I've spent much of today reading post about the word "know" vs the word belief.
I've always thought the word "know" was thrown around too loosely. For example. I BELIEVE that my dog in the next room is still breathing. I would not KNOW it, unless I went to him and saw his chest rise, etc.

There are VERY FEW things in this world that we can say we know100% . If I said "I know my car is still in the garage" I'd feel pretty confident with that assumption. BUT, if I was ask to bet my child's life on that, I would very quickly reduce that KNOW to an "I BELIEVE my car is still in the garage.

Now, everyone seems to be getting this except Tom. He insist that he knows there is a god, there is proof of god and he has evidence to back it up. The only thing is, you haven't showed us your proof or evidence. I happen to believe there IS a god, but notice I said believe.

Please share your proof with me. Bible scripture does not do it because there is no proof that it is correct.

No, all Christians KNOW there is a God, only those that are unsaved or those that serve Satan wish to deny there is a God.

We know because we feel him, we hear him and we know him, just like I know the person living in the house down the street, he is just as real.

Proof, the world, the wonders of the universe that could not just happen without God doing it.

I could share with you many "proofs" but you have to find your own "proof". It will only be relevant to you. Belief in God requires "blind faith". It requires that faith & you must trust that He is really there. When you have a problem or a decision to make, tell God your concerns, put those concerns on his shoulders, let His will be done & then relax. You have given those concerns up to Him & the best decision for you will be made by God. You never really had control anyway. The proof for you will be when things start to become easier or better. It may not be the route you would have taken but when it actually works out better for you in the long run then you will understand that He is really there & cares for you. That will be your proof!

I could share with you many "proofs" but you have to find your own "proof". It will only be relevant to you. Belief in God requires "blind faith". It requires that faith & you must trust that He is really there. When you have a problem or a decision to make, tell God your concerns, put those concerns on his shoulders, let His will be done & then relax. You have given those concerns up to Him & the best decision for you will be made by God. You never really had control anyway. The proof for you will be when things start to become easier or better. It may not be the route you would have taken but when it actually works out better for you in the long run then you will understand that He is really there & cares for you. That will be your proof!

No, all Christians KNOW there is a God, only those that are unsaved or those that serve Satan wish to deny there is a God.

We know because we feel him, we hear him and we know him, just like I know the person living in the house down the street, he is just as real.

Proof, the world, the wonders of the universe that could not just happen without God doing it.

I don't deny God or worship satan. I believe God is real. I just would not be so arrogant as to say to someone, "YOU are unsaved and going to hell because you have a different belief." You know the person down the street because you have met him in the flesh, face to face.

Your belief (and mine) is based on faith. It is real to me but it is still a belief, not a fact. That was the point of my OP. Tom kept saying he KNOWS and has proof. What proof would convince a non believer? The wonders of the world is not proof. That is just biology. Come up with something that can't be argued. That is my challenge.

I've spent much of today reading post about the word "know" vs the word belief.
I've always thought the word "know" was thrown around too loosely.

I agree about the use of the word "know". But to make knowing dependent on our senses leaves us with knowing nothing except, perhaps, the existence of our thinking ability.

Solipsism is very logical in saying that we "sense" a lot of things in our dreams even though they are not real. And too, our physical senses when awake sometimes deceive us. We really can't get past "believing" that we have a body which can sense a world beyond our thinking ability.

We do live by faith. The only difference between you and I as Christians and the unbelievers is that our faith is focused on God (as He has and is revealing Himself to us) as the real "reality".

We put our faith on His word above our physical senses.

I could share with you many "proofs" but you have to find your own "proof". It will only be relevant to you. Belief in God requires "blind faith". It requires that faith & you must trust that He is really there. When you have a problem or a decision to make, tell God your concerns, put those concerns on his shoulders, let His will be done & then relax. You have given those concerns up to Him & the best decision for you will be made by God. You never really had control anyway. The proof for you will be when things start to become easier or better. It may not be the route you would have taken but when it actually works out better for you in the long run then you will understand that He is really there & cares for you. That will be your proof!

I never said I did not believe. The point is, I do believe but that does not make it a fact for everyone. It is not for me to shove my belief down the throats of people who believe differently. The audacity to say my way is the only way is wrong.

I do lift my concerns to my god. That is when I "Be still and know that I am God" . God is in my soul, not some white robed man floating around in the heavens. If I stop trying to control everything and give it to God, that is "being still", that is listening for Gods will.

I don't deny God or worship satan. I believe God is real. I just would not be so arrogant as to say to someone, "YOU are unsaved and going to hell because you have a different belief."
You are mixing apples and oranges. If someone says "I know God is real," that doesn't disrespect the other person or mean he is going to hell. Those are two different things. I know God is real but what you know or believe has nothing to do with it.

The proof cannot be displayed nor given to anyone. Each person must learn it by experience. Our duties as believers is to live our lives as an example so non-believers will see that example & allow us to tell them how to find the proof of God's existence.

That is my point. It can not be PROVEN and I am really hoping to hear from TJ3 aka Tom. He is the one that kept repeating how he had evidence and proof. I am waiting on him to back it up.

No, all Christians KNOW there is a God, only those that are unsaved or those that serve Satan wish to deny there is a God.

We know because we feel him, we hear him and we know him, just like I know the person living in the house down the street, he is just as real.

Proof, the world, the wonders of the universe that could not just happen without God doing it.

Please, tell me that I am usaved, that I serve Satan. Cast out of Christian dogma, I am saved.

Proof, the world, the wonders of the universe are not limited by the mind of man, it was created by something much wiser. There is a design so intricate and perfect there, we should admire what little of it we can perceive, not fight about it. The world of God is not even describeable to us, let alone written down in a book. The Bible is a very positive icon, but I can not limit my universe to it. I feel her, hear her and know her too, please don't attempt to obscure that with rules you subscribe to.

I've spent much of today reading post about the word "know" vs the word belief.
I've always thought the word "know" was thrown around too loosely. For example. I BELIEVE that my dog in the next room is still breathing. I would not KNOW it, unless I went to him and saw his chest rise, etc.

And once you saw his chest rise, would you cease to believe it because you knew it?

To believe and to know share a common element. All we have to do is look at a definition:

4 know
be aware of the truth of something; have a belief or faith in something; regard as true beyond any doubt; "I know that I left the key on the table"; "Galileo knew that the earth moves around the sun"
Definition of know - WordReference.com Dictionary (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/know)

In essence, to know is to believe without a shadow of a doubt.


There are VERY FEW things in this world that we can say we know100% . If I said "I know my car is still in the garage" I'd feel pretty confident with that assumption. BUT, if I was ask to bet my child's life on that, I would very quickly reduce that KNOW to an "I BELIEVE my car is still in the garage.

I would say there are many things which we know 100%. I know I'm here. I know this desk is in front of me and this PC. I can't count the number of things in my immediate proximity which I am certain are here.


Now, everyone seems to be getting this except Tom. He insist that he knows there is a god, there is proof of god and he has evidence to back it up.

Although Tom and I agree on few other things. This in one in which we agree wholeheartedly.

I also know that God exists, there is proof of His existence and that the evidence is even available to you.


The only thing is, you haven't showed us your proof or evidence.

The proof is evident to me. But even objective evidence is challenged. Because the object is viewed differently by each subjective mind.


I happen to believe there IS a god, but notice I said believe.

I would ask you then, to explain why you believe in God and perhaps I can begin from there to explain why I know that God exists.


Please share your proof with me.

I'm fairly certain that the same proof you have which leads you to suspect that God exists is the same evidence which has convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt.


Bible scripture does not do it because there is no proof that it is correct.

Scripture is one of the proofs of God's existence. We must remember that these are first hand, eyewitness written testimonies of God's existence.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Please, tell me that I am usaved, that I serve Satan. Cast out of Christian dogma, I am saved.

Proof, the world, the wonders of the universe are not limited by the mind of man, it was created by something much wiser. There is a design so intricate and perfect there, we should admire what little of it we can perceive, not fight about it. The world of God is not even describeable to us, let alone written down in a book. The Bible is a very positive icon, but I can not limit my universe to it. I feel her, hear her and know her too, please don't attempt to obscure that with with rules you subscribe to.

Which rules do you speak of, the Ten Commandments?

And once you saw his chest rise, would you cease to believe it because you knew it?
No, I would more than just believe it, I'd know it for sure. It is a step further than believe.
To believe is to assume. To know is to have solid evidence or absolute proof.

I believe my old school is still standing, I wouldn't know it unless I drove over there and looked at it. Having someone tell me that it is still standing is not absolute proof. That is assuming they are telling me truth. This sounds petty I know, but it shows us how many things we think we know, but really just assume because the odds in in favor of it.

To believe and to know share a common element. All we have to do is look at a definition:

4 know
be aware of the truth of something; have a belief or faith in something; regard as true beyond any doubt; "I know that I left the key on the table"; "Galileo knew that the earth moves around the sun"
Definition of know - WordReference.com Dictionary (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/know)




In essence, to know is to believe without a shadow of a doubt.

Correct, without a SHADOW of a doubt



I would say there are many things which we know 100%. I know I'm here. I know this desk is in front of me and this pc. I can't count the number of things in my immediate proximity which I am certain are here.



Although Tom and I agree on few other things. This in one in which we agree wholeheartedly.

I also know that God exists, there is proof of His existence and that the evidence is even available to you.

What is this proof? What is this evidence? I can't get this from you or Tom. I "feel" like there is most likely a higher power because my conscience has conversations with me in my head. I believe that is God speaking to me. But that's just me. I can't tell someone else that the existence of god is a fact. There is no way to prove it. You just choose to believe or not.

The proof is evident to me. But even objective evidence is challenged. Because the object is viewed differently by each subjective mind.

Again what is your proof? What if this were a court of law? Do you just have "circumstantial evidence?" I am not trying to "disprove" God. I hope and pray and believe there is a god, but I have yet to hear something concrete enough to go around telling others that they are wrong if they don't believe.

I would ask you then, to explain why you believe in God and perhaps I can begin from there to explain why I know that God exists.

]I believe mostly because I want to. I would hate to think I am out here on this limb called life all by myself.


I'm fairly certain that the same proof you have which leads you to suspect that God exists is the same evidence which has convinced me beyond a shadow of a doubt.



Scripture is one of the proofs of God's existence. We must remember that these are first hand, eyewitness written testimonies of God's existence.

I do not believe this is any kind of proof. Too much time has gone by, been through too many translations, been left up to too many interpretations, and the variables are too many. Just because someone wrote it doesn't mean they got it right. You just assume they did.

Sincerely,

De Maria

I can't disprove him, but I can't prove him either. I just want to know what those who say they have proof to spell it out with something concrete.

I can't disprove him, but I can't prove him either. I just want to know what those who say they have proof to spell it out with something concrete.

There's an old saying, "for some no proof is necessary, for others no proof is enough".


No, I would more than just believe it, I'd know it for sure. It is a step further than believe. To believe is to assume. To know is to have solid evidence or absolute proof.

Good, you would not cease to believe it, but would believe it with more certainty. With absolute certainty.


I believe my old school is still standing, I wouldn't know it unless I drove over there and looked at it.

And would you cease to believe it as soon as it was out of sight again?


Having someone tell me that it is still standing is not absolute proof. That is assuming they are telling me truth. This sounds petty I know, but it shows us how many things we think we know, but really just assume because the odds in in favor of it.

You are trying to make a point. Which I understand. But I'm trying to tell you, which I haven't yet a chance to do so, that if it is true that you don't know that God exists, you really don't believe.

The demons believe. They know that God exists. But they don't BELIEVE IN God. And there is a difference between believing that God exists and believing in God.

Believing in God means that we assume His Goodness and Love towards us. We can't believe in His Goodness and Love if we aren't certain that He exists. Can we?

Do you believe that God loves you? How can you if you aren't even certain of His existence?


Correct, without a SHADOW of a doubt

Glad we agree. Therefore, those who believe that God exists can know that God exists. TJ and I fall in that group. I hope you will as well.


What is this proof? What is this evidence? I can't get this from you or Tom. I "feel" like there is most likely a higher power because my conscience has conversations with me in my head.

That's one. Even when I was an atheist, I found myself having these sorts of conversations.


I believe that is God speaking to me. But that's just me. I can't tell someone else that the existence of god is a fact. There is no way to prove it. You just choose to believe or not.

Great! I advise that you test every spirit. For me, testing would require making certain that the spirit is teaching me in accordance to the Church or at the very least is not saying anything against the Church.


Again what is your proof? What if this were a court of law? Do you just have "circumstantial evidence?" I am not trying to "disprove" God.

Great! I'm glad you mentioned a court of law.

1. The Scriptures are not circumstantial evidence. They are eyewitness testimonies. And they hold up in court.
2. Historical evidence confirming the Scriptures also holds up in court.

For me however, my belief in God came like a bolt of lightning. One moment I didn't believe, the next I couldn't understand why I had not believed.

It was after my wife conceived our first child. I was on cloud nine. One of the things which came to my mind is, "How? What did I do?" I hadn't done anything. I mean, the experience was enjoyable. But certainly, something else had happened which was beyond my control.

From that moment, I looked at everything differently. It was as though I could see the hand of God in my life. I looked at the common, ordinary things in my life, a blade of grass, a leaf in a tree and I could see that only God could be responsible for that. No doubt in my mind since then.

That's my proof. I keep telling as many people as will listen. But few understand.


I hope and pray and believe there is a god, but I have yet to hear something concrete enough to go around telling others that they are wrong if they don't believe.

Remember this:
2 Kings 6:17
And Elisha prayed, and said, LORD, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. And the LORD opened the eyes of the young man; and he saw: and, behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire round about Elisha.

I pray that the Lord may open your eyes to see His Hand in your life and you may be certain of His existence.


I believe mostly because I want to. I would hate to think I am out here on this limb called life all by myself.

No problem. Wanting God, desiring God and His Love is the right reason to believe.


I do not believe this is any kind of proof. Too much time has gone by, been through too many translations, been left up to too many interpretations, and the variables are too many. Just because someone wrote it doesn't mean they got it right. You just assume they did.

My faith in God teaches me to have faith in people. And our system of Magisterium, Tradition and Scripture ensures that interpretations, translations and other variables are always checked and triple checked back to the Source.

I hope that helps.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Which rules do you speak of, the Ten Commandments?
I was not speaking of the Ten Commandments. Rules that limit us, keep us from God-like action and interpersonal caring are in the way, in my opinion. You are free to disagree. The point is, that as a non-Christians, when we disagree you tend to get defensive.

The Truth that is believed or known to Christians, and not believed or known by non-Christians causes apparent human failure. Christians have failed in their word-spreading and recruitment. Non-Christians are lost, serve Satan, are going to a Christian hell.

I don't think any of us are failures, except when we choose hate, superiority and derision over love, tolerance and acceptance. Making the hateful choice is forgivable, always. Christians I've met, spoken and lived with, then walked away from can't seem to understand this point of view. Can you?

The universe had to start somewhere and so far scientists have not been able to create matter out of nothing. Jesus's body could not be found. 500 people saw him rise and most if not all were crucified for it from what I can remember.

The universe had to start somewhere and so far scientists have not been able to create matter out of nothing. Jesus's body could not be found. 500 people saw him rise and most if not all were crucified for it from what I can remember.

I'm not following.:confused: People who saw him rise were crucified? And how does this connect to the OP?

I was not speaking of the Ten Commandments. Rules that limit us, keep us from God-like action and interpersonal caring are in the way, in my opinion.

Which rules are those?


You are free to disagree. The point is, that as a non-Christians, when we disagree you tend to get defensive.

I tend to see it the other way around. When we disagree with non-Christians, they seem to get defensive.

Maybe we're biased.


The Truth that is believed or known to Christians, and not believed or known by non-Christians causes apparent human failure. Christians have failed in their word-spreading and recruitment. Non-Christians are lost, serve Satan, are going to a Christian hell.

Has someone on this forum said that?


I don't think any of us are failures, except when we choose hate, superiority and derision over love, tolerance and acceptance. Making the hateful choice is forgivable, always. Christians I've met, spoken and lived with, then walked away from can't seem to understand this point of view. Can you?

That depends on what you mean. Sometimes people think that love means tolerating every evil intention they have in their heart. I don't see it that way. There are things which are intrinsically evil.

Homosexuality for instance. It is intrinsically evil. Yet many claim that those who participate in that sin are showing "love".

So what do you mean? Do you mean that to show "love" I must tolerate every sin which people consider good?

Sincerely,

I'm not following.:confused: People who saw him rise were crucified? And how does this connect to the OP?

You asked for specific proof of God's existence. I figured that you wanted facts instead of "we feel him". What I mean by the people who saw him rise is that when Jesus actually rise to heaven there were 500 documented accounts of seeing him do so and all (or most) of them were nailed to crosses to die.

Quote: De Maria
Homosexuality for instance. It is intrinsically evil. Yet many claim that those who participate in that sin are showing "love".

So what do you mean? Do you mean that to show "love" I must tolerate every sin which people consider good?

Yes, love your neighbor can only be taken as exactly what it directs. Does it have a different meaning if you neighbor is a sex offender or a convicted murderer, or simply an enemy? My next door neighbor is a Christian and a homosexual. Should I be intolerant of the fact that he is not me at the moment?

You asked me what rules I was referring to, right after I told you what they were. Perhaps I wasn't clear. Here are the rules in a linear and negative format:

1. Be intolerant and judgemental of others who you feel are not following the rules you have set for yourself.

2. Outline those characteristics and personal qualities that you deem to be intrinsically evil. Refuse to love and verbally condemn those who exibit those characteristics.

3. Start murderous wars or inquisitions to show how strong and determined you are to dominate and control. Your religion demands it.

Yes, if someone killed me, they would be making a choice. The choice is forgivable, all of our actions are, yours and mine. If you call a thing evil or intolerable, you're calling God that. He created the heavens and the earth and all living creatures. To separate the evil ones out is to remove part of that which can't be separated from itself, God.

This I both believe and know. If you do not agree, I tolerate our differences, agree to disagree. You do not.

No, all Christians KNOW there is a God, only those that are unsaved or those that serve Satan wish to deny there is a God.

We know because we feel him, we hear him and we know him, just like I know the person living in the house down the street, he is just as real.

Proof, the world, the wonders of the universe that could not just happen without God doing it.

Im a christian as well. Well kind of.

And you don't know. You believe, you don't know.

Yes, love your neighbor can only be taken as exactly what it directs.

You have a different interpretation of love than we. Love doesn't mean "tolerate". Love means to admonish those who are going down the road of perdition so that they may also save their souls.

Ezekiel 3:18
When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.

19Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.


Does it have a different meaning if you neighbor is a sex offender or a convicted murderer, or simply an enemy?

Yes, it does. We are not to be party to evil:

1 Corinthians 5 1It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. 2And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:


My next door neighbor is a Christian and a homosexual.

He is either a Christian and a FORMER homosexual or a homosexual. If he is a practicing homosexual, he may profess to be Christian, but he isn't.


Should I be intolerant of the fact that he is not me at the moment?

You can do what you want, I will follow Christ.


You asked me what rules I was referring to, right after I told you what they were. Perhaps I wasn't clear. Here are the rules in a linear and negative format:

1. Be intolerant and judgemental of others who you feel are not following the rules you have set for yourself.

As Christians we follow the law of God. The rules we set for ourselves are all based on the Law of God.


2. Outline those characteristics and personal qualities that you deem to be intrinsically evil. Refuse to love and verbally condemn those who exibit those characteristics.

That's how you take it. We see it as warning them of their error. If you had a friend driving a road that headed over a cliff, would you simply let him drive to his doom?


3. Start murderous wars or inquisitions to show how strong and determined you are to dominate and control. Your religion demands it.

Don't believe the hype. The murderous wars were begun by enemies of Christ.


Yes, if someone killed me, they would be making a choice. The choice is forgivable, all of our actions are, yours and mine. If you call a thing evil or intolerable, you're calling God that. He created the heavens and the earth and all living creatures. To separate the evil ones out is to remove part of that which can't be separated from itself, God.

See the Scripture above, 1 Cor 5, which instructs us to separate ourselves from those who persist in sin after they've been warned to stop their evil behaviour.

Essentially, you are telling us to disobey God. But obeying God is how we demonstrate our love for Him.
John 14:15
If ye love me, keep my commandments.

And if we don't obey God, we won't inherit His Kingdom:
Hebrews 5:9
And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;


This I both believe and know. If you do not agree, I tolerate our differences, agree to disagree. You do not.

Sure I do. But that doesn't mean we have to hang out together. You are free to believe whatever you like. But your beliefs will lead you down the road of perdition. I don't intend to go down that road.

Sincerely,

De Maria

[QUOTE=De Maria;1449305]You have a different interpretation of love than we. Love doesn't mean "tolerate". Love means to admonish those who are going down the road of perdition so that they may also save their souls.

Different interpretation??? That is the problem with following the words of the bible. It is cram packed full of words left to interpretation. And that's just us. Previous translators and interpreters have also used THEIR idea of what God was really trying to say.



1 Corinthians 5 1It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife. 2And ye are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he that hath done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3For I verily, as absent in body, but present in spirit, have judged already, as though I were present, concerning him that hath so done this deed, 4In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. 6Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump? 7Purge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed for us:

All this scripture does nothing but jumble my brain. Also, I believe it has done more damage than good since some people interpret it to support their agenda and then bang people over the head with it. All in the name of love by the way.

He is either a Christian and a FORMER homosexual or a homosexual. If he is a practicing homosexual, he may profess to be Christian, but he isn't.

NOT How can love, caring, supporting, dedicating your life to another person ever be called wrong. We don't know what causes a person to be a homosexual. Born that way? Who knows, but don't you think that IF they had their "druthers" they would choose the more accepted, much smoother road to go down than the one that is ridden with people like you and others who condemn them? Some homosexuals lose their families, jobs, friends, because of who they love. That is a crying shame. It is already a hardship for gays that were wired this way for whatever reason. I think it behooves us as "christians" to be loving and accepting of them.


You can do what you want, I will follow Christ

Ask yourself, What would Jesus do? Remember those bracelets? WWJD, I loved them? I don't believe a loving god would turn his back on his children.



As Christians we follow the law of God. The rules we set for ourselves are all based on the Law of God.



That's how you take it. We see it as warning them of their error. If you had a friend driving a road that headed over a cliff, would you simply let him drive to his doom?

Good point. I really do believe you mean well. I just believe God is bigger than to be so unforgiving of people who are sharing their life, making their home, loving, respecting, and caring for their partner, and just happen to be the same sex.

Anytime two people are doing this is a good thing. Whether they are male/female or same sex.
Anytime two people promised to do this, but have not lived up to their promises and made a mockery of their vows is a bad thing. Whether they are male/female or same sex. I think God has a MUCH bigger concern with this scenario.

This is just it, God is a jealous god, he hates sin, he must punish sin, he did love mankind more than anything, and that is why he sent Jesus to be a way to save us from the punishment that we deserve.

The trouble with many is they will not accept and admit that some of their actions are wrong and a sin.

a person who steals know it is wrong, and would confess and try to stop stealing when they become a christian. They may fail sometimes, but they know it is wrong when they do it. The person who does not know it is wrong, has to be convicted by the Holy Spirit in their heart to know it is wrong before they can repent.

So it is with all of the sins, until the sinner will admit their sin and confess it, and repent, there is no forgiveness for the sin.
Without being forgiven and repentance, there is no salvation.

So it is true, that one is not really a Christian, if they will not admit their sin and try and turn from their sin.

The trouble with many is they will not accept and admit that some of their actions are wrong and a sin.

Personally, I have no problem recognizing sin, knowing when I'm doing it, and changing my ways.
Maybe gays are not admitting it is a sin because they don't believe they are sinning. I don't think they are. God made them the way they are. This is not a matter of stealing, killing, being unkind, or anything else that is a choice. This is an innate trait like being born with brown eyes, or possessing a certain talent.

a person who steals know it is wrong, and would confess and try to stop stealing when they become a christian. They may fail sometimes, but they know it is wrong when they do it. The person who does not know it is wrong, has to be convicted by the Holy Spirit in their heart to know it is wrong before they can repent.

Christians do not corner the market on morality. It doesn't take being a christian to know what is right and what is wrong.. Many christians think atheist behave with evil intent. Not so. They can be just as good or better than any self proclaimed christian.

So it is with all of the sins, until the sinner will admit their sin and confess it, and repent, there is no forgiveness for the sin.
Without being forgiven and repentance, there is no salvation.

So it is true, that one is not really a Christian, if they will not admit their sin and try and turn from their sin.

This is what makes me move away from my christian up bringing.
Christians have taken a book that is filled with contradictions, interpretations, translations, a god that supports slavery, killing, treating women as lesser humans and take it as factual black and white. No gray area at all. I don't get the reasoning there. General guide book, okay. The literal truth, I don't think so . It's been through too many human fallible hands. But, that is just me.


__________________

I've been thinking about this thread for a couple of days now and still feel a bit uncertain about entering into it, mostly because I have sympathies with both sides of the debate. The attempt to prove God's existence is, of course, very old indeed. Typically, these attempts come in two forms: empirical proofs (e.g. Aguinas's famous--or infamous--Five Ways) and a priori (e.g. Anselm's brilliant Ontological Argument--which has probably accounted for few if any conversions). The trend in the discussion so far has been to look for empirical proof for God's existence, and here an awful lot turns on one's notion of what counts as *evidence*. To borrow Russell's famous example: If I put out a saucer of milk and come back later to find the milk gone, this may count as evidence that there's a cat in the house because that's the best explanation for the disappearance of the milk (I know, giving cats milk is a bad idea--I'm not sure Russell knew that). This is typically called inference to the best explanation: Given the facts as we have them, the best explanation is... People who adduce the complexity of the universe as proof of God's existence often avail themselves--implicitly or explicitly--of inference to the best explanation.

Of course, there is no guarantee that our best explanation is the right explanation. Science depends upon this, for instance: The progress of science depends upon the defeasibility of its claims, the fact that the best explanations of today may be superceded by the best explanations of tomorrow. And so science advances. This means, however, that any best explanation that we have available to us at any given time is only probabilistic, not apodictically certain. And this leads some to crave an a priori proof, one that isn't so contingent upon our best, but probabilistic and so defeasible, explanatory practices.

As someone who was an atheist for a good many years, I must say that I don't think I was just stupid to find proofs for God's existence uncompelling. And though I am not now an atheist, I find atheism perfectly reasonable: The mere fact that we do not now have a complete science, one that explains the creation of the universe, etc. does not by any means prove the existence of God.

The grounds for belief in God's existence are, I think, different from the grounds for belief that there is a cat in the house: The two have evidentiary bases that are different in kind. To ask for justification of the belief in God's existence is a bit more like asking someone to justify their reasons for loving the things they do. There are reasons there, of a sort, but they're not the kinds of reasons that, once offered, are necessarily going to compel another to love the same things.

I also find very distasteful the quickness with which many Christians are disposed to pass judgment. At the same time, though, De Maria brings up a point which is important, and salutary in these contexts: Friendship comes with obligations, responsibilities, and among these is the duty to tell your friend when he's out of line. If I have a friend who is abusing heroin, I am not being a good friend to him if I say nothing; so too if I have a friend who is cheating on his wife. If I truly care about someone, then I have an obligation to try to help him to be a better person, even if I am not one myself (i.e. even if I'm not better than him). Mutual correction is important in friendship. A friendship where the parties aren't concerned about each other's evolution into better versions of themselves is a shallow friendship indeed.

That said, I am constantly amazed by how many Christians will speak out against homosexuality because it is sinful, while remaining tolerant of avarice, which is also a sin. It's not okay to be in a same-sex relationship, but it is okay to busy oneself with the acqisition of wealth and the perquisites that come with it. It isn't okay to be in a same-sex relationship, but it is okay to exploit the labor of others. Etc. Christ said a whole lot more about the sinfulness of avarice and acquisitiveness than about homosexuality, after all. And the social ills that derive from the former far outweigh any reasonable case that can be made regarding the latter.

Akoue,
Thanks for taking the time to address this. Gives us all something to ponder. You made some good points. ( Even if I did have to look up some of the big words!):D:D:D:D:D

I don't know if this is the "proof" you seek:

I think it is in the lives of those that believe.
I work in the medical field, so it is unfortunantly all to common to treat people that have or had problems secondary to some addiction. Now some in recovery manage to do it "on their own" but the majority that I have seen attribute their recovery to God. That is their proof. Some of the roughest looking characters I've met, willingly and often joyfully give credit to the Lord. The other second hand proof that I see is harder to intuitively fathom : in those that are suffering. Suffering from the loss of a loved one, and though grieving still believe and trust in God's goodness. In those that are suffering and dying due to a physical ailment yet at are at peace in the knowledge of there place in eternity, knowing and believing in God despite the current situation they're in.


G&P

Recently I read a book written by Francis S. Collins which was a scientist presents of evidence for belief. Book Title: The Language of God.

The author follows much of C.S. Lewis work, and tends to find his inspiration from Lewis. His question is pointed to, whether the mind of free will in choice does wish for, or desire something such as a good job, or a good wife? The answer being yes we know that we think with our mind and heart. Thus it is possible that this inner desire is the conscience of our belief knowing that this can be fulfilled. Creatures are not born with desire unless satisfaction for the desire exists. This conscience is present and can be felt as an experience of longing which can be more then wishful fulfillment, but rather a pointer towards something beyond us.

He too uses the idea of selfless heart, can it be the conscience of our connection with what is known as faith/God. This example of course would show no scientic proof of the worldwide material factor proven in evidence, yet he concluded that everyone does own some form of selfless conscience in a spiritual dimension known as moral law.

The challenge is to read this book and see what the outcome of views would be thereafter.

Personally I find the idea is one of conscience love for what is right over wrong.. Good over bad... as well as desire..

God tells us in scripture that Love holds the highest level in regards of wisdom. God loves us, and wants our love in return. God being perfect holds no tolerance to less then what he gives in his law. And God fights against the opposite which is satan, and what satan intends to achieve of his pridefulness. Thank goodness for The Grace of God..

I saw a tombstone in a television show, a tombstone from long ago. The words on the stone were:

"Here lies_____________
in hope of a
glorious resurrection"

This really captures the nature of Christianity and their God. I think it is beautifully expressed.

Religion is what some folks chose to believe. Religions use holy scriptures, not textbooks, to tell their story, and Christian new testament books have been heavily edited, as well as some old testament stories such as Creation.

Enjoy Belief. :)

Different interpretation??? That is the problem with following the words of the bible. It is cram packed full of words left to interpretation. And that's just us. Previous translators and interpreters have also used THEIR idea of what God was really trying to say.

What happened to the tolerant loving person you claim to be?

I am a Catholic and I follow the interpretation of the Church. That interpretation has been the same for the past 2000 years. And for the Old Testament the same for the past 7000 years at least.

The problem is that you don't like that interpretation and you want us to change it to fit your beliefs.


All this scripture does nothing but jumble my brain. Also, I believe it has done more damage than good since some people interpret it to support their agenda and then bang people over the head with it. All in the name of love by the way.


Lol :)

Still you not tolerating my belief. The Church has interpreted the Scriptures the same since the Scriptures were written. In fact, the Church wrote the NT so they very well know what it means and explain it.


NOT How can love, caring, supporting, dedicating your life to another person ever be called wrong.

When it evolves into deviant, unnatural behavior which is not the will of God.


We don't know what causes a person to be a homosexual.

It doesn't matter what causes it. God gave us a will and a conscience so that we would fight sin and control our nature.


Born that way?

All men are born with a fallen nature. Adulterers and fornicators have to resist the very same lustful impulses.


Who knows, but don't you think that IF they had their "druthers" they would choose the more accepted, much smoother road to go down than the one that is ridden with people like you and others who condemn them?

The road to perdition? Everyone finds that road easier. The one that requires a little bit of will power is the one that everyone finds a little more difficult. But in my opinion, it is worth every bit of effort to travel down that road.


Some homosexuals lose their families, jobs, friends, because of who they love.

Because of their lust. Penalties are a part of every sin.


That is a crying shame. It is already a hardship for gays that were wired this way for whatever reason. I think it behooves us

Us?


as "christians" to be loving and accepting of them.

It behooves us as Christians to be honest about what is sin and what is life. And to teach them how to get on the road to life.

It behooves us as Christians to avoid those who prefer to revel in their sin.


Ask yourself, What would Jesus do? Remember those bracelets? WWJD, I loved them? I don't believe a loving god would turn his back on his children.


He hasn't. That is why He made His Church. So when they get ready to come back to Him, they have a home to return to. But if they choose their sin over His Love, then they have condemned themselves.


Good point. I really do believe you mean well. I just believe God is bigger than to be so unforgiving of people who are sharing their life, making their home, loving, respecting, and caring for their partner, and just happen to be the same sex.

Leviticus 18:22
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."


Anytime two people are doing this is a good thing. Whether they are male/female or same sex.
Anytime two people promised to do this, but have not lived up to their promises and made a mockery of their vows is a bad thing. Whether they are male/female or same sex. I think God has a MUCH bigger concern with this scenario.

Because you don't understand the Scriptures nor the power of God:

God said:
Matthew 19 5 For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife,

Cleave to his wife, not boyfriend, not male lover. But wife. A woman.


and they two shall be in one flesh.

And they shall bear a child. That is the one flesh in which they are one. The child born of that union is the two made one. Every child is a living symbol of a man's love for his wife and the wife's love for her husband.

....That said, I am constantly amazed by how many Christians will speak out against homosexuality because it is sinful, while remaining tolerant of avarice, which is also a sin. It's not okay to be in a same-sex relationship, but it is okay to busy oneself with the acqisition of wealth and the perquisites that come with it. It isn't okay to be in a same-sex relationship, but it is okay to exploit the labor of others. Etc. Christ said a whole lot more about the sinfulness of avarice and acquisitiveness than about homosexuality, after all. And the social ills that derive from the former far outweigh any reasonable case that can be made regarding the latter.

The key is that avarice is not always a mortal sin. Those forms of avarice which are mortal sins are railed against as much or more than homosexuality. Actually, even those which aren't. Even perceived avarice gets a strong negative response throughout the world. What happens when the price of gas goes up at the pump?

Whereas homosexuality is always a mortal sin.

Leviticus 18:22
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."the Bible says that a man shall not lie with another man. That is true. But it also says, in the same book, that adultery is an abomination. And the just punishment for this sin is execution (http://www.bible.ca/s-adultery.htm). So, who will execute the first adulterer? Please step on up.

....As someone who was an athiest for a good many years,

You were an atheist? So was I. Perhaps we can hear your testimony one day?

the Bible says that a man shall not lie with another man. That is true. But it also says, in the same exact book, that adultery is an abomination. And the just punishment for this sin is execution (http://www.bible.ca/s-adultery.htm). So, who will execute the first adulterer? Please step on up.

The Catholic Church teaches that law has been fulfilled. The Law of Christ tells us that adulterers condemn themselves by killing their soul in mortal sin.

The Catholic Church teaches that law has been fulfilled. The Law of Christ tells us that adulterers condemn themselves by killing their soul in mortal sin.
What is the Law of Christ? Where is it written?

There's no hope of forgiveness and heaven for adulterers?

What is the Law of Christ?

The Law of Christ is the Law of Love.
Galatians 6:2
Bear ye one another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ.


Where is it written?

In our hearts and in our minds and in the Church and in Scripture and Tradition.


There's no hope of forgiveness and heaven for adulterers?

If they repent, yes. Not if they don't.

It behooves us as Christians to be honest about what is sin and what is life. And to teach them how to get on the road to life.
It has nothing to do with teaching them something. Homosexuality is not taught or extinguished. Their brains are wired differently. No one wakes up one morning and says, "Yo, it's the first of the month. I'm going to be gay this month. Woo woo!"

Leviticus 18:22 "You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination."
Lev. 19:27 says (World English Bible), "You shall not cut the hair on the sides of your heads, neither shall you clip off the edge of your beard." I trust your forelocks and beard have never been trimmed, De Maria.

It has nothing to do with teaching them something. Homosexuality is not taught or extinguished. Their brains are wired differently. No one wakes up one morning and says, "Yo, it's the first of the month. I'm going to be gay this month. Woo woo!"

Lev. 19:27 says (World English Bible), "You shall not cut the hair on the sides of your heads, neither shall you clip off the edge of your beard." I trust your forelocks and beard have never been trimmed, De Maria.

Hey, why'd you have to bring forelocks into this? Come on, keep it PG people!

Hey, why'd you have to bring forelocks into this? Come on, keep it PG people!
Apparently, Akoue has never groomed a horse and smoothed its forelocks.

It has nothing to do with teaching them something. Homosexuality is not taught or extinguished. Their brains are wired differently. No one wakes up one morning and says, "Yo, it's the first of the month. I'm going to be gay this month. Woo woo!"


Are we the primary products of our genetic heritage and have no choice but to follow our instincts?

Are genetic predispositions [ such as to addictions, or depression or premature heart disease ] something that we should just resign ourselves to and not attempt to ask God to help guide us ?

I may not have to deal with homosexual urges, but as a married male should I just give in to my inborn desire to be with other women?


G&P

Apparently, Akoue has never groomed a horse and smoothed its forelocks.

Oh, foreLOCKS! See, all this talk about the Law and I somehow got it into my head you were talking about fore-something-else. (Actually, it just sounded funny in my head.)

Are we the primary products of our genetic heritage and have no choice but to follow our instincts?
On which days do you choose to be homosexual? I want to be here then. Or do you always follow your instinct to be straight?

And my autistic son would love to tell you a few things about genetic heritage.

Oh, foreLOCKS! See, all this talk about the Law and I somehow got it into my head you were talking about fore-something-else. (Actually, it just sounded funny in my head.)
It never crossed my mind, what you were thinking. I'm a girl and don't think about stuff like that.

that's just us. Previous translators and interpreters have also used THEIR idea of what God was really trying to say.
What happened to the tolerant loving person you claim to be?

I am a Catholic and I follow the interpretation of the Church. That interpretation has been the same for the past 2000 years. And for the Old Testament the same for the past 7000 years at least.

The problem is that you don't like that interpretation and you want us to change it to fit your beliefs.

What am I intolerant of? I just pointed out that there are different interpretations of words in the bible. Who is to say who is right? The church? That's just people too. I don't need to change it to fit my needs because I don't take it as the "be all and end all" of instructions for life in the first place. My conscience and my "higher power" dictate my choices and what I believe my god expects of me.


Still you not tolerating my belief. The Church has interpreted the Scriptures the same since the Scriptures were written. In fact, the Church wrote the NT so they very well know what it means and explain it.

It's not that I don't tolerate your belief. I just don't agree with your belief. "The church" this and "the church" that. "The church" is just "the go between". You don't need the church to communicate with your god. Here's a question for you. What if you had never been exposed to a church or a bible? Would you still have a moral compass that you lived by? Or does all your sense of right and wrong come from a book aka the bible or "the church"?

All men are born with a fallen nature. Adulterers and fornicators have to resist the very same lustful impulses.

Until you or I am born with the desire to be with the same sex partner, we have no right to assume that adulterers and fornicators are in the same boat as homosexuals.

Because you don't understand the Scriptures nor the power of God:
You got that right. Especially the part about understanding scripture. Like you said earlier, OT, 7000 years ago and the NT, 2000 years ago.. Actually, I think it takes a lot of audacity for anyone to claim they do draw the right conclusion from it's writings. That is why I just go straight to the big guy and cut out the middle man.


Us?
I was raised as a christian but I am finding it more and more difficult to claim that title with pride.
Quote:



It behooves us as Christians to be honest about what is sin and what is life. And to teach them how to get on the road to life.

It behooves us as Christians to avoid those who prefer to revel in their sin.

Sin? says you.

And they shall bear a child. That is the one flesh in which they are one. The child born of that union is the two made one. Every child is a living symbol of a man's love for his wife and the wife's love for her husband.
__________________
Every child is NOT a symbol of a man's love for his wife. Some children are a product of two teenagers in a back seat, or the result of a rape, or a total accident, or the product of two people thinking they can save their sorry marriage by having a baby.
That statement is just not true.

It behooves us as Christians to avoid those who prefer to revel in their sin.
Who doesn't revel in their sin when revel also means do it over and over again, maybe repenting in between but never really stopping. We are all sinners. Should we avoid each other--or be like Jesus, i.e. Christlike?

It has nothing to do with teaching them something.

We believe it does. Because of our fallen nature, we all have to learn how to do good. Without God's revelation, we search in shadows for the Good which is God. But God has revealed Himself through His Church.

H
omosexuality is not taught or extinguished. Their brains are wired differently. No one wakes up one morning and says, "Yo, it's the first of the month. I'm going to be gay this month. Woo woo!"

I believe you are wrong. Heterosexual deviants wake up saying exactly that. And homosexuality is simply the lust for homosexual relations.


Lev. 19:27 says (World English Bible), "You shall not cut the hair on the sides of your heads, neither shall you clip off the edge of your beard." I trust your forelocks and beard have never been trimmed, De Maria.

That Law has been fulfilled.

Romans 7:3
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

On which days do you choose to be homosexual? I wanna be here then. Or do you always follow your instinct to be straight?

And my autistic son would love to tell you a few things about genetic heritage.

Being autistic is not a sin and therefore not comparable.

Homosexuals have a choice whether to engage in their lust or not.

Who doesn't revel in their sin when revel also means do it over and over again, maybe repenting in between but never really stopping. We are all sinners. Should we avoid each other--or be like Jesus, i.e., Christlike?

Did Jesus teach the adultress to revel in her sin?

What am I intolerant of? I just pointed out that there are different interpretations of words in the bible.

Oh. Sorry.


Who is to say who is right? The church?

Yes.


That's just people too.

We believe they are people guided by the Holy Spirit.


I don't need to change it to fit my needs because I don't take it as the "be all and end all" of instructions for life in the first place. My conscience and my "higher power" dictate my choices and what I believe my god expects of me.

Ultimately, our conscience is our guide. My conscience tells me to follow the Church.

[quote]It's not that I don't tolerate your belief. I just don't agree with your belief.

And that is my point. When we disagree, you call it intolerance. When you disagree, you call it freedom of conscience or speech or whatever. Its a sin for us but its a virtue for you. Double standard is what it is.


"The church" this and "the church" that. "The church" is just "the go between". You don't need the church to communicate with your god.

Thats your opinion. Your opinion this, your opinion that. Disregard your opinion and accept mine.


Here's a question for you. What if you had never been exposed to a church or a bible? Would you still have a moral compass that you lived by? Or does all your sense of right and wrong come from a book aka the bible or "the church"?

I was atheist for approximately 17 years. Therefore I know that my initial contact with religion I didn't understand it and left. But having discovered that God existed, I searched the many purported religions that I knew about and I was thoroughly convinced by the evidence and the teachings of the Catholic Church.

[quote]Until you or I am born with the desire to be with the same sex partner, we have no right to assume that adulterers and fornicators are in the same boat as homosexuals.

There are many former homosexuals who have repented and become Christians. And many bi-sexuals who have done the same. The account they give parallels sexual lust in every way.


You got that right. Especially the part about understanding scripture. Like you said earlier, OT, 7000 years ago and the NT, 2000 years ago.. Actually, I think it takes a lot of audacity for anyone to claim they do draw the right conclusion from it's writings. That is why I just go straight to the big guy and cut out the middle man.

I think it takes a lot of audacity for someone born in this century to draw the conclusion that their brand new religion is right and the faith of millions through the centuries is wrong.


I was raised as a christian but I am finding it more and more difficult to claim that title with pride.
Quote:

Don't worry. We don't take any pride in your beliefs either. In fact, we disown them.


Sin? says you.

Sin says Scripture.


Every child is NOT a symbol of a man's love for his wife. Some children are a product of two teenagers in a back seat, or the result of a rape, or a total accident, or the product of two people thinking they can save their sorry marriage by having a baby.
That statement is just not true.

I stand corrected. But every child is a sign of God's love for us. And if men and women continue to take that which is good and use it for evil, it is our own fault. God gave us the wherewithal to choose the good.

Sincerely,

Quote:
Lev. 19:27 says (World English Bible), "You shall not cut the hair on the sides of your heads, neither shall you clip off the edge of your beard." I trust your forelocks and beard have never been trimmed, De Maria.
That Law has been fulfilled.

Romans 7:3
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Huh? I don't get the connection between the hair cut and your statement about "The Law has been fulfilled." bla bla bla.
__________________

Quote:
Lev. 19:27 says (World English Bible), "You shall not cut the hair on the sides of your heads, neither shall you clip off the edge of your beard." I trust your forelocks and beard have never been trimmed, De Maria.
That Law has been fulfilled.

Romans 7:3
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man. 4 Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Sincerely,

De Maria

Huh? I don't get the connection between the hair cut and your statement about "The Law is Written" bla bla bla.
__________________

"The Law is Written" bla bla bla.?

I don't see that in what you quoted.

We believe it does [have something to do with teaching homosexuals something]. Because of our fallen nature, we all have to learn how to do good.
You took what you wanted from my comment which was:
It has nothing to do with teaching them something. Homosexuality is not taught or extinguished. Their brains are wired differently. No one wakes up one morning and says, "Yo, it's the first of the month. I'm going to be gay this month. Woo woo!"


I believe you are wrong. Heterosexual deviants wake up saying exactly that. And homosexuality is simply the lust for homosexual relations.
No, they don't. I have several good friends who are homosexual and a sil who is. None of them wake up and decide to be either a homosexual or a heterosexual. It is something in their very bones, not a choice, but who they are to the bottom of their soul.

No more could each of them decide to be heterosexual--truly heterosexual with no trace of homosexuality--than you could to become a homosexual with no trace of heterosexuality.

If it is a choice, please choose to be homosexual and have no more heterosexuality left in you. If it works one way, it should work the other. Let me know how it goes.


That Law has been fulfilled.
So some laws in Lev. Are fulfilled, but others, only a chapter away, are not? My understanding is that Jesus fulfilled the entire Law, not just bits and pieces of it. His Law, the New Covenant, now has only two commandments: Love God and love each other.

Just a very brief clarification.

It is important to distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual acts. The Catholic Church instructs that gays and lesbians, along with unmarried heterosexuals, are to refrain from sexual acts. The Catechism even expressly states that to discriminate against gays on account of their orientation is a sin. But the Church teaches also that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is a grave sin, and this doesn't just apply to adultery, of course. It is the acts, not the orientation, that is the issue. (As Wondergirl says, it seems unlikely that one chooses to be straight or gay. What is a matter of choice is how any of us act on our dispositions, sexual or otherwise--some people have an irascible disposition but train themselves not to act on it, etc.)

Again, just a clarification. I don't mean to suggest that this will settle anything.

You took what you wanted from my comment which was:
It has nothing to do with teaching them something. Homosexuality is not taught or extinguished. Their brains are wired differently. No one wakes up one morning and says, "Yo, it's the first of the month. I'm going to be gay this month. Woo woo!"

I'm not sure what you mean by "you took what you wanted from my comment...".


No, they don't. I have several good friends who are homosexual and a sil who is. None of them wake up and decide to be either a homosexual or a heterosexual.

But they decide whether they will act upon their lusts.


It is something in their very bones, not a choice, but who they are to the bottom of their soul.

It doesn't matter if that is true, which I don't believe. They still have a choice whether to act upon their lusts or not. Just as we all do.


No more could each of them decide to be heterosexual--truly heterosexual with no trace of homosexuality--than you could to become a homosexual with no trace of heterosexuality.

Precisely. But they don't have to act upon their homosexual urges. Just as heterosexuals don't have to act upon theirs.


If it is a choice, please choose to be homosexual and have no more heterosexuality left in you. If it works one way, it should work the other. Let me know how it goes.

I didn't say that one could choose to have certain urges. But one can choose whether to act upon them. They are temptations to sin. And everyone, every single human being is tempted to sin.


So some laws in Lev. Are fulfilled, but others, only a chapter away, are not? My understanding is that Jesus fulfilled the entire Law, not just bits and pieces of it. His Law, the New Covenant, now has only two commandments: Love God and love each other.

That is correct. But keeping the Law of Jesus one fulfills the Law of Moses:
Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

Just a very brief clarification.

It is important to distinguish between sexual orientation and sexual acts. The Catholic Church instructs that gays and lesbians, along with unmarried heterosexuals, are to refrain from sexual acts. The Catechism even expressly states that to discriminate against gays on account of their orientation is a sin. But the Church teaches also that heterosexual sex outside of marriage is a grave sin, and this doesn't just apply to adultery, of course. It is the acts, not the orientation, that is the issue. (As Wondergirl says, it seems unlikely that one chooses to be straight or gay. What is a matter of choice is how any of us act on our dispositions, sexual or otherwise--some people have an irascible disposition but train themselves not to act on it, etc.)

Again, just a clarification. I don't mean to suggest that this will settle anything.

Thanks. My point exactly!

But they don't have to act upon their homosexual urges. Just as heterosexuals don't have to act upon theirs.
You are celibate (and chaste) then, a monk or a priest?

That is correct. But keeping the Law of Jesus one fulfills the Law of Moses:
Romans 3:31
So those two verses in Lev. both yours and mine, are no longer valid under the Gospel.

I've spent much of today reading post about the word "know" vs the word belief.
I've always thought the word "know" was thrown around too loosely. For example. I BELIEVE that my dog in the next room is still breathing. I would not KNOW it, unless I went to him and saw his chest rise, etc.

There are VERY FEW things in this world that we can say we know100% . If I said "I know my car is still in the garage" I'd feel pretty confident with that assumption. BUT, if I was ask to bet my child's life on that, I would very quickly reduce that KNOW to an "I BELIEVE my car is still in the garage.

Now, everyone seems to be getting this except Tom. He insist that he knows there is a god, there is proof of god and he has evidence to back it up. The only thing is, you haven't showed us your proof or evidence. I happen to believe there IS a god, but notice I said believe.

Please share your proof with me. Bible scripture does not do it because there is no proof that it is correct.

To Know:

St. Thomas (Summa Theologica I:2:3; Cont. Gent. I, xiii) provides us with the logic of how we can know of God's existence:

• Motion, i.e. the passing from power to act, as it takes place in the universe implies a first unmoved Mover (primum movens immobile), who is God; else we should postulate an infinite series of movers, which is inconceivable.

• For the same reason efficient causes, as we see them operating in this world, imply the existence of a First Cause that is uncaused, i.e. that possesses in itself the sufficient reason for its existence; and this is God.

• The fact that contingent beings exist, i.e. beings whose non-existence is recognized as possible, implies the existence of a necessary being, who is God.

• The graduated perfections of being actually existing in the universe can be understood only by comparison with an absolute standard that is also actual, i.e. an infinitely perfect Being such as God.

• The wonderful order or evidence of intelligent design which the universe exhibits implies the existence of a supramundane Designer, who is no other than God Himself.

SOURCE: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Existence of God

Consequently, we see once again a right reasoned logic shows us that God is omnipotent as well as omniscient.

JoeT

You are celibate (and chaste) then, a monk or a priest?

I am a married man who honors his vows.


So those two verses in Lev. both yours and mine, are no longer valid under the Gospel.

Didn't I already answer that?

Keeping the Law of Jesus one fulfills the Law of Moses:
Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

I am a married man who honors his vows.

I could have sworn you were a woman:eek: With a name like Maria and all.



Didn't I already answer that?

Keeping the Law of Jesus one fulfills the Law of Moses:
Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

;)

I've spent much of today reading post about the word "know" vs the word belief.
I've always thought the word "know" was thrown around too loosely. For example. I BELIEVE that my dog in the next room is still breathing. I would not KNOW it, unless I went to him and saw his chest rise, etc.

There are VERY FEW things in this world that we can say we know100% . If I said "I know my car is still in the garage" I'd feel pretty confident with that assumption. BUT, if I was ask to bet my child's life on that, I would very quickly reduce that KNOW to an "I BELIEVE my car is still in the garage.

Now, everyone seems to be getting this except Tom. He insist that he knows there is a god, there is proof of god and he has evidence to back it up. The only thing is, you haven't showed us your proof or evidence. I happen to believe there IS a god, but notice I said believe.

Please share your proof with me. Bible scripture does not do it because there is no proof that it is correct.

That is only for you to really want to find out if their is a God, If you ask and believe in the holy spirt and ask him to come into your life, you would not what I mean and feel th epowerful presence of the holy sprit in you...

Keeping the Law of Jesus one fulfills the Law of Moses:
Romans 3:31
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
So we obey the one (about homosexuality), but not the other (do not cut hair and beard).

I pray Catholicism will never ensnare my mind and heart with it's rules, judgements, teachings and sureness that because something has been read and believed for 7000 years (plus 2000?) it must be the truth. The only truths you Catholics have have shared here is that you are both condemning and controlling, oh, you teach to save us from one of your many hells. You teach ostracism and fear.

Guess what? Your hells have no meaning for me. Do you "know" that hell exists? Do you have Objective Scientific Evidence?

De Maria, the inquisition did happen. Don't you read history? People, most of whom were women were tortured for days before being burned at the stake. They were called heretics. They served as very frightening examples that opposing the "Church" was quite deadly. Then, after they were dead, the Catholic Church took their land to increase it's own wealth and to prove that avarice is okay, in the name of "The One True God." Now, if they returned the land and possesions and apologized, many would have forgiven them. But they did not have any shame, it would seem. Or perhaps shame is what causes modern-day Catholics to minimize the autrocity.

I know that Holy wars have been fought, innocent people have been either killed or converted so that the Catholic faith would have continued support (and more land.) Both women, witches and heathens/pagans have been treated like dirt for a very many years in order to spread the love of Jesus Christ. Sigh.

You claim to be tolerant while so many call you judgemental. (Do these jeans make me look fat?) You are judgemental, and yes, in those jeans you look like crap.

Didn't black people used to be termed animals, intrinsically stupid and lynch material? Intolerance is an ugly thing; so is shame.

because something has been read and believed for 7000 years (plus 2000?) it must be the truth.

Yeah, that would be ludicrous. So it's a good thing no Church, Catholic or otherwise, says it.


Didn't black people used to be termed animals, intrinsically stupid and lynch material? Intolerance is an ugly thing; so is shame.

Sadly, yes. But St. Augustine was black, and that hasn't hurt his standing in the Catholic Church.

-------- Withdrawn --------

Akoue, De Maria said, quote:
I am a Catholic and I follow the interpretation of the Church. That interpretation has been the same for the past 2000 years. And for the Old Testament the same for the past 7000 years at least.

If the Catholic Church does not follow this interpretation, I misunderstood his post.

I didn't say Catholicism is anti-black. My point is that Catholicism is anti everything it does not approve of. The disapproval represents an us and them mentality. That is the mind-set of both control through fear and the fear of not being in control.

My point is that Catholicism is anti everything it does not approve of.

I suppose there's some truth in that.


The disapproval represents an us and them mentality. That is the mind-set of both control through fear and the fear of not being in control.

Here we disagree. But I see where you're coming from.

I could have sworn you were a woman With a name like Maria and all.;)

That's an old Catholic custom. Those of us who love Mary, take her name, men or women.

Examples of famous Catholic men who have taken Mary's name are:

St. Louis "Marie" Grignion de Montfort and St. Alphonsus "Maria" de Liquori.

Should the Catholic Church be against everything that it disagrees with?
Yup.
It does not make sense to agree with what you disagree with.
At least I personally do not agree with that which I disagree with, nor an I FOR that which I disagree with.
I admire The Church for being the same way.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura).

Should the Catholic Church be against everything that it disagrees with?
Yup.
It does not make sense to agree with what you disagree with.
At least I personally do not agree with that which I disagree with, nor an I FOR that which I disagree with.
I admire The Church for being the same way.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arcura).

This is what I had in mind too. Like you, I typically find myself to be against the things I am against.

And it's good to know you made it back safely, Fred. I hope you had a wonderful Christmas.

Akoue, De Maria said, quote:
I am a Catholic and I follow the interpretation of the Church. That interpretation has been the same for the past 2000 years. And for the Old Testament the same for the past 7000 years at least.

I said that because Cozyk insinuated that Christians interpret the bible anyway the wind blows. But we don't. At least, Catholics and Orthodox. We have Tradition which anchors our interpretation of the Bible to the Teaching of Jesus Christ.


If the Catholic Church does not follow this interpretation, I misunderstood his post.

Yes, you misunderstood. We don't follow it because its old. We follow it because Jesus Christ taught it.


I didn't say Catholicism is anti-black. My point is that Catholicism is anti everything it does not approve of. The disapproval represents an us and them mentality. That is the mind-set of both control through fear and the fear of not being in control.

The Catholic Church approves of that which Jesus said is good and disapproves of that which Jesus said is not good.

Very simple.

....That is the mind-set of both control through fear and the fear of not being in control.

Not really. Yours is the mindset of one who doesn't like anything or anyone who doesn't agree with you. Therefore, since the Church teaches that certain things are evil which you believe are good, then you fear the Church because you can't control the Church.

It is really you who either hate or fear the Church because you can't control the Church.

I pray Catholicism will never ensnare my mind and heart with it's rules, judgements, teachings and sureness...

May God grant you your prayer.


The only truths you Catholics have have shared here is that you are both condemning and controlling, oh, you teach to save us from one of your many hells. You teach ostracism and fear.

If that's how you want to take it, fine.


Guess what? Your hells have no meaning for me. Do you "know" that hell exists? Do you have Objective Scientific Evidence?

I know that God exists because the wonders of this world and I mean the simplest things, like the little bugs and the leaves on a tree are too wonderful to be here by accident.

And knowing that God exists, I believe that He loves us. Otherwise there is no reason for us to be here.

And knowing that He loves us, I believe we have free will. Because love is not coerced.

And knowing that we have free will, I believe hell exists. Because those who "freely choose" not to love God in return will be given what they desire. Eternity without feeling God's love. And that is hell.


De Maria, the inquisition did happen. Don't you read history?

Yeah. Don't you? If you do, then perhaps you should ask yourself why the Inquisition happened and read about it from both sides of the story. You will find that history repeats itself and that the Inquisition is happening again. Today it could be called the American Inquisition. Americans are trying to protect themselves from Muslim terrorists and have therefore put many of them in prison without legal representation as criminals of war. Some of them are alleged to be American citizens.

So, if America is wrong for protecting her citizens from Muslim terrorists. Then the Catholic countries were wrong for protecting their citizens from Muslim terrorists.


People, most of whom were women were tortured for days before being burned at the stake. They were called heretics.

Don't believe the anti-Catholic hype. You're confusing the witch hunts in America with the Inquisitions of Europe. They are different as night and day.


They served as very frightening examples that opposing the "Church" was quite deadly.

The Inquisitions served to protect Catholics from Muslims and their Jewish allies who were trying to elimintate the Church from the earth. And they almost succeeded. And if the Muslims had dispatched the Church, they would then have turned on the Jews as history has proven.


Then, after they were dead, the Catholic Church took their land to increase it's own wealth and to prove that avarice is okay, in the name of "The One True God." Now, if they returned the land and possesions and apologized, many would have forgiven them. But they did not have any shame, it would seem. Or perhaps shame is what causes modern-day Catholics to minimize the autrocity.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Here, read about the Inquisitions:
Truth About The Spanish Inquisition (http://www.trosch.org/for/inquisition.html)

Catholic Culture : Library : Truth about the Spanish Inquisition, The (http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=5236)

The Inquisitions of History: The Mythology and the Reality | Reverend Brian Van Hove, S.J. | Ignatius Insight (http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2008/vanhove_inquisitions_apr08.asp)

The fact is that the Inquisitions were court cases with court records. And the Church still has those records which can be reviewed. Anti-Catholics have nothing but made up stories like the one you are repeating from thin air.


I know that Holy wars have been fought, innocent people have been either killed or converted so that the Catholic faith would have continued support (and more land.) Both women, witches and heathens/pagans have been treated like dirt for a very many years in order to spread the love of Jesus Christ. Sigh.

You are confusing the Catholic Church with other religions. The Catholic Church was spread by the blood of its Martyrs. And those Catholics who did spread Catholicism by the sword did it IN SPITE of the Catholic Church and not because of it.


You claim to be tolerant while so many call you judgemental. (Do these jeans make me look fat?) You are judgemental, and yes, in those jeans you look like crap.

And there you have proven that you are barely rational. In your hatred for anything or anyone Catholic, you don't care whether an argument is reasonable, you simply want to insult.

As for my appearance, I've been thin since my youth. I wasn't even a chubby baby.


Didn't black people used to be termed animals, intrinsically stupid and lynch material? Intolerance is an ugly thing; so is shame.

I suppose. But that wasn't because of Catholic Teaching. Many of our Popes were black and many of our Saints are black. Although Catholics are human, any Catholics who have ever been racist we so IN SPITE of Catholic teaching and not because of it.

The supreme revelation of God is Jesus Christ Himself,
Jesus was God come to earth. He came in fulfillment of two thousand years of Jewish
History, and His coming was precisely as foretold by the prophets. He came
Among us and showed us what God is like, so we could know Him better.
As He told His disciple Philip, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father."

Maggie 3

De Maria,
Right you are.
Many years ago in some ways I felt as simoneaugie does .
Then I started studying The Church and real authentic history.
That turned this one Catholic basher around and I became a Catholic.
That was over thirty years ago and I am still learning more of the truth.
I think that simoneaugie will do as I did for quite while before I became so curious about how wrong The Church was that I started serious study of it.
I seriously doubt the simoneaugie will read the links you provided for fear that they will prove him wrong and never realizing that finding the truth is a great blessing.
It certainly was for me.
By the way I had a wonderful Christmas loving and feasting in three different homes with relatives and friends from the USA and Canada.
Getting home was a bit worry some for is snowed for several hundred miles on the way back.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arura)

Maggie 3,
Right you are.
As the bible teaches us, Jesus Christ is the visible image of the invisible God.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

De Maria,
Right you are.
Many years ago in some ways I felt as simoneaugie does .
Then I started studying The Church and real authentic history.
That turned this one Catholic basher around and I became a Catholic.
That was over thirty years ago and I am still learning more of the truth.
I think that simoneaugie will do as I did for quite while before I became so curious about how wrong The Church was that I started serious study of it.
I seriously doubt the simoneaugie will read the links you provided for fear that they will prove him wrong and never realizing that finding the truth is a great blessing.
It certainly was for me.
By the way I had a wonderful Christmas loving and feasting in three different homes with relatives and friends from the USA and Canada.
Getting home was a bit worry some for is snowed for several hundred miles on the way back.
Peace and kindness,
Fred (arura)

I heard about that snow. But at least you had a white Christmas!

Oh, that reminds me. Last year, around Christmas, I took my kids to see Grandma. On the way, we encountered a blizzard. In WEST TEXAS.? My kids were ecstatic. Because, where we're from, they never see snow. I'm just thankful they never realized what a dangerous situation we were in.

We finally made it to a truck stop and they had a ball making snowmen and throwing snowballs.

When the snow let up, we made it to grandma's.

God was with us as I'm sure He was with you.

Peace and kindness to you also,

De Maria

De Maria,
Thanks.
I believe God is always with us as well as His guardian angels who 2 winters ago hekp us through a situation where most cars went into the ditch and a couple were upside down in the snow.
My brother, Bob, was driving and to this day I don't know how he managed to stay on the road without divine help.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Are we the primary products of our genetic heritage and have no choice but to follow our instincts?
When did you make the cognitive choice to be heterosexual--at age 6, at age 12, at age 23?

Wondergirl,
Very good question.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

When did you make the cognitive choice to be heterosexual--at age 6, at age 12, at age 23?

That is a loaded question. People are born heterosexual according to God's plan. No conscious decision is involved in being heterosexual.

There is a cognitive choice in deciding to indulge in sex outside of marriage, whether that be heterosexual sex or some deviant variety, such as homosexual sex.

That is a loaded question. People are born heterosexual according to God's plan. No conscious decision is involved in being heterosexual.
And there is no conscious decision to be homosexual. We are born hetero or homo, not according to God's plan for each of us specifically (because why would He make someone a hated homosexual?), but according to God's bigger plan called Human Sexuality. He set the plan in place, just like He set the rest of Nature's systems in place so that we have biology, geology, thermodynamics, meteorology, etc.

Could you, De Maria, choose to be (N.B.: BE) a homosexual, not for five minutes or a day or even a year, but to the point where you would no longer have any heterosexualness, any feelings for the opposite sex, that you would be attracted only to the same gender you are?

(Perhaps this is off-topic, but it does have to do with one's view of God and knowing if God loves him or not.)

And there is no conscious decision to be homosexual. We are born hetero or homo, not according to God's plan for each of us specifically (because why would He make someone a hated homosexual?), ....

God didn't reveal that He had a different plan for each of us. He revealed that homosexual behaviour is an abomination and that we are to obey His requirements regardless of how we feel about them.

We have the same message in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.

God didn't reveal that He had a different plan for each of us. He revealed that homosexual behaviour is an abomination and that we are to obey His requirements regardless of how we feel about them.

We have the same message in Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium.
Have you studied up on what was the reason for homosexual behavior mentioned in the OT and even the New?

***ADDED: This is not fair to this thread. I will start a new thread on this topic this evening.

De Maria,
I agree with you.
Fred

Every man is loved by God, it is the sin in man that God hates.
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." 17," For God did not send His Sun into the world to condem: but that the world through Him be saved."
17, "He who believes in Him is not condemn

; but he who does not believe is condemned
already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God."
This tells me that if you do not believe in God, it makes no difference if you sin, you have no hope or light to knowing the truth with out believing.
It sounds like the unforgivable sin of man. If there is no God, why care if you sin.
There is no argument, we all sin, but believers can be forgiven we have the light of God, Jesus, to show us the way the truth and the life thought the Holy Spirit.
Jesus came to save us not to judge us. We condemn our self with unbelieving.

John 5:24 "Most assuredly I say to you, he who hears My word and believe in Him
who sent Me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgment, but has passed from death into life."

Maggie 3

Maggie 3,
Very good.
Fred

When did you make the cognitive choice to be heterosexual--at age 6, at age 12, at age 23?

We choose to believe if an act is a sin or not. That act may be lust [ hetero or homo ] or hate or theft or murder. It is all sin.

We chose, or ask for help, to avoid that which we believe is sin.








G&P

inthebox
Thanks for posting that.
But I can't see how homosexual posts are consistent with the subject of this thread.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever is left, no matter how improbable, must be true"
- Sherlock Holmes

It is irrational to believe life came from non-life, order came from entropy(disorder) accidentally, Laws of Physics came from random particles, something came from nothing, the intricate design in nature was without a designer, and /or feelings of love, hate, joy, sorrow, etc. are mere accidental chemical reactions in our body.
On the other hand, Knowing God is a subjective experience and no two people can have the same experience with God even though "Jesus is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow."

Jeff,
Thanks for mentioning that.
It is amazing how many people think irrationally about the things you mentioned.
One on my friends is a self proclaimed free thinker who does a lot of irrational thinking alone those lines but is brilliant in many other ways.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Hello Cozyk,

I was wondering if you have read the book "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. I think you would like it very much.

What would it matter if we COULD prove that God exists. There would still be a skeptic. The Bible says we should look around and know it.

According to the Bible it takes faith not proof anyway.

Hebrews 11:6

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

ClassyT,
Yes you are right.
There will always be certain skeptics even when facing a mountain of evidence.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I've spent much of today reading post about the word "know" vs the word belief.
I've always thought the word "know" was thrown around too loosely. For example. I BELIEVE that my dog in the next room is still breathing. I would not KNOW it, unless I went to him and saw his chest rise, etc.

There are VERY FEW things in this world that we can say we know100% . If I said "I know my car is still in the garage" I'd feel pretty confident with that assumption. BUT, if I was ask to bet my child's life on that, I would very quickly reduce that KNOW to an "I BELIEVE my car is still in the garage.

Now, everyone seems to be getting this except Tom. He insist that he knows there is a god, there is proof of god and he has evidence to back it up. The only thing is, you haven't showed us your proof or evidence. I happen to believe there IS a god, but notice I said believe.

Please share your proof with me. Bible scripture does not do it because there is no proof that it is correct.

I both believe and know that God exists, but you are asking for proof and proof is an individual thing because I don't have the power to force God to manifest himself. What proof do you want? I can testify to answered prayer, to healing, to miracles of faith.

paraclete,
I agree with you.
Also I do accept the many proofs that there is a God including those that quantum science provides and the mathematical certainty that God exists.
That is that this universe's change of happening by accident is just one chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000.
With the universe estimated by science to be only 8,000,000,000 year old it is impossible to have happened by accident.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

paraclete,
I agree with you.
Also I do accept the many proofs that there is a God including those that quantum science provides and the mathematical certainty that God exists.
That is that this universe's change of happening by accident is just one chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000.
With the universe estimated by science to be only 8,000,000,000 year old it is impossible to have happened by accident.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I don't follow the reasoning Fred and in any case science keeps pushing the age of the universe back it is now 13,500,000,000 years old. I accept God's explanation and I am not concerned about what science says, they have theories that they modify frequently, where as I have the certainty of what I know and experience.

paraclete.
Be that as it may, mathematically, it is impossible for the universe to come into existence by accident.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I believe that there was a person named George Washington, but I did not know him.

Yet, I BELIEVE in God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. And, I KNOW them personally because I have a relationship with them. God - who is my Father, Jesus - who personally died for me, and the Holy Spirit which guides me and speaks to my heart and brings conviction to my soul.

And, you cannot know someone unless you spend time with them. Many people believe that there is a God, but only those that have accepted what He has done can KNOW Him.

rnrg,
Agreed 199%
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Mrg...

You have much wisdom! I agree 110%! ( yes, I'm trying one up you Fred!) LOL ;) ( teasing of course)

paraclete,
I agree with you.
Also I do accept the many proofs that there is a God including those that quantum science provides and the mathematical certainty that God exists.
That is that this universe's change of happening by accident is just one chance in 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00 0,000,000,000.
With the universe estimated by science to be only 8,000,000,000 year old it is impossible to have happened by accident.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Hello Fred

Quantum mechanics does not provide any proof for the existence of God, mathematical or otherwise. When you are talking about a probability universe you are no doubt referring to a formulation of the anthropic principle. Quantum mechanics and some type of anthropic formulation are not one and the same.

Regards. Tut

Tut,
I have a book by a physicist who shows that quantum does indicate the existence of a supreme intelligence.
He was so convinced that he became a priest.
There are several persons of such persuasion.
And no, I was not trying to mix quantum mechanics and some type of anthropic formulation for I do know that they are not the same.
Thanks anyway.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Hello Fred,

Apologies for thinking that you didn't know the difference.

The book sounds like a good read so I was wondering if you can provide me the author and title?

From my point of view I find this a most interesting claim. Einstein was quickly aware of the implications that quantum theory had on religion so he coined the dictum "God does not play dice".
Einstein was unhappy about the apparent randomness of physical properties and believed that quantum theory was incomplete. He postulated that there must be "hidden variables" which have yet to be discovered.
Einstein always held on to the belief that there was an underlying reality to the universe which fitted into his beliefs about God. He would not accept that we live in a universe which is determined by chance.
Unfortunately for Einstein,"Bell's Inequality" suggests that there are no hidden variables. Not only does God play dice he takes every opportunity to throw the dice.

This is why I was somewhat surprised that someone would choose something like quantum theory to try and prove the existence of God.