• Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Dan56

  • Rank
    Priceless Being

Helpful Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Friendly Details

  • Doctrine /Affiliation

Other Details

  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

3,403 profile views
  1. Thank you gentlemen, I'm still polite enough to respond to comments about what I write, but I'm relieved there were no more questions, just complete agreement on my last post . Wisdom finally prevailed!! The trick is; When you don't critique what I write, you don't need to read my stupid responses.. Just had to reply to your friendly waves, now its time to take a couple chill pills 💊💊
  2. 1. I guess your reference to my belief as "nice fallacies" and "religious fanatics" just seems like heckling? 2. I don't share that sentiment, most Atheist describe the bible as a collection of fictional fairy tales, and that to me suggest they have no belief in any of it. 3. For the 10th time, imo Atheist disbelieve and are open to nothing. And Agnostics lack belief in anything that can't be proven to their satisfaction, so in reality, they are open to zip. But hey, nothings new... True, in the moment, doubting Thomas lacked belief.. He had difficulty believing things that didn't match-up with his perception of reality. Belief is not following our perceptions of what's true, but rather what we know to be true by faith. As Paul wrote; "We walk by faith and not by sight” (2 Corinthians 5:7). Faith is not based on miracles, but learning to trust what you've come to understand and trust. This is the preferred way God wants inquisitive minds to turn and accept the Truth.
  3. That's a 10-4....... My desire wasn't to change minds, but to just explain why I believe as I do, but then in the face of ridicule and accusations, I inevitably end up defending why I believe as I do. But your correct, there's no resolution with people who are on opposite sides of the spectrum, people either believe or they don't.. Believe it or not, there are debates that go on forever on Christian discussion boards that make this forum seem tame. That said, I will continue with any bible discussions, but will desist in responding to hecklers who don't have any belief or genuine interest in biblical topics. I'll also try to avoid disrupting Atheistic and Agnostic threads, since I have no shared interest in those topics. As you indicated, its a futile and endless endeavor to engage in arguments with members who have made-up their minds and who's positions are unshakable, that includes myself of course.
  4. I'm aware that you can't comprehend how God could create things in 6 days, and that you struggle to comprehend something that's beyond your own cognitive reasoning. Its evident that you just surface read Genesis and have no depth of understanding. I also know that you "don't know and don't care", but most people don't share that philosophy in life, they don't want to be ignorant and aren't content to remain that way. I noticed you were incapable of answering my simple question, so you diverted back to biblical attacks instead, which was the response I expected. God is not perceived by those who demand He prove himself, but reveals Himself to those who humbly and diligently seek Him (Matthew 7:7-8). Just to answer a couple of your observations, on day one "God said, Let there be light: and there was light" (Genesis 1:3). So that pretty much blows a hole in your theory that God was working in the dark or that trees had no light to grow for a whole day. The light in verse 3 emanated directly from the presence of God, his Shekhinah glory. The same type of light alluded to in these verses; "And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof." (Revelation 21:23) "And there shall be no night there; and they need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light: and they shall reign for ever and ever." (Revelation 22:5) "God is Light, and in him is no darkness at all" (1 John 1:5) The flood, Tower of Babel, and the exodus seem pretty self-explanatory. Just one genealogy of Christ, Matthew gives Joseph's ancestry and Luke gives us Mary's lineage. Jesus had thousands of followers, it was his popularity that caused the Jewish hierarchy to implore Pilate to execute Christ, they would risk rebellion in their own ranks if they had stoned him themselves. The dead that were raised was a fulfilled prophecy (Ezekiel 37:12). Matthew mentions that they appeared to people, not as zombies, but were further evidence and demonstration of the resurrective power of Christ. I doubt many 'historians' were on the streets of Jerusalem to witness or record the event, and they wouldn't know the resurrected people from Adam even if they were. All of your emoji's seem a tad juvenile, but also expected.
  5. There are different types of evidence. The only difference is that if you were a juror and listened to a half dozen witnesses (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter) all testifying to the same thing, you would not be satisfied, because you can't believe anything you don't see. The truth is self-evident too, it just takes a bit more than a calculator to absorb it.. Independent reasoning doesn't answer everything, and its no guarantee that your correct. Let me ask you a simple question that independent reasoning should easily answer; You look out your window and see a tree, so the fact is, tree's exist, no evidence necessary in what's clearly visible. But where did the tree come from (originate)? The bible answers that simple question, but hows your independent reasoning holding up?
  6. Well then, I guess we are finally in agreement on something Not the same, Jesus didn't have a hammer .. Although, he will return with a rod of iron in his right hand, but I fear that's not a demonstration of power you'll enjoy. He already manifested himself in flesh & blood, and he demonstrated divine power. Your demand for an individual repeat performance is ridiculous, he was crucified once for everyone and that's enough. Thank you, God knows I try I guess I still don't grasp the subtle difference between disbelief and the absence of belief, probably because the bible pretty much categorizes them as the same thing. If you lack or don't have belief, then you disbelieve, there's no middle ground, you either believe or you don't. Rejecting the bible as evidence is like rejecting 2+2=4 from an arithmetic book. Demanding tangible proof makes belief immaterial & irrelevant, so saying I'll believe when its proven is an oxymoron. Why would I back down from what I wrote? Could there be a remote chance that I was wrong? Nah If the truth can't be demonstrated, Jesus demonstrated the truth, he was the truth if the truth has no supporting evidence, many witnesses, recorded testimonies, prophesies, etc and if the truth is unverifiable, how about starting with an empty grave for verification then rejecting its solidity is logical.
  7. I don't know? These guys just can't seem to grasp it .. Disbelief is the refusal to accept that something is true, while the lack or absence of belief is doubting its true, but that's debatable. For me, Zeus does not exist and never did, so belief has nothing to do with it. But even so, its not illogical to believe something isn't real just because you can't prove its not. If the truth can't be demonstrated, if the truth has no supporting evidence, and if the truth is unverifiable, then rejecting its solidity is logical. Because you can't possibly know, you must have reservations about your choice. Your reservations are rooted in the fact that your open-minded enough to reconsider your choice if sufficient evidence is presented to alter what you think and change your mind, as you stipulated "I am prepared to reevaluate". In other words, its logical to presume that a nonbeliever who saw Christ returning with all the power of heaven, might have reservations about their previous notion of believing that God does not exist. 'Reservations' may have been the wrong term, but I reckon you get the gist of what I'm saying.
  8. I certainly understand the difference in a person who says, "I don't believe God exist" and a person who states, "God does not exist". But I just think the difference is negligible. One doesn't believe God is real and the other has determined God is not real. Just seems like an insignificant distinction since neither thinks God is real. I suppose you could say that the Atheist who claims "God does not exist" is a liar, since they have no evidence to support a definitive claim like that. And without proof, every Atheist must have some reservations about what they don't believe. But regardless, whether an Atheist thinks there's evidence that proves God is unreal or an Atheist doesn't believe God is real because there's no proof of Him, they are both in the same camp by not accepting the existence of God. Its like saying "I don't think the car will start" or "The car won't start", both statements demonstrate a lack of faith or no faith in the car starting. Then there's that rare anomaly, a person like myself who believes in God and also claims that God exist, so its possible for someone to be convinced that what they believe is true (fact & proof). But simply stated, Atheist & Agnostics don't believe, while Theist & Polytheist do.
  9. My simple point was that not all Atheist have the exact same point of view (not unlike Christians). While most Atheist don't belief there's evidence to support the existence of God, I do have a friend who bluntly claims that "God does not exist". She has formulated a point blank conclusion, evidence be damned. So it matters little to me whether its not being able to believe, a lack of evidence, hatred towards the idea of God, or any other reason. The bottom line is that Atheism is the disbelief or acceptance that any God/gods exist. The specific reasons are all semantics when they draw the same conclusion. People belief in God for different reasons and others reject God for a variety of different reasons.
  10. I don't see much of an error, except for the distinction that Atheist don't believe because of a lack of evidence. But I've known some A's who do claim there is no God. I'm quick to adjust my view when its been shown to be based in error, but in regards to my belief and the bible, that just hasn't happened yet
  11. Sorry I missed your point.. I just don't believe forgers successfully contaminated or altered the canonized books, nor do I believe unauthenticated works polluted the authorized canon. There are denominations that have altered things (Jehovah's Witnesses) and others have added books (Seventh-day Adventist & Latter-day Saints), but I'm convinced the original and inspired true Word was preserved. "Keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith" (1 Timothy 6:20&21). Still don't get the question, but I don't believe that the bible is a collection of convenient books that were selected because they coincided with other popular books. The books of the preserved canon gel because the same Spirit inspired them. As you mentioned though, other religions lay claim to the same thing & people find truth in their own sacred books. Glad your getting plenty of work, try some Red Bull Nothing changed in God's character, its been the exact same God in the past, in the present, and in the future (Hebrews 13:8). The same God who forgives today also forgave in the OT. The only difference is that a Savior came to deliver us from the curse of the law. But we still have the same commandments, and Christ was not the opposite of justice, judgement has just been suspended until his second coming when his wrath will be dispensed (Revelation 19:11-16). What has often changed is the Atheist pov; https://www.andrewcorbett.net/articles/apologetics/5-proofs-for-the-existence-of-god/
  12. It makes sense for movie sequels to stick with the original story line i.e; you can't have Superman being from Krypton in one film and from Xenu in another. I'm not familiar with all the Scientologist books, but I thought the same person (L. Ron Hubbard) wrote all of the Dianetics books? Most of the books omitted from the NT canon were written +200 years after the fact, and none of the authors could be authenticated (unknown). The OT does follow the Hebrew/Israelites people, so in that sense the story line is historically compatible between authors. But your correct, faith is the evidence, and of course its based on what is considered an infallible book, the written Word is the substance of what we've understood and accepted to be the inspired and divine truth. "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God" (Romans 10:17). Consider the fact that the bible is comprised of 66 books written over a period of 1,500 years by 40 authors. Written in 3 languages & on 3 continents, and yet it fits together into one cohesive story with an appropriate beginning, a logical ending, a central character, and a consistent theme. The historical, structural, prophetic, doctrinal, and spiritual congruency mesh together in complete harmony with no deviations from the fundamental message & truth. This to me lends much more credibility to divine authorship than any new pop-up religion. But no doubt, faith is key in understanding and accepting the bible.
  13. Its true that the bible is its own best evidence. I've studied it in-depth and found no untruths, so its truth becomes self-evident in the absence of any falsehoods. And its fair to say that every book inspired by God corresponds with every other book compiled into the bible, so there is collaborating material written by multiple authors. i.e; Isaiah doesn't contradict Ezekiel, Matthew doesn't contradict Mark. Using the assumption that the bible is the Word of God, what other possible source could establish confirmation of that fact? Consider the prophesies of Christ that predated his birth by 10 centuries, when realized, did in fact establish a truth to be self-evident, whether one accepts it or not, facts are facts. "I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me" (John 8:18).
  14. You wrote "It hurts too much" and I replied that "It shouldn't hurt".......... I just assumed the pain you were experiencing was in regards to not being able to convince me that God does not exist? And that's why you wrote "I give up"... That's why I responded by saying that your under no obligation to convince me of anything. You've gotten irritated and frustrated before, so I assumed you felt like you failed your mission and surrendered (again). My simple point was that believers aren't convince by non-believers and non-believers aren't convinced by believers, so its not a battle for either side to persuade someone that their position is correct. An argument is a disagreement, two points of views that can't be reconciled. I defined it as silly because there's no resolution to me believing in something that you guys don't. My additional comment was just explaining why belief isn't based on direct evidence, but in a desire to accept a message that appeals to you and rings true. That's not an argument, just my definition of faith.
  15. Not really an argument as much as it is people just saying what they think.. I just say what and why I believe as I do, but never anticipate a consensus to validate it.. I'm fully aware that you guys find it difficult to believe anything that you can't get direct confirmation of, but unfortunately "beliefs" don't afford us that kind of direct evidence. I want to believe, and am convince its true. You want to know, but are convinced of nothing. That's why we are called by faith, you can accept a message you love, but are non-receptive of a message you hate. Don't be too hard on yourself.. It shouldn't "hurt" to hear views you disagree with. Your not obligated to convince anyone of anything, so don't get irritated and turn yourself into an emotional wreck over it.