" exists, and we can still connect in this faith, that's what drives us forward. It doesn't even have to be perfect, and we will still work for it anyway.

I am not certain that universal justice will never happen any more than I am certain that there is no god. I just haven't seen any reason to believe either exists, or will exist in the future. I ain't gonna hold my breath for either

Dear BULLDOG
one reason it helps to believe in Justice
is that it works more effectively when trying to resolve conflicts, abuses or wrongs.

If people don't have faith they can have justice and peace,
this is what can drive people to murder/suicide, committing terrorist attacks, etc.
because they give up on a democratic process of redressing grievances that
can push for justice by peaceful productive means.

When people lose hope, they resort to worse reactions
that just make the problems escalate.

On the other hand, when people have vision and faith in justice
as Dr. King's gift, then this changes HOW we interact and communicate with others.

It's like the difference between having a teacher who loses faith in the
class, gives up and stops trying to teach and help overcome obstacles causing failure.
VS. a teacher who believes and sees the potential in each student,
and can communicate to target that talent and bring it out so the class can succeed.

If we don't have faith justice is even an option,
how could we take steps to work for it.

It is said it only takes the faith the size of a tiny mustard seed
for a whole bush to blossom forth.

When we ASK with faith that people are driven by truth and justice,
this invokes and compels that part of people to respond in kind.

If we don't even ask, then we will never know.

I like how you are honest about not knowing.
As long as we keep asking, we receive answers that
will lead in the right direction, one step at a time.

We seem to be talking past each other. I certainly believe justice exists. There is ample evidence to prove that. It's just that justice is in a very short supply. I have no comprehension of why you think it is faith based. The effort to fight for justice may be fueled by a person's faith, but it certainly doesn't require faith to know it exists even though so many have it denied to them.

 

[ding]

The evidence for God is all around you.

What evidence?

Just as important, what gods is there evidence for?

The creation of space and time, physical laws, biological laws and moral laws.

Those things exist. They are not proof that a god exists.

How would you know? You’ve never given it any serious consideration.

You assume a lot with no reason to do that.

Then tell me what available information you based your best judgement upon to reject the possibility of spirit creating the material world. Because as near as I can tell you you have made a leap of faith that the material world created itself from nothing. Which is why the only perception for God you could come up with was a unicorn eating cotton candy. It is for these reasons that I believe you have never given this any serious consideration. So it wasn't an assumption by me, it was a deduction by me.

 

[ding]

Sure BULLDOG
if you are SO SURE there is NO such thing as "Justice for All"
why STATE that in our national Pledge of Allegiance?

Why have "Equal Justice Under Law"
emblazoned on our Supreme Court as the Motto?

We still believe it is the standard to STRIVE for, right?

If not, YOU ARE RIGHT -- we should quit promoting FRAUD and have it REMOVED!!

Just like removing Jesus, God and Crosses from public buildings
if these things are IMAGINARY FAITH BASED OR OTHERWISE NONEXISTENT.

BULLDOG do you want to be the first to write up
and promote a Petition to REMOVE "Equal Justice Under Law"
and ALL references to "Liberty and Justice for All" if
these ideals are nonexistent?

Do you agree to argue to stop
perpetuating FRAUD by false claims
and misrepresentations of things our
Govt and laws PROMISE but can NEVER deliver.

If, as you argue, Justice for all is nonexistent?

Wow, You didn't even sneak up on it. You just jumped right into the deep end of absurdity right off the bat, didn't you? I never said that wasn't something to strive for, only that it doesn't exist. Our Pledge of Allegiance also says we are One Nation, indivisible. You can tell by reading posts of crazy right wingers here who are having wet dreams at the thought of an armed civil war that we are very much divisible. I assume that you are smart enough to know your absurd remark is bullshit, but I'm a bit offended to see you think I'm not. I will continue to argue for things like justice for all, while knowing that does not exist to the extent that it should,, and probably never will.

The Pledge of Allegiance
I pledge Allegiance to the flag
of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,
one nation under God, indivisible,
with Liberty and Justice for all.

Re:
I will continue to argue for things like justice for all, while knowing that does not exist to the extent that it should,, and probably never will.

BULLDOG this makes no sense if you were CERTAIN it is completely nonexistent and would never be possible.

Why would you even ask for it?

Clearly it means something in SPIRIT.
And we can work in that SPIRIT even if we aren't perfect in reality.

Thank you anyway BULLDOG
the fact you don't really think it is possible
but you still seek it anyway says everything.
That's the beauty of human nature and conscience.

Even if we are not consciously aware of how we can ever achieve this standard, we are still driven by conscience to seek justice, peace and truth.

Thanks for this BULLDOG
This is what it means to have faith in humanity,
to see that drive that exists even when justice is nowhere in sight. You have that beautiful drive in character built into you. So having faith that this "drive toward justice" exists, and we can still connect in this faith, that's what drives us forward. It doesn't even have to be perfect, and we will still work for it anyway.

I am not certain that universal justice will never happen any more than I am certain that there is no god. I just haven't seen any reason to believe either exists, or will exist in the future. I ain't gonna hold my breath for either

Dear BULLDOG
one reason it helps to believe in Justice
is that it works more effectively when trying to resolve conflicts, abuses or wrongs.

If people don't have faith they can have justice and peace,
this is what can drive people to murder/suicide, committing terrorist attacks, etc.
because they give up on a democratic process of redressing grievances that
can push for justice by peaceful productive means.

When people lose hope, they resort to worse reactions
that just make the problems escalate.

On the other hand, when people have vision and faith in justice
as Dr. King's gift, then this changes HOW we interact and communicate with others.

It's like the difference between having a teacher who loses faith in the
class, gives up and stops trying to teach and help overcome obstacles causing failure.
VS. a teacher who believes and sees the potential in each student,
and can communicate to target that talent and bring it out so the class can succeed.

If we don't have faith justice is even an option,
how could we take steps to work for it.

It is said it only takes the faith the size of a tiny mustard seed
for a whole bush to blossom forth.

When we ASK with faith that people are driven by truth and justice,
this invokes and compels that part of people to respond in kind.

If we don't even ask, then we will never know.

I like how you are honest about not knowing.
As long as we keep asking, we receive answers that
will lead in the right direction, one step at a time.

We seem to be talking past each other. I certainly believe justice exists. There is ample evidence to prove that. It's just that justice is in a very short supply. I have no comprehension of why you think it is faith based. The effort to fight for justice may be fueled by a person's faith, but it certainly doesn't require faith to know it exists even though so many have it denied to them.

If there were never a universal truth that existed man would never have an expectation of fairness or justice to begin with because fairness and justice would have no meaning. The fact that each of us has an expectation of fairness and justice and that we expect everyone else to follow it, ought to raise your suspicion on the origin of that expectation.

 

[ding]

What evidence?

Just as important, what gods is there evidence for?

The creation of space and time, physical laws, biological laws and moral laws.

Those things exist. They are not proof that a god exists.

How would you know? You’ve never given it any serious consideration.

You assume a lot with no reason to do that.

Dear ding
BULLDOG is right in that it can neither be
Proven NOR Disproven that either
God exists or God does not exist.
Both are faith based.

What we can establish is that we AGREE on certain PRINCIPLES that "God represents" or "Jesus represents"
So we can discuss those abstract concepts, even though these REMAIN FAITH BASED.

For example, I was discussin with BULLDOG how a
SENSE and DRIVE Toward JUSTICE exists in people by conscience.
My point is that even though "JUSTICE" remains FAITH BASED
and can neither be proven nor disproven to exist,
we can AGREE to seek that and can admit when we don't have it.

Completely faith based and unproven.
Yet we can agree on principles anyway, and whether we
are being fair to this "projected standard" or if we object to
wrongs, abuses or inconsistencies that are off the mark.

M,

I disagree. I believe God's existence can be proven through observation of the material world using logic.

I believe Thomas Aquinas believed the same thing.

In fact, doesn't Romans 1:19-23 tell us that what can be known about God can be discovered through the study of what he has created?

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

 

[emilynghiem]

The creation of space and time, physical laws, biological laws and moral laws.

Those things exist. They are not proof that a god exists.

How would you know? You’ve never given it any serious consideration.

You assume a lot with no reason to do that.

Dear ding
BULLDOG is right in that it can neither be
Proven NOR Disproven that either
God exists or God does not exist.
Both are faith based.

What we can establish is that we AGREE on certain PRINCIPLES that "God represents" or "Jesus represents"
So we can discuss those abstract concepts, even though these REMAIN FAITH BASED.

For example, I was discussin with BULLDOG how a
SENSE and DRIVE Toward JUSTICE exists in people by conscience.
My point is that even though "JUSTICE" remains FAITH BASED
and can neither be proven nor disproven to exist,
we can AGREE to seek that and can admit when we don't have it.

Completely faith based and unproven.
Yet we can agree on principles anyway, and whether we
are being fair to this "projected standard" or if we object to
wrongs, abuses or inconsistencies that are off the mark.

M,

I disagree. I believe God's existence can be proven through observation of the material world using logic.

I believe Thomas Aquinas believed the same thing.

In fact, doesn't Romans 1:19-23 tell us that what can be known about God can be discovered through the study of what he has created?

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Dear ding
Even if we all agree by consensus on God,
this would still remain faith based!

Do you understand what I am saying?
Even if we all agree what is Justice and agree
we have achieved this Universal and Equal Justice for All,
it is an ABSTRACT principle that is still faith based.

Love and Forgiveness are still faith based and
it's a choice on some level to believe and agree
when these are REAL.

If you ever read "Glimpses of the Devil" by Scott Peck,
even AFTER he saw the same PHENOMENA that his
other team saw, of snakelike and demonic expressions
and manifestations in the schizophrenic patient they were
treating using experimental "exorcism" techniques, Peck
ADMITTED that the 5% of what he saw that was SPIRITUAL
remained faith based and was not provable by science.
Part of what he saw and his team saw was captured in
video footage, where he said you could see SOME of the
snakelike contortions that were not natural or humanly possible.
Nobody could voluntary turn their face into the snakelike
distortions that were designed to attack and scare off the healing
team by targeting their worst unconscious fears and verbally
confronting them, there is no way to prove this except just the
faith-based perceptions of the team.

Even if we were to replicate this process, and everyone kept
reporting the same patterns, the CONTENT of those patterns
would still remain FAITH BASED.

As I tried to explain to harmonica in another thread: like
DREAMS, we cannot prove the CONTENT of our dreams.
We just "take it on faith" that (1) people are telling the truth
(2) we are all "talking about the same thing" when we talk
about dreams.

I was trying to explain to harmonica that the same way
dreams are faith based in that we can't prove what we
dreamed last night, but "take it on faith" when other people
REPORT what they dreamed. One day we will be able to
talk about Jesus/Justice and absolute truth/God/universal laws
where we all AGREE we are "TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING"
(even though these abstract concepts and principles still
remain FAITH BASED).

 

[ding]

Those things exist. They are not proof that a god exists.

How would you know? You’ve never given it any serious consideration.

You assume a lot with no reason to do that.

Dear ding
BULLDOG is right in that it can neither be
Proven NOR Disproven that either
God exists or God does not exist.
Both are faith based.

What we can establish is that we AGREE on certain PRINCIPLES that "God represents" or "Jesus represents"
So we can discuss those abstract concepts, even though these REMAIN FAITH BASED.

For example, I was discussin with BULLDOG how a
SENSE and DRIVE Toward JUSTICE exists in people by conscience.
My point is that even though "JUSTICE" remains FAITH BASED
and can neither be proven nor disproven to exist,
we can AGREE to seek that and can admit when we don't have it.

Completely faith based and unproven.
Yet we can agree on principles anyway, and whether we
are being fair to this "projected standard" or if we object to
wrongs, abuses or inconsistencies that are off the mark.

M,

I disagree. I believe God's existence can be proven through observation of the material world using logic.

I believe Thomas Aquinas believed the same thing.

In fact, doesn't Romans 1:19-23 tell us that what can be known about God can be discovered through the study of what he has created?

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Dear ding
Even if we all agree by consensus on God,
this would still remain faith based!

Do you understand what I am saying?
Even if we all agree what is Justice and agree
we have achieved this Universal and Equal Justice for All,
it is an ABSTRACT principle that is still faith based.

Love and Forgiveness are still faith based and
it's a choice on some level to believe and agree
when these are REAL.

If you ever read "Glimpses of the Devil" by Scott Peck,
even AFTER he saw the same PHENOMENA that his
other team saw, of snakelike and demonic expressions
and manifestations in the schizophrenic patient they were
treating using experimental "exorcism" techniques, Peck
ADMITTED that the 5% of what he saw that was SPIRITUAL
remained faith based and was not provable by science.
Part of what he saw and his team saw was captured in
video footage, where he said you could see SOME of the
snakelike contortions that were not natural or humanly possible.
Nobody could voluntary turn their face into the snakelike
distortions that were designed to attack and scare off the healing
team by targeting their worst unconscious fears and verbally
confronting them, there is no way to prove this except just the
faith-based perceptions of the team.

Even if we were to replicate this process, and everyone kept
reporting the same patterns, the CONTENT of those patterns
would still remain FAITH BASED.

As I tried to explain to harmonica in another thread: like
DREAMS, we cannot prove the CONTENT of our dreams.
We just "take it on faith" that (1) people are telling the truth
(2) we are all "talking about the same thing" when we talk
about dreams.

I was trying to explain to harmonica that the same way
dreams are faith based in that we can't prove what we
dreamed last night, but "take it on faith" when other people
REPORT what they dreamed. One day we will be able to
talk about Jesus/Justice and absolute truth/God/universal laws
where we all AGREE we are "TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING"
(even though these abstract concepts and principles still
remain FAITH BASED).

The definition of faith is to have complete trust in something or someone.

Do you have complete faith in something or someone without good reason. I don’t. So inherent in faith is reason. You can’t have faith in someone or something without a good reason.

 

[emilynghiem]

How would you know? You’ve never given it any serious consideration.

You assume a lot with no reason to do that.

Dear ding
BULLDOG is right in that it can neither be
Proven NOR Disproven that either
God exists or God does not exist.
Both are faith based.

What we can establish is that we AGREE on certain PRINCIPLES that "God represents" or "Jesus represents"
So we can discuss those abstract concepts, even though these REMAIN FAITH BASED.

For example, I was discussin with BULLDOG how a
SENSE and DRIVE Toward JUSTICE exists in people by conscience.
My point is that even though "JUSTICE" remains FAITH BASED
and can neither be proven nor disproven to exist,
we can AGREE to seek that and can admit when we don't have it.

Completely faith based and unproven.
Yet we can agree on principles anyway, and whether we
are being fair to this "projected standard" or if we object to
wrongs, abuses or inconsistencies that are off the mark.

M,

I disagree. I believe God's existence can be proven through observation of the material world using logic.

I believe Thomas Aquinas believed the same thing.

In fact, doesn't Romans 1:19-23 tell us that what can be known about God can be discovered through the study of what he has created?

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Dear ding
Even if we all agree by consensus on God,
this would still remain faith based!

Do you understand what I am saying?
Even if we all agree what is Justice and agree
we have achieved this Universal and Equal Justice for All,
it is an ABSTRACT principle that is still faith based.

Love and Forgiveness are still faith based and
it's a choice on some level to believe and agree
when these are REAL.

If you ever read "Glimpses of the Devil" by Scott Peck,
even AFTER he saw the same PHENOMENA that his
other team saw, of snakelike and demonic expressions
and manifestations in the schizophrenic patient they were
treating using experimental "exorcism" techniques, Peck
ADMITTED that the 5% of what he saw that was SPIRITUAL
remained faith based and was not provable by science.
Part of what he saw and his team saw was captured in
video footage, where he said you could see SOME of the
snakelike contortions that were not natural or humanly possible.
Nobody could voluntary turn their face into the snakelike
distortions that were designed to attack and scare off the healing
team by targeting their worst unconscious fears and verbally
confronting them, there is no way to prove this except just the
faith-based perceptions of the team.

Even if we were to replicate this process, and everyone kept
reporting the same patterns, the CONTENT of those patterns
would still remain FAITH BASED.

As I tried to explain to harmonica in another thread: like
DREAMS, we cannot prove the CONTENT of our dreams.
We just "take it on faith" that (1) people are telling the truth
(2) we are all "talking about the same thing" when we talk
about dreams.

I was trying to explain to harmonica that the same way
dreams are faith based in that we can't prove what we
dreamed last night, but "take it on faith" when other people
REPORT what they dreamed. One day we will be able to
talk about Jesus/Justice and absolute truth/God/universal laws
where we all AGREE we are "TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING"
(even though these abstract concepts and principles still
remain FAITH BASED).

The definition of faith is to have complete trust in something or someone.

Do you have complete faith in something or someone without good reason. I don’t. So inherent in faith is reason. You can’t have faith in someone or something without a good reason.

Well ding at least you explained what you mean by faith.
So I understand where you are coming from.

I'm talking about what is PROVEN vs. what is taken on faith.
That is different from using FAITH to mean "ACCEPTANCE AS TRUE"

I can have 100% acceptance and certainty that God means something true,
which meets YOUR definition and meaning of FAITH.
But even my 100% faith is still FAITH BASED as in NOT PROVEABLE TO OTHERS.

I can be 100% certain I dreamed a certain dream last night.
and ALL 100% of the people on the planet can BELIEVE 100% that I am telling the truth.
So again that meets YOUR definition of faith meaning 100% certainty and trust it is true.

Yet by the definition I'm talking it, it STILL remains "faith based"
and NOT PROVEN what I dreamed last night.

You and I are talking about two different things.
Thanks for clearing that up ding

Since both what you say and what I say can both be going on concurrently,
then it isn't fair to say other people are wrong such as BULLDOG
All three of us may talk about it different ways,
but given your explanation, it makes sense why!

 

[ding]

You assume a lot with no reason to do that.

Dear ding
BULLDOG is right in that it can neither be
Proven NOR Disproven that either
God exists or God does not exist.
Both are faith based.

What we can establish is that we AGREE on certain PRINCIPLES that "God represents" or "Jesus represents"
So we can discuss those abstract concepts, even though these REMAIN FAITH BASED.

For example, I was discussin with BULLDOG how a
SENSE and DRIVE Toward JUSTICE exists in people by conscience.
My point is that even though "JUSTICE" remains FAITH BASED
and can neither be proven nor disproven to exist,
we can AGREE to seek that and can admit when we don't have it.

Completely faith based and unproven.
Yet we can agree on principles anyway, and whether we
are being fair to this "projected standard" or if we object to
wrongs, abuses or inconsistencies that are off the mark.

M,

I disagree. I believe God's existence can be proven through observation of the material world using logic.

I believe Thomas Aquinas believed the same thing.

In fact, doesn't Romans 1:19-23 tell us that what can be known about God can be discovered through the study of what he has created?

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Dear ding
Even if we all agree by consensus on God,
this would still remain faith based!

Do you understand what I am saying?
Even if we all agree what is Justice and agree
we have achieved this Universal and Equal Justice for All,
it is an ABSTRACT principle that is still faith based.

Love and Forgiveness are still faith based and
it's a choice on some level to believe and agree
when these are REAL.

If you ever read "Glimpses of the Devil" by Scott Peck,
even AFTER he saw the same PHENOMENA that his
other team saw, of snakelike and demonic expressions
and manifestations in the schizophrenic patient they were
treating using experimental "exorcism" techniques, Peck
ADMITTED that the 5% of what he saw that was SPIRITUAL
remained faith based and was not provable by science.
Part of what he saw and his team saw was captured in
video footage, where he said you could see SOME of the
snakelike contortions that were not natural or humanly possible.
Nobody could voluntary turn their face into the snakelike
distortions that were designed to attack and scare off the healing
team by targeting their worst unconscious fears and verbally
confronting them, there is no way to prove this except just the
faith-based perceptions of the team.

Even if we were to replicate this process, and everyone kept
reporting the same patterns, the CONTENT of those patterns
would still remain FAITH BASED.

As I tried to explain to harmonica in another thread: like
DREAMS, we cannot prove the CONTENT of our dreams.
We just "take it on faith" that (1) people are telling the truth
(2) we are all "talking about the same thing" when we talk
about dreams.

I was trying to explain to harmonica that the same way
dreams are faith based in that we can't prove what we
dreamed last night, but "take it on faith" when other people
REPORT what they dreamed. One day we will be able to
talk about Jesus/Justice and absolute truth/God/universal laws
where we all AGREE we are "TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING"
(even though these abstract concepts and principles still
remain FAITH BASED).

The definition of faith is to have complete trust in something or someone.

Do you have complete faith in something or someone without good reason. I don’t. So inherent in faith is reason. You can’t have faith in someone or something without a good reason.

Well ding at least you explained what you mean by faith.
So I understand where you are coming from.

I'm talking about what is PROVEN vs. what is taken on faith.
That is different from using FAITH to mean "ACCEPTANCE AS TRUE"

I can have 100% acceptance and certainty that God means something true,
which meets YOUR definition and meaning of FAITH.
But even my 100% faith is still FAITH BASED as in NOT PROVEABLE TO OTHERS.

I can be 100% certain I dreamed a certain dream last night.
and ALL 100% of the people on the planet can BELIEVE 100% that I am telling the truth.
So again that meets YOUR definition of faith meaning 100% certainty and trust it is true.

Yet by the definition I'm talking it, it STILL remains "faith based"
and NOT PROVEN what I dreamed last night.

You and I are talking about two different things.
Thanks for clearing that up ding

Since both what you say and what I say can both be going on concurrently,
then it isn't fair to say other people are wrong such as BULLDOG
All three of us may talk about it different ways,
but given your explanation, it makes sense why!

M,

My definition of faith isn’t what I accept as true. My definition of faith is complete trust in something or someone. Which to me means reliance upon; count upon. For instance, when I am driving on the highway I have faith that the other drivers will follow the traffic laws and not crash into me. This faith was established for good reason. That reason being that is what I have experienced in the past.

So let me restate what I said before, I don’t know anyone who would put their complete trust in something or someone such that they can rely or count upon without having good reason to do so.

 

[ding]

I was trying to explain to harmonica that the same way
dreams are faith based in that we can't prove what we
dreamed last night, but "take it on faith" when other people
REPORT what they dreamed.

The thing is that since I know that I dream when I sleep I have good reason to believe that other people dream too. So I have good reason to count on or rely upon others dreaming. So while I don’t know what they dream I can logically deduce that they dream. In other words, I have good reason to trust or have faith that they do dream.

Now as to what they specifically dream, I would need to know them to place my trust that they were being honest about what they dreamt.

So again, I would need to have a good reason to trust or count on or rely upon that they were being honest before I would put my faith in them that they were telling me the truth.

Reason is inherent to faith because we can’t trust someone or something without good reason.

What you are describing is blind faith. Blind faith is putting trust in someone or something without good reason.

I personally don’t believe God expects us to blindly trust in him because he has and is giving us constant feedback to trust him. It’s just that many can’t or won’t see it.

 

[ding]

You assume a lot with no reason to do that.

Dear ding
BULLDOG is right in that it can neither be
Proven NOR Disproven that either
God exists or God does not exist.
Both are faith based.

What we can establish is that we AGREE on certain PRINCIPLES that "God represents" or "Jesus represents"
So we can discuss those abstract concepts, even though these REMAIN FAITH BASED.

For example, I was discussin with BULLDOG how a
SENSE and DRIVE Toward JUSTICE exists in people by conscience.
My point is that even though "JUSTICE" remains FAITH BASED
and can neither be proven nor disproven to exist,
we can AGREE to seek that and can admit when we don't have it.

Completely faith based and unproven.
Yet we can agree on principles anyway, and whether we
are being fair to this "projected standard" or if we object to
wrongs, abuses or inconsistencies that are off the mark.

M,

I disagree. I believe God's existence can be proven through observation of the material world using logic.

I believe Thomas Aquinas believed the same thing.

In fact, doesn't Romans 1:19-23 tell us that what can be known about God can be discovered through the study of what he has created?

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

Dear ding
Even if we all agree by consensus on God,
this would still remain faith based!

Do you understand what I am saying?
Even if we all agree what is Justice and agree
we have achieved this Universal and Equal Justice for All,
it is an ABSTRACT principle that is still faith based.

Love and Forgiveness are still faith based and
it's a choice on some level to believe and agree
when these are REAL.

If you ever read "Glimpses of the Devil" by Scott Peck,
even AFTER he saw the same PHENOMENA that his
other team saw, of snakelike and demonic expressions
and manifestations in the schizophrenic patient they were
treating using experimental "exorcism" techniques, Peck
ADMITTED that the 5% of what he saw that was SPIRITUAL
remained faith based and was not provable by science.
Part of what he saw and his team saw was captured in
video footage, where he said you could see SOME of the
snakelike contortions that were not natural or humanly possible.
Nobody could voluntary turn their face into the snakelike
distortions that were designed to attack and scare off the healing
team by targeting their worst unconscious fears and verbally
confronting them, there is no way to prove this except just the
faith-based perceptions of the team.

Even if we were to replicate this process, and everyone kept
reporting the same patterns, the CONTENT of those patterns
would still remain FAITH BASED.

As I tried to explain to harmonica in another thread: like
DREAMS, we cannot prove the CONTENT of our dreams.
We just "take it on faith" that (1) people are telling the truth
(2) we are all "talking about the same thing" when we talk
about dreams.

I was trying to explain to harmonica that the same way
dreams are faith based in that we can't prove what we
dreamed last night, but "take it on faith" when other people
REPORT what they dreamed. One day we will be able to
talk about Jesus/Justice and absolute truth/God/universal laws
where we all AGREE we are "TALKING ABOUT THE SAME THING"
(even though these abstract concepts and principles still
remain FAITH BASED).

The definition of faith is to have complete trust in something or someone.

Do you have complete faith in something or someone without good reason. I don’t. So inherent in faith is reason. You can’t have faith in someone or something without a good reason.

Well ding at least you explained what you mean by faith.
So I understand where you are coming from.

I'm talking about what is PROVEN vs. what is taken on faith.
That is different from using FAITH to mean "ACCEPTANCE AS TRUE"

I can have 100% acceptance and certainty that God means something true,
which meets YOUR definition and meaning of FAITH.
But even my 100% faith is still FAITH BASED as in NOT PROVEABLE TO OTHERS.

I can be 100% certain I dreamed a certain dream last night.
and ALL 100% of the people on the planet can BELIEVE 100% that I am telling the truth.
So again that meets YOUR definition of faith meaning 100% certainty and trust it is true.

Yet by the definition I'm talking it, it STILL remains "faith based"
and NOT PROVEN what I dreamed last night.

You and I are talking about two different things.
Thanks for clearing that up ding

Since both what you say and what I say can both be going on concurrently,
then it isn't fair to say other people are wrong such as BULLDOG
All three of us may talk about it different ways,
but given your explanation, it makes sense why!

So to close the loop. I don’t have faith that God exists. I have reasons to believe God exists.

I have faith that I can rely upon God to give me peace through the storms of life.

I have faith that God is pruning me and trust that it is for my good.

 

[emilynghiem]

I was trying to explain to harmonica that the same way
dreams are faith based in that we can't prove what we
dreamed last night, but "take it on faith" when other people
REPORT what they dreamed.

The thing is that since I know that I dream when I sleep I have good reason to believe that other people dream too. So I have good reason to count on or rely upon others dreaming. So while I don’t know what they dream I can logically deduce that they dream. In other words, I have good reason to trust or have faith that they do dream.

Now as to what they specifically dream, I would need to know them to place my trust that they were being honest about what they dreamt.

So again, I would need to have a good reason to trust or count on or rely upon that they were being honest before I would put my faith in them that they were telling me the truth.

Reason is inherent to faith because we can’t trust someone or something without good reason.

What you are describing is blind faith. Blind faith is putting trust in someone or something without good reason.

I personally don’t believe God expects us to blindly trust in him because he has and is giving us constant feedback to trust him. It’s just that many can’t or won’t see it.

Well ding for some reason
I have FAITH that when BULLDOG doesn't see or say things the same way
that means to use OTHER means of expressing the same meaning or message.

I have no reason to "judge" BULLDOG who is trying to be as understanding as can be.

Going back, let's look at this comparison
* when we TRUST people to tell the truth about what they dreamed
* when we DON'T TRUST people's judgment when they talk about what they believe

How much of this is our own projection?
Why is it BULLDOG's fault if you don't have trust in good faith?

If we are going to say it isn't the fault of people with religious belief and faith
"if other people don't believe they are telling the truth"
why would we judge someone like BULLDOG who is also
trying to express perspectives? If that's what they see and understand,
why isn't that valid as part of their process. Why this mutual mistrust
and why should such people be blamed or judged if "other observers"
don't trust them to be telling the truth?

Doesn't it take mutual effort to overcome that mistrust,
instead of judging each other for why or what we do or don't believe.

 

[ding]

I was trying to explain to harmonica that the same way
dreams are faith based in that we can't prove what we
dreamed last night, but "take it on faith" when other people
REPORT what they dreamed.

The thing is that since I know that I dream when I sleep I have good reason to believe that other people dream too. So I have good reason to count on or rely upon others dreaming. So while I don’t know what they dream I can logically deduce that they dream. In other words, I have good reason to trust or have faith that they do dream.

Now as to what they specifically dream, I would need to know them to place my trust that they were being honest about what they dreamt.

So again, I would need to have a good reason to trust or count on or rely upon that they were being honest before I would put my faith in them that they were telling me the truth.

Reason is inherent to faith because we can’t trust someone or something without good reason.

What you are describing is blind faith. Blind faith is putting trust in someone or something without good reason.

I personally don’t believe God expects us to blindly trust in him because he has and is giving us constant feedback to trust him. It’s just that many can’t or won’t see it.

Well ding for some reason
I have FAITH that when BULLDOG doesn't see or say things the same way
that means to use OTHER means of expressing the same meaning or message.

I have no reason to "judge" BULLDOG who is trying to be as understanding as can be.

Going back, let's look at this comparison
* when we TRUST people to tell the truth about what they dreamed
* when we DON'T TRUST people's judgment when they talk about what they believe

How much of this is our own projection?
Why is it BULLDOG's fault if you don't have trust in good faith?

If we are going to say it isn't the fault of people with religious belief and faith
"if other people don't believe they are telling the truth"
why would we judge someone like BULLDOG who is also
trying to express perspectives? If that's what they see and understand,
why isn't that valid as part of their process. Why this mutual mistrust
and why should such people be blamed or judged if "other observers"
don't trust them to be telling the truth?

Doesn't it take mutual effort to overcome that mistrust,
instead of judging each other for why or what we do or don't believe.

Why do you believe I am judging Bulldog? Is it because I don’t believe he has given the question of the origin of existence serious consideration? That’s not a judgement of him. I’m sure he believes he has given it serious consideration. I don’t believe he has. That’s called a disagreement.

It has nothing to do with trust, M. It has to do with reason. He can’t state the perception of god he used for his serious consideration of the material world being created by spirit and he can’t list any of the available evidence he claims he used.

I keep trying to tell you that faith does not mean devoid of reason. Reason informs faith. When reason doesn’t inform faith then bad things happen with religions. So this isn’t about my trusting bulldog or having faith that he is speaking the truth, this is about the logic and validity of his statements. It’s not personal.

 

[BULLDOG]

I was trying to explain to harmonica that the same way
dreams are faith based in that we can't prove what we
dreamed last night, but "take it on faith" when other people
REPORT what they dreamed.

The thing is that since I know that I dream when I sleep I have good reason to believe that other people dream too. So I have good reason to count on or rely upon others dreaming. So while I don’t know what they dream I can logically deduce that they dream. In other words, I have good reason to trust or have faith that they do dream.

Now as to what they specifically dream, I would need to know them to place my trust that they were being honest about what they dreamt.

So again, I would need to have a good reason to trust or count on or rely upon that they were being honest before I would put my faith in them that they were telling me the truth.

Reason is inherent to faith because we can’t trust someone or something without good reason.

What you are describing is blind faith. Blind faith is putting trust in someone or something without good reason.

I personally don’t believe God expects us to blindly trust in him because he has and is giving us constant feedback to trust him. It’s just that many can’t or won’t see it.

Well ding for some reason
I have FAITH that when BULLDOG doesn't see or say things the same way
that means to use OTHER means of expressing the same meaning or message.

I have no reason to "judge" BULLDOG who is trying to be as understanding as can be.

Going back, let's look at this comparison
* when we TRUST people to tell the truth about what they dreamed
* when we DON'T TRUST people's judgment when they talk about what they believe

How much of this is our own projection?
Why is it BULLDOG's fault if you don't have trust in good faith?

If we are going to say it isn't the fault of people with religious belief and faith
"if other people don't believe they are telling the truth"
why would we judge someone like BULLDOG who is also
trying to express perspectives? If that's what they see and understand,
why isn't that valid as part of their process. Why this mutual mistrust
and why should such people be blamed or judged if "other observers"
don't trust them to be telling the truth?

Doesn't it take mutual effort to overcome that mistrust,
instead of judging each other for why or what we do or don't believe.

Why do you believe I am judging Bulldog? Is it because I don’t believe he has given the question of the origin of existence serious consideration? That’s not a judgement of him. I’m sure he believes he has given it serious consideration. I don’t believe he has. That’s called a disagreement.

It has nothing to do with trust, M. It has to do with reason. He can’t state the perception of god he used for his serious consideration of the material world being created by spirit and he can’t list any of the available evidence he claims he used.

As I said before, I don't perceive god, because there is nothing there for me to perceive with any of my senses. that includes intuition that some believe is also a type of sense. Wishing, hoping, or imagining for something is not perceiving that thing. I suppose you might perceive that you have beliefs, but that is only recognizing that your belief exists. It is not actually perceiving the subject of your belief. Your insistence on misusing the word perception makes any further discussion meaningless.

 

[Magnificat]

I was trying to explain to harmonica that the same way
dreams are faith based in that we can't prove what we
dreamed last night, but "take it on faith" when other people
REPORT what they dreamed.

The thing is that since I know that I dream when I sleep I have good reason to believe that other people dream too. So I have good reason to count on or rely upon others dreaming. So while I don’t know what they dream I can logically deduce that they dream. In other words, I have good reason to trust or have faith that they do dream.

Now as to what they specifically dream, I would need to know them to place my trust that they were being honest about what they dreamt.

So again, I would need to have a good reason to trust or count on or rely upon that they were being honest before I would put my faith in them that they were telling me the truth.

Reason is inherent to faith because we can’t trust someone or something without good reason.

What you are describing is blind faith. Blind faith is putting trust in someone or something without good reason.

I personally don’t believe God expects us to blindly trust in him because he has and is giving us constant feedback to trust him. It’s just that many can’t or won’t see it.

Well ding for some reason
I have FAITH that when BULLDOG doesn't see or say things the same way
that means to use OTHER means of expressing the same meaning or message.

I have no reason to "judge" BULLDOG who is trying to be as understanding as can be.

Going back, let's look at this comparison
* when we TRUST people to tell the truth about what they dreamed
* when we DON'T TRUST people's judgment when they talk about what they believe

How much of this is our own projection?
Why is it BULLDOG's fault if you don't have trust in good faith?

If we are going to say it isn't the fault of people with religious belief and faith
"if other people don't believe they are telling the truth"
why would we judge someone like BULLDOG who is also
trying to express perspectives? If that's what they see and understand,
why isn't that valid as part of their process. Why this mutual mistrust
and why should such people be blamed or judged if "other observers"
don't trust them to be telling the truth?

Doesn't it take mutual effort to overcome that mistrust,
instead of judging each other for why or what we do or don't believe.

Why do you believe I am judging Bulldog? Is it because I don’t believe he has given the question of the origin of existence serious consideration? That’s not a judgement of him. I’m sure he believes he has given it serious consideration. I don’t believe he has. That’s called a disagreement.

It has nothing to do with trust, M. It has to do with reason. He can’t state the perception of god he used for his serious consideration of the material world being created by spirit and he can’t list any of the available evidence he claims he used.

As I said before, I don't perceive god, because there is nothing there for me to perceive with any of my senses. that includes intuition that some believe is also a type of sense. Wishing, hoping, or imagining for something is not perceiving that thing. I suppose you might perceive that you have beliefs, but that is only recognizing that your belief exists. It is not actually perceiving the subject of your belief. Your insistence on misusing the word perception makes any further discussion meaningless.

OK. That does it. I'm throwing down the gauntlet. Let's see if you have the capacity for being honest with yourself. I challenge you to prove that God does not exist. Not to me or anyone else. But to yourself. There is plenty of evidence out there. Look at it. From eyewitness accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Christ, to the historical accounts of the Old Testament, and biblical prophecy. Anyone who looks objectively at the evidence can come to only one conclusion. The Bible tells us that only a fool can say there is no God. Don't be a fool.

 

[ding]

I was trying to explain to harmonica that the same way
dreams are faith based in that we can't prove what we
dreamed last night, but "take it on faith" when other people
REPORT what they dreamed.

The thing is that since I know that I dream when I sleep I have good reason to believe that other people dream too. So I have good reason to count on or rely upon others dreaming. So while I don’t know what they dream I can logically deduce that they dream. In other words, I have good reason to trust or have faith that they do dream.

Now as to what they specifically dream, I would need to know them to place my trust that they were being honest about what they dreamt.

So again, I would need to have a good reason to trust or count on or rely upon that they were being honest before I would put my faith in them that they were telling me the truth.

Reason is inherent to faith because we can’t trust someone or something without good reason.

What you are describing is blind faith. Blind faith is putting trust in someone or something without good reason.

I personally don’t believe God expects us to blindly trust in him because he has and is giving us constant feedback to trust him. It’s just that many can’t or won’t see it.

Well ding for some reason
I have FAITH that when BULLDOG doesn't see or say things the same way
that means to use OTHER means of expressing the same meaning or message.

I have no reason to "judge" BULLDOG who is trying to be as understanding as can be.

Going back, let's look at this comparison
* when we TRUST people to tell the truth about what they dreamed
* when we DON'T TRUST people's judgment when they talk about what they believe

How much of this is our own projection?
Why is it BULLDOG's fault if you don't have trust in good faith?

If we are going to say it isn't the fault of people with religious belief and faith
"if other people don't believe they are telling the truth"
why would we judge someone like BULLDOG who is also
trying to express perspectives? If that's what they see and understand,
why isn't that valid as part of their process. Why this mutual mistrust
and why should such people be blamed or judged if "other observers"
don't trust them to be telling the truth?

Doesn't it take mutual effort to overcome that mistrust,
instead of judging each other for why or what we do or don't believe.

Why do you believe I am judging Bulldog? Is it because I don’t believe he has given the question of the origin of existence serious consideration? That’s not a judgement of him. I’m sure he believes he has given it serious consideration. I don’t believe he has. That’s called a disagreement.

It has nothing to do with trust, M. It has to do with reason. He can’t state the perception of god he used for his serious consideration of the material world being created by spirit and he can’t list any of the available evidence he claims he used.

As I said before, I don't perceive god, because there is nothing there for me to perceive with any of my senses. that includes intuition that some believe is also a type of sense. Wishing, hoping, or imagining for something is not perceiving that thing. I suppose you might perceive that you have beliefs, but that is only recognizing that your belief exists. It is not actually perceiving the subject of your belief. Your insistence on misusing the word perception makes any further discussion meaningless.

If your perception of God is a fairytale then everything you see will be skewed to that result.

If your perception of God is more like a mind, then it won’t.

But putting all that aside you made a claim about considering all available evidence and you can’t even list what that was.

So I am curious what you considered. Especially since I suspect it is limited to your belief that God is a fairytale.

 

[BULLDOG]

I was trying to explain to harmonica that the same way
dreams are faith based in that we can't prove what we
dreamed last night, but "take it on faith" when other people
REPORT what they dreamed.

The thing is that since I know that I dream when I sleep I have good reason to believe that other people dream too. So I have good reason to count on or rely upon others dreaming. So while I don’t know what they dream I can logically deduce that they dream. In other words, I have good reason to trust or have faith that they do dream.

Now as to what they specifically dream, I would need to know them to place my trust that they were being honest about what they dreamt.

So again, I would need to have a good reason to trust or count on or rely upon that they were being honest before I would put my faith in them that they were telling me the truth.

Reason is inherent to faith because we can’t trust someone or something without good reason.

What you are describing is blind faith. Blind faith is putting trust in someone or something without good reason.

I personally don’t believe God expects us to blindly trust in him because he has and is giving us constant feedback to trust him. It’s just that many can’t or won’t see it.

Well ding for some reason
I have FAITH that when BULLDOG doesn't see or say things the same way
that means to use OTHER means of expressing the same meaning or message.

I have no reason to "judge" BULLDOG who is trying to be as understanding as can be.

Going back, let's look at this comparison
* when we TRUST people to tell the truth about what they dreamed
* when we DON'T TRUST people's judgment when they talk about what they believe

How much of this is our own projection?
Why is it BULLDOG's fault if you don't have trust in good faith?

If we are going to say it isn't the fault of people with religious belief and faith
"if other people don't believe they are telling the truth"
why would we judge someone like BULLDOG who is also
trying to express perspectives? If that's what they see and understand,
why isn't that valid as part of their process. Why this mutual mistrust
and why should such people be blamed or judged if "other observers"
don't trust them to be telling the truth?

Doesn't it take mutual effort to overcome that mistrust,
instead of judging each other for why or what we do or don't believe.

Why do you believe I am judging Bulldog? Is it because I don’t believe he has given the question of the origin of existence serious consideration? That’s not a judgement of him. I’m sure he believes he has given it serious consideration. I don’t believe he has. That’s called a disagreement.

It has nothing to do with trust, M. It has to do with reason. He can’t state the perception of god he used for his serious consideration of the material world being created by spirit and he can’t list any of the available evidence he claims he used.

As I said before, I don't perceive god, because there is nothing there for me to perceive with any of my senses. that includes intuition that some believe is also a type of sense. Wishing, hoping, or imagining for something is not perceiving that thing. I suppose you might perceive that you have beliefs, but that is only recognizing that your belief exists. It is not actually perceiving the subject of your belief. Your insistence on misusing the word perception makes any further discussion meaningless.

OK. That does it. I'm throwing down the gauntlet. Let's see if you have the capacity for being honest with yourself. I challenge you to prove that God does not exist. Not to me or anyone else. But to yourself. There is plenty of evidence out there. Look at it. From eyewitness accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Christ, to the historical accounts of the Old Testament, and biblical prophecy. Anyone who looks objectively at the evidence can come to only one conclusion. The Bible tells us that only a fool can say there is no God. Don't be a fool.

I never said there is no chance that God exists. I never said unicorns don't exist either. I suppose almost anything is possible. I just said I have seen no reason to believe they do. You can throw down what ever you want to throw down. I have no need or desire to disprove your beliefs. I just think they are wrong, and pretty dumb. You can present any evidence you might have of a god if you want to, but I've probably already seen it. If you want to use the Bible as proof, you need to first prove that it is inerrant. Good luck with that one.

 

[BULLDOG]

I was trying to explain to harmonica that the same way
dreams are faith based in that we can't prove what we
dreamed last night, but "take it on faith" when other people
REPORT what they dreamed.

The thing is that since I know that I dream when I sleep I have good reason to believe that other people dream too. So I have good reason to count on or rely upon others dreaming. So while I don’t know what they dream I can logically deduce that they dream. In other words, I have good reason to trust or have faith that they do dream.

Now as to what they specifically dream, I would need to know them to place my trust that they were being honest about what they dreamt.

So again, I would need to have a good reason to trust or count on or rely upon that they were being honest before I would put my faith in them that they were telling me the truth.

Reason is inherent to faith because we can’t trust someone or something without good reason.

What you are describing is blind faith. Blind faith is putting trust in someone or something without good reason.

I personally don’t believe God expects us to blindly trust in him because he has and is giving us constant feedback to trust him. It’s just that many can’t or won’t see it.

Well ding for some reason
I have FAITH that when BULLDOG doesn't see or say things the same way
that means to use OTHER means of expressing the same meaning or message.

I have no reason to "judge" BULLDOG who is trying to be as understanding as can be.

Going back, let's look at this comparison
* when we TRUST people to tell the truth about what they dreamed
* when we DON'T TRUST people's judgment when they talk about what they believe

How much of this is our own projection?
Why is it BULLDOG's fault if you don't have trust in good faith?

If we are going to say it isn't the fault of people with religious belief and faith
"if other people don't believe they are telling the truth"
why would we judge someone like BULLDOG who is also
trying to express perspectives? If that's what they see and understand,
why isn't that valid as part of their process. Why this mutual mistrust
and why should such people be blamed or judged if "other observers"
don't trust them to be telling the truth?

Doesn't it take mutual effort to overcome that mistrust,
instead of judging each other for why or what we do or don't believe.

Why do you believe I am judging Bulldog? Is it because I don’t believe he has given the question of the origin of existence serious consideration? That’s not a judgement of him. I’m sure he believes he has given it serious consideration. I don’t believe he has. That’s called a disagreement.

It has nothing to do with trust, M. It has to do with reason. He can’t state the perception of god he used for his serious consideration of the material world being created by spirit and he can’t list any of the available evidence he claims he used.

As I said before, I don't perceive god, because there is nothing there for me to perceive with any of my senses. that includes intuition that some believe is also a type of sense. Wishing, hoping, or imagining for something is not perceiving that thing. I suppose you might perceive that you have beliefs, but that is only recognizing that your belief exists. It is not actually perceiving the subject of your belief. Your insistence on misusing the word perception makes any further discussion meaningless.

If your perception of God is a fairytale then everything you see will be skewed to that result.

If your perception of God is more like a mind, then it won’t.

But putting all that aside you made a claim about considering all available evidence and you can’t even list what that was.

So I am curious what you considered. Especially since I suspect it is limited to your belief that God is a fairytale.

Again, you are misusing that word. Exactly how am I supposed to perceive something I can't sense in any way?

 

[Hollie]

I was trying to explain to harmonica that the same way
dreams are faith based in that we can't prove what we
dreamed last night, but "take it on faith" when other people
REPORT what they dreamed.

The thing is that since I know that I dream when I sleep I have good reason to believe that other people dream too. So I have good reason to count on or rely upon others dreaming. So while I don’t know what they dream I can logically deduce that they dream. In other words, I have good reason to trust or have faith that they do dream.

Now as to what they specifically dream, I would need to know them to place my trust that they were being honest about what they dreamt.

So again, I would need to have a good reason to trust or count on or rely upon that they were being honest before I would put my faith in them that they were telling me the truth.

Reason is inherent to faith because we can’t trust someone or something without good reason.

What you are describing is blind faith. Blind faith is putting trust in someone or something without good reason.

I personally don’t believe God expects us to blindly trust in him because he has and is giving us constant feedback to trust him. It’s just that many can’t or won’t see it.

Well ding for some reason
I have FAITH that when BULLDOG doesn't see or say things the same way
that means to use OTHER means of expressing the same meaning or message.

I have no reason to "judge" BULLDOG who is trying to be as understanding as can be.

Going back, let's look at this comparison
* when we TRUST people to tell the truth about what they dreamed
* when we DON'T TRUST people's judgment when they talk about what they believe

How much of this is our own projection?
Why is it BULLDOG's fault if you don't have trust in good faith?

If we are going to say it isn't the fault of people with religious belief and faith
"if other people don't believe they are telling the truth"
why would we judge someone like BULLDOG who is also
trying to express perspectives? If that's what they see and understand,
why isn't that valid as part of their process. Why this mutual mistrust
and why should such people be blamed or judged if "other observers"
don't trust them to be telling the truth?

Doesn't it take mutual effort to overcome that mistrust,
instead of judging each other for why or what we do or don't believe.

Why do you believe I am judging Bulldog? Is it because I don’t believe he has given the question of the origin of existence serious consideration? That’s not a judgement of him. I’m sure he believes he has given it serious consideration. I don’t believe he has. That’s called a disagreement.

It has nothing to do with trust, M. It has to do with reason. He can’t state the perception of god he used for his serious consideration of the material world being created by spirit and he can’t list any of the available evidence he claims he used.

As I said before, I don't perceive god, because there is nothing there for me to perceive with any of my senses. that includes intuition that some believe is also a type of sense. Wishing, hoping, or imagining for something is not perceiving that thing. I suppose you might perceive that you have beliefs, but that is only recognizing that your belief exists. It is not actually perceiving the subject of your belief. Your insistence on misusing the word perception makes any further discussion meaningless.

OK. That does it. I'm throwing down the gauntlet. Let's see if you have the capacity for being honest with yourself. I challenge you to prove that God does not exist. Not to me or anyone else. But to yourself. There is plenty of evidence out there. Look at it. From eyewitness accounts of the life, death and resurrection of Christ, to the historical accounts of the Old Testament, and biblical prophecy. Anyone who looks objectively at the evidence can come to only one conclusion. The Bible tells us that only a fool can say there is no God. Don't be a fool.

Oh no. Not The Gauntlet

I have proof the gods don’t exist. Prove I don’t.

There’s a gauntlet for ya’.