 |
|
| Browse | Ask | Answer | Search | Join/Login |
|
|
||||
 Originally Posted by shygrneyzs
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
This is not the first individual to have doubts. Thomas in the bible doubted. Jesus told Thomas to touch his wounds, to convince him. He died for individuals such as this, so that they may live. This is one of the difficult things non Christians have difficulty understanding. We have individuals such as Pastors, Soldiers, Police Officiers, Fireman, Doctors, Nurses, and the list goes on,etc who have no quams about putting their lives on the line for us to enjoy our freedom. It is not that difficult to understand, only believe. This is why God exalted his name above all names. To understand creation we must first believe there was a creator. Albert Einstein, the more he looked into Gods creation through science. The more he searched for answers, the more he was convinced there was a creator. It could not have just puffed into existence, there had to be someone creating all of this. I tell people if I walked up to you and said you were just hatched. You would look at me like some kind of fool! That is one of the reasons evolution is a fallacy. This is one of the explanations given in the bible. Jesus speaks quite a lot about seeds.There had to be something behind your birth. You just didn't exist or pop into the world. As far as the differences in human beings characters, look into the bible and you will find all your answers. In the book of Genesis after God created everything he saw that it was Good. This was so right up to the first sin in the garden. However God had a plan, he sent the second Adam whose name is Jesus into the world to die for our sin. It really isn't that complicated. The last thing we are reminded of as Christians. To keep our eyes on Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith. I hope this answers some of your concerns. Just trust him and believe. Attend church and you will be taught these truths.
|
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
verycurious,
First of all I believe you are being very judgmental about some Christians. You may be right about some of them but I believe the majority of them believe in God because He is, that is that He exists and that His good and love. I do not believe that belief in science has replaced God. Nothing can do that! Also people from all walks of life believe in God, billions of them in nations around the world, rich and poor alike. I do not try to judge people, rather I give them the benefit of the doubt, Why? Because I can not look into their heart and nether can you, Also it is God who is the one and only supreme Judge because he can and does know what is in every persons heart and mind. When people look like to me and you may be accurate and may be not. I think you are assuming too much about some folks. You have no proof that they are as you think and say. Its like walking on a dark night with very little light. It gives you a dim view. I hope that you will think more kindly of people. If you do you will be a happier person. Peace and kindness, Fred . |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
stan200,
I feel very sorry for you. The God of the bible is a God of service to us with love and mercy and generosity. Yes he can get very angry with us at times, just like our parents can do so. With the Ten Commandment and the teaching of Jesus he has given us a blueprint for living that id we follow it we will have a happier, fuller life. On top of that He has given us the opportunity to live eternally in paradise. I praise, honor, thank, and love him much for all of that. Peace and kindness, Fred |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Albert Einstein was a firm beleiver in God. Jesus is the son of God. He sought evidence to prove otherwise. He used scientific principles to support his beliefs. Science is not a replacement of God. It is one of the evidences he is behind the creation. No different than some using science to identify you through your fingerprints to prove you existed. This was one of the examples Jesus was showing Thomas he existed when most of the world was sceptical in their own beleifs. He was telling him, you can doubt or not believe who I am. Just touch me and you will know. The bible talks about even a greater thing than seeing is having faith. It is like some Dad saying to his son. Do not go over there something bad will happen. The son has faith in his dad and listens. Without going over to check it out. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
To All Self-Proclaimed Christians
Originally Posted by verycurious
I have a feeling the people (not all) who claim to love or believe in God only do it because of his ability to put people in heaven or hell.
It's like a mass brown nosing. I wonder whether those same people would still love him if he wasn't so high and mighty. Think about it there are countless of these self-righteous, sanctimonious blockheads that claim belief (some may even be priests) for their own spiritual benefit.
I think you misunderstand what "believe in God" means. You think it means "believing that God exists." No. We KNOW He exists. We believe IN His goodness and love. There's a famous quote from Scripture: James 2:19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. Let me give you an example. I know some people whom I trust and some whom I don't. I "believe in" the ones whom I trust. I don't "believe in" the ones whom I don't trust. I trust God. I believe God loves me and is doing all that is good for me. Here's another famous quote from Scripture: Hebrews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
And those who do all the self-less acts of giving and volunteering is in a way being selfish I think for it gives them JOY in return, which goes against the definition of selfless.
It is precisely our definition of selflessness, that it describes one who gets joy and other spiritual consolations from acts of giving and volunteering without asking for any material return.
I realize I’m being extremely cynical right now and am in no way trying to disrespect those who are fully devoted to giving their time and effort for the better cause. But there are those, I might even dare to say a majority of the people (including me) who only do such “selfless” acts to benefit themselves in an effort to improve the look on their resume or college application.
That being said, I would much rather like to see a Buddhist who completely devotes himself to his religion without fear or doubt than see a regular Christian who constantly lies to himself.
It makes me sick to look at such overzealous people praise God when their motives are so obvious.
Many old people I see are overzealous (understandably so since their time is running pretty low to make a good impression on God) with their constant preaching and praying.
In addition, I also can't help but think the concept of religion to be nothing, but a mass conspiracy to keep the lower class in control (it sounds paranoid and foolish I know, but it can’t be completely ruled out). Religion has first appeared in an attempt to explain the inexplainable, which has by now has been replaced by science. So with the original purpose of religion gone, it makes sense for others to try to use it to their own advantage as is very apparent throughout history (especially in Catholicism). Without God to give hope of a glorious afterlife, there's no way in hell these lower class people will stand by and be trampled on. They would try to live out their life to the best and mass chaos will roar throughout the globe.
I think the main lesson here is to be practical and accept the fact that there is a chance that God may not exist, but to continue to have faith in Him because nobody can be sure of his existence, for there is no proof and continue to live by His rules and teachings.
Or just look at any other life form. Realize that they couldn't have come about by accident. God LIVES!
That being said, how do you believe when you can’t be sure? I think the better word for it is “trust”. You must trust that God exists and not believe he exists, which I think are different (someone help clarify this point). There’s a difference in saying I believe the Knicks will make it to the Final Four and I trust the Knicks will make it to the Final Four. To trust is to fully understand and accept the fact that He may not exist and yet still have faith whereas to believe is to completely rule out such possibilities and is more like blindly believing something, which for some reason sounds worse.
Lol I just realized that instead of asking a question, I've done a rant.
Well the queastion is: Is there a point in religion?
Or better yet, what IS religion? Is it a simple reward and punishment system like we do with dogs or something much deeper?
I would also be interested to read in your comments about what I have said.
Sincerely, De Maria |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
One of the examples God gives of his existence is actually in the bible. Abraham was approached by three men. Guess who they are. Jesus commended Abraham in the bible as being both loyal and faithful to him. This is in the very first book of the bible. Abraham was found obedient to God. Now we are not to put our eyes on Abraham, but of the Creator. There is a Gospel song out there that goes something like this. When I get to heaven I see, Abraham, Issac & Jacob. Matthew, Mark, Luke, & John. The Lists goes on.
But that is not who I want to see, I want to see Jesus, the one who died for me!! Forgive me if the words are not exact. It should paint a pretty clear picture of our Saviour. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Truelife
For me, I don't need a scientific explanation for the existence of God. I find faith works well. The main reason for this position is that science cannot help us prove metaphysics. At the moment we are stuck with scientific questions only providing scientific answers and metaphysical questions providing metaphysical answers. When you say, "Science is not a replacement for God" I agree. But I disagree that with, "It is one of the evidences he is behind creation. No different than someone using science to identify you through your fingerprints to prove you existed". This is an example of what I mean by scientific questions only providing scientific answers. We cannot infer any more than fingerprints prove human existence. It is also very difficult to prove anything through analogy. What you are attempting is to use scientific explanations to provide evidence for God's existence. As far as I am aware no one has been successful. At best all we can say that we have a hypothesis that could be proven true in the future |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
You need to understand there were two realms being spoken through the bible. It is one explaining the presence of God though a man. The word became flesh. This is based on a molecular structure that comprises a makeup of man. This is an answer using a scientific answer. The bible goes on to explain the difference in parables and why parables were used. If you read it all you will get your answers. It is not all based on Theory as some suppose it to be. That is why Jesus told Thomas the doubter to touch him. God manifests himself in the flesh. There are those who see things and there are those who do not. This is confirmed in the Bible about a war in the heavenlies. I explained about having faith as being the greatest if you read below that statement. Jesus showed himself many times to individuals who doubted him. There are also things which are hidden for a good reason. Which will be explained later. We are not to doubt Gods workings in our lives, no matter what way he decides to reveal it. Some choose to think as Christians we are just to sit around and watch things happen. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the story of the Lost Coin, to the Good Samaritan, To Abraham bowing before God in Genesis. Because you cannot see something, does not mean it is not either happening or doesn't exist scientifically. Having Faith also says it is, " Being Sure of what we hope for". You are right, you are not aware. There are many things in the bible that a lot of people are not aware of, and they ought to study the word. The bible says, study the word to show you are approved of God. I 'll give you a clear picture. Who were the three individuals Abraham met? Why did he bow down to the ground? Why did he run and have Sarah prepare a meal for them. Genesis 18 is a good place to start or even 17. Jesus confirms this in the New Testament of who Abraham was. We are not to put our eyes on Abraham but God who Abraham worshipped! We are not to have any idols before him. The bible says before Abraham was the I am, referring to God! If you really want some scientific evidence watch this video. It is astounding how God works.
If this does not appear. Look up the word Laminin on Google. The site below is on Youtube. The whole crux of this story is Jesus appeared in the flesh to doubters. They were looking for scientific evidence and Jesus gave it to them. ://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/l/laminin.htm |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by TUT317
The main reason for this position is that science cannot help us prove metaphysics. At the moment we are stuck with scientific questions only providing scientific answers and metaphysical questions providing metaphysical answers.
When you say, "Science is not a replacement for God" I agree. But I disagree that with, "It is one of the evidences he is behind creation. No different than someone using science to identify you through your fingerprints to prove you existed". JoeT |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
De Maria,
You answered that question very well. You even used logic which to is one way to prove God exists. Answers to prayer is another for me. God's surprising blessings is another. Peace and kindness, Fred |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by JoeT777
Most truths are relative, especially scientific truths. Truths that are not relative are analytical truths such as found in mathematics, certain types of logic and tautologies. The problem with analytical truths is that once we apply them to science they become relative. Not the truths themselves, but the theories they are connected to. You say that Einstein's theories of relativity are as much from God as the scriptures themselves. I am wondering where does this leave other scientists whose theories have been proven wrong in the modern age? You seem to be espousing a special category of truth which does not seem to be subject to any empirical investigation. If this is the case then I would say that it is analytical truth. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by Truelife
Hello Truelife, I think you are confusing reported observations with science. Any number of observable instances does not constitute a scientific theory. For something to be classified as science it needs to be empirical. In other words there needs to be logical consequence(s) that we can draw from a series of observations. Equally important is that these instances need to be tested. From the information contained in the bible it is difficult if not impossible to formulate a scientific hypothesis based on the accounts you have outlined.I BELIEVE THAT JESUS DID APPEAR IN THE FLESH. What I am saying is that these observations( as true as they are) do not constitute science. When you say that "Because you cannot see something,does not mean it is not either happening or doesn't exist scientifically" Yes there are many things that were are unaware of. However, when talking science we need to say that the subject matter is observable. Unobserved observations is a contradiction in terms. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Tut,
You said to Joe, "You say that Einstein's theories of relativity are as much from God as the scriptures themselves. I am wondering where does this leave other scientists whose theories have been proven wrong in the modern age?" The answer to that is all truth comes directly or indirectly from God. The same with love. Scientists and other struggling to find truth at times come up with ideas or theories which are wrong but that can be stepping stones to truth when the wrongness is discovered. It is then that the quest for truth can continue. I'm certain that in time more scientific evidence of the existence of God will be found in addition to the mathematical and quantum evidence that now exists. Peace and kindness, Fred |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
I believe it isn't about religion but about relationship with the one who created us. He created us to NEED a relationship with him. HE wants us to have one with HIM. He is soveriegn, and he is HIGH and MIGHTY but he is LOVE and full of mercy. I'd suggest to stop looking at people or religious people or religion period. I think you have your eyes in the wrong direction. Relationship with the Creator of the Universe is so much more than rules and regulations and traditions. In fact, I'd suggestion it isn't about any of those things. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
classyT,
You said, "I believe it isn't about religion but about relationship with the one who created us. He created us to NEED a relationship with him. HE wants us to have one with HIM." I fully agree and that is why God gave us His religion which gave us His inspired word via the Holy Bible. Peace and kindness, Fred |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Originally Posted by TUT317
Truths that are not relative are analytical truths such as found in mathematics, certain types of logic and tautologies.
We know that God and Truth are convertible; St. Thomas says, “Whence it follows not only that truth is in Him, but that He is truth itself, and the sovereign and first truth.” Summa Prima Q, 15 a5. Consequently we can say that there is an absolute infallible truth as there is an absolutely infallible God. If we hold that Truth is absolute then there can be only ONE absolute truth. Absolute truth can't compete for truth as to which is 'truer'. What special truth do you find in rhetorical repetition?
The problem with analytical truths is that once we apply them to science they become relative. Not the truths themselves, but the theories they are connected to.
You say that Einstein's theories of relativity are as much from God as the scriptures themselves. I am wondering where does this leave other scientists whose theories have been proven wrong in the modern age?
You seem to be espousing a special category of truth which does not seem to be subject to any empirical investigation. If this is the case then I would say that it is analytical truth.
• Some truth We cannot simply hold what 'feels' good, or what supports our life style, or what supports our propositions, as truth because we find a self-serving good. • Other truth • Partial truth • Low truth • High truth • Irrelevant truth • Relative truth • Irrational truth • Subjective truth This, by the way, is why there can be no 'true' commonality in the various Christian faiths. Because, in any two competing faiths, one must be is True and the other must be false or they both must be wrong. The reason should be obvious; truth resides in God, and what resides in God has definitive meaning, the knowledge of which we assign the word 'truth'. Since the Holy Scriptures are inspired by God then for each individual there can be only One Truth just as there is only One Word. It's an obscenity to believe Scripture can have what's described in today's vernacular as 'different strokes for different folks', i.e. relative truth. Therefore, to have competing faiths with which to measure the same Truth, the same Revelation, is self-contradictory. The inverse statement is also true, to have competing truths to measure faith is equally self-contradictory. The Holy Spirit inspires men to One True faith. O soul pressed down by the corruptible body, and weighed down by earthly thoughts, many and various; behold and see, if thou canst, that God is truth. For it is written that "God is light;" not in such way as these eyes see, but in such way as the heart sees, when it is said, He is truth [reality]. St. Augustine, On the Trinity, 8,2 JoeT |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
JoeT,
I do believe that there are PEOPLE who hold to various truths such as those you listed. But I do agree that there is but one absolute truth and love and that is God. Peace and kindness, Fred |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Joe T
I looked up the reference you gave me on the web page for Summa Theologica. I will pass on that because it is obvious that this is the basis of your belief and I respect that. My only comment is that philosophy has taken a different course since St. Thomas Aquinas' time. Mainly in the ideas of substance, causality and what constitutes knowledge. I am happy to leave it there. Regards. Tut. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
TUT317,
Yes some have taken a different course on philosophy since St Thomas time but many including me have not. Philosophy in one of those disciplines which are in a variety, some accepted some not. Peace and kindness, Fred |
||||
|
|
Not your question?
Ask your question
View similar questions
| Question Tools | Search this Question |
Check out some similar questions!
Christians and Blood
[ 28 Answers ]
Is there a prohibition against Christians eating blood?
Why some Christians will not recognize Cathoics?
[ 26 Answers ]
I am not a Christian nor a Catholic but many of my relatives are devout Christians. One is even a minister. Anyway, when I think of a Christian, it includes Catholics and Orthodox Christians, etc.. However, one of my devout "Christian" relatives insisted that Catholic is not a Christian. He...
How should Christians worship God?
[ 23 Answers ]
Do you view Christian worship as an activity only for Sunday and maybe a few special holidays? Perhaps as a formal set of actions and prayers repeated during a service in your house of worship? It's interesting that the Bible does not give a strict definition of worship. Although many view it...
View more questions Search
|
