chuck schmidt

Not likely its not. Its elliptical.

What a moronic thread. <roflmao>

You may. God won't prevent you.

When you say Christians' belief it is like you think there is only one and all C's share it? For instance when you say "far fetched" in what sense? If you are critiquing the Bible what scripture, what chapter and verse and from what version of the Bible? In this entire thread what I read is people discussing people, not God. If that what you wish please feel free, but its a totally different subject.

Interesting take. My take of your description is that you are not describing God, you are describing man's reactions to each other and people's differing view of gods. In neither case does that mean He is out to lunch. It suggests that you, like many of us, are still trying to figure out when you hear Him and what He means.

Depending on what toys you are willing to sacrifice there is nothing stopping you. There are many who do just what you say you want. Just don't expect to be issued a government permit. If government "permits" you then they are responsible to rescue you by some twist of bureaucratic logic, so they won't. However if you go far enough and just do it, the odds of government bothering you are slim. There are many remote areas where this is common.

It was not my intention to refer to aesthetics. I suppose it was more in the nature of musing. Whenever people live in the man-made environment of cities they seem to drop faith in a deity and develop philosophies that give all credit to man. When they live on farms or in the bush and see the miracles of natural birth and growth, there tends to be a greater acceptance of the miracles of God. Neither is a rule, just a general observation. My comment wasn't meant to be persuasive.

Sorry Toad, force doesn't work with me. I don't admit anything. Your arguments have to contain the force of logic. This isn't a bar where you can shout down your opponent with force of personality.

Haven't studied them, have you? rotflmao

Of course it is. What didn't I argue with? Nothing serious I hope. LOL

I wouldn't say, "Nope." I'd just say your view, parts of which I may and may not agree with.

Agreed. You can. Mine too. You just don't gettit. Does God recognize "ugly"?

I know what you are saying. You are insisting that my argument fit within your demands for a particular form of logic. An example is the definition of "belief" in Wicki. It says (in part, of course): Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief. The primary problem in epistemology is to understand exactly what is needed in order for us to have knowledge. In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as justified true belief. The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true. [emphasis added] In other words the subject of the assertion is empirically provable at some level. In the logic as described above you are correct. The logic of God is not intended to fall within these bounds. Faith in God requires you to take it or leave it on God's terms.

What word would you use when the "belief" is not in doubt and/or is supported by evidence? Wicki says, "Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true." Under "belief" Wicki also links to a topic called "religious beliefs," but nothing there seems to support your definition? dictionary.com says be⋅lief    –noun 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat. 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief. 3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents. 4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief. I can find no definitive authority for your proposition. When I read the definitions from dictionary.com they lean your way. They leave one thinking that a belief is less concrete than a conviction. Still, if I believe I have my hat, must I only do so in the absence of evidence? I do not accept that use of the word "believe" or its companions such as "belief" necessarily concludes an element of doubt. I do understand where you are coming from. I suspect that it depends on the context. Use of the word might often mean that the user acknowledges an element of doubt or that not everybody might agree. However it might also mean an assertion that something is not only true, but true in the experience of the speaker.

Gee, can't argue with that.

Use sources we can all agree on? Ever hear the old expression, "The tyranny of unanimity?" Therefore if someone disbelieves in the Bible it cannot be used to support theological arguments? Oh, dear. Is that a rule?

You're right if you insist on perfection in human understanding. Get a parallel Bible and compare verses. Look at any New Testament and compare the Easter stories in the gospels. All are different in major ways. Then study the discipline of hermeneutics. Some writers say that the differences are part of the evidence of divine intervention. Over thousands of years thousands of people thousands of miles apart have retained and sent onward the same essential principles without any contact, and leaving them by and large intact.

I only have to "demonstrate" that God exists if scientific principles of evidence are agreed as the test. I don’t accept that. Spiritual and scientific reasoning are not subject to all of the same principles. God cannot be explained by man using science. Science is how God explains part of Himself to man. It is partially hierarchical and the lesser cannot rule over the greater. Saying that you "win" because of your rules is the same as saying that you deny the existence of God. Under your rules you are saying, “Because I argue I win.” God gives you the freedom to deny Him.

Beliefs cannot be based on facts? I cannot accept God as fact? Methinks we disagree. I can use scripture as evidence when discussing with a non-believer. The scripture quoted addresses directly the question of whether there is evidence to support the existence of God. You are free at that point to accept or reject the scripture. God has given you a whole Bible to present His evidence, and millions of people throughout history who accepted Him, rationalized Him, argued about Him and rejected Him. Your refutation is the spiritual equivalent of denying the theory of relativity then saying its no fair to argue from the teachings of Einstein. All religions don't accept my God. "Religion" is a human construct, a word that has come to represent diverse meanings. I'm wondering if we are discussing to cross purposes, but in any event my personal belief system can divorce the concepts of "religion" and "God" from each other with great ease. I leave the definition of agnostic to you.

You can say that. It is logical. God and religion are not necessarily the same thing, so when the definitions are not mutually supportive or even when they are contradictory I can still believe in both. Baby Huey?

Might be a problem for you. Most people who farm or live in the bush see the wonders of the world around them and become quite attached to the notion of God. How're you gonna handle it when you start believing?

Will you be able to afford it?

I should ask people you know about issues on which you and I disagree? Next thing you'll say, "Trust me." There is a manner in which I am able to agree with you in general terms. "Religions" as a human construct are often human institutions. As such their first duty and often the primary duty of their leaders is seen as their worldly survival. That is inconsistent with the duty to God as taught in the Bible. In that sense you are reasonable in expecting much from religion and perceiving that it falls short. Of course that depends on whether you are discussing the definition of religion or the issue of whether God exists. Which is it? Or are you just venting?

Indeed? Some people associate God with the creation of the universe, and many of them disagree on exactly what that means.

My understanding is that it was not King James who started the process. He just came into the story in time to get the credit. That's what a pastor of mine taught, anyway. As for the sources, the Dead Sea scrolls were not discovered by the middle ages and they have been declared authentic. Knowledge from them is included in the NIV. I just can't agree with your point that the KJV is superior, if that is what you are arguing. Especially your unsupported view that the "modern" world is somehow more trustworthy than the middle ages. You sound really angry towards religion. Let 'er rip. Its ok with God. As for the modern world stuff, the world of the medieval kings was as modern to them as our world is to us today. Nowhere have I read anything suggesting that God was there but not here. Glad to see you acknowledge God's existence. There is a final point, perhaps more important than any other. God tells us not to get bogged down arguing doctrine. Doing so separates people instead of bringing them together. I suspect that anybody who thoroughly gets to know and understand any version is blessed. Besides, some people are comfortable in some versions and not others. Who are we to rain on their parade?