Dan56

Seems like a similar topic to "If Christianity were proven true"... My response to the proof of God's existence would be ... I told ya so Of course it would matter, eternity depends on it.

Children = young men (Hebrew naar). The same word used of Issac (28 years old), Joseph (39), Rehoboam (40).. When they mocked Elisha saying "Go up", it may have been referring to Elijah's previous translation into heaven, which was a blasphemous insult that outraged God. You guys obviously think the punishment was excessive, but I'm going to side with God's judgement. Yes, I wasn't blaming the bears, it was God who used them to stop the mocking. I simply believe the punishment fit the offense, blasphemy against His prophets. That probably means little to nonbelievers, but its a fitting punishment for believers. Jonathan is right, faith = trust, so I trust God's judgement over my own.

I never said evidence requires faith? I said that faith replaces objective evidence, which Christians believe will come at the second advent. Agreeing with scripture is all it says about me. Yes, I agree with God's judgement..They weren't just mocking "someone", they were indirectly mocking God. No different than those who mocked Christ when he was crucified. That's a big no no. But I understand from the liberal perspective that disciplining youths is something you never do. "Whoever spares the rod hates their children, but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them" (Proverbs 13:24)

Correct, there's no relevance where there's no faith.. The bible is information about God, some choose to to accept it and others reject it.. If its all myth, its not real and not relevant. If its all true, its very relevant. As Key said, its an endless circular argument with no resolution. We are called by faith, the verifiable objective evidence comes later. Well, the biblical God obviously believes in discipline, and a verbal assault against one of His anointed prophets had repercussions. Nothing immoral about it to me. Perhaps if the young people weren't so enthralled in ridiculing Elisha, they would have notice the she-bears. Some might say that letting "kids" get away with disrespecting their elders is immoral? You may think getting mauled is harsh, but I bet they learned a much needed lesson and never harassed another prophet.

I'd agree... In a purely materialistic world there is no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good.... Without any absolute moral authority, morality is based on nothing more than what we think is right or wrong. The guy helping a drowning child and the guy shooting up a Walmart both think they are right... That's why I prefer extrinsic moral values over intrinsic ones; "No one is good except God alone." (Mark 10:18)

I've never said Atheist were immoral, I simply stated that they have no definitive source or written standards of morality, but that doesn't leave a person void of morals..

It doesn't say "one" mocked Elisha, it indicates more than one, possibly all of them were united in purpose? And it doesn't say any of them were killed. "Some youths came from the city and mocked him, and said to him, “Go up, you baldhead! Go up, you baldhead!” So he turned around and looked at them, and pronounced a curse on them in the name of the Lord. And two female bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the youths." (2 Kings 2: 23-24) http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVSermons/WhyDidGodHaveChildrenKilled.html

I agree that its funny... But its another biblical inaccuracy... At least, I don't believe Noah's flood was worldwide, but was limited to the biblical region where Adam's descendants lived. In which case, there's no need to necessitate a wacky scenario where any sloth had to board the ark since the only animals in need of saving were those indigenous to a given region.. In the bible "erets" can also refer to country, territory, or all the land of its inhabitants in relation to the story being told. Whereby, "all the land or earth (erets)" does not always imply global or worldwide, but is only referencing the area surrounding all the people who dwell there.

Imo, she illustrated what I've always said, nonbelievers don't reject Christ because of a lack of evidence, they reject the message because they simply don't like it, even hate it. From what she wrote, its also clear that she's biblically illiterate.

I've never written down what I dream, but have never heard music in my dreams.. I'm usually running for my life in my dreams, so its usually a feeling of delight to wake-up from that I believe that everything we can see and touch will be gone one day, but music is one thing that will transcend into the new world. Perhaps that's why music touches our souls, we knew it before we were born.

Are you kidding? I posted the link to the paper which printed the interview, with photo's and all........ Now you want me to get into Einsteins head and prove what he did and didn't know? Otherwise I'm a liar? Your right, its not a matter of faith, its right there in black & white.. Your the ones who claimed it was a lie and Einstein never said that, so I posted a photo copy of the article as proof, and now your saying that evidence is required? Unbelievable! Like I said, Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address, but since "God" was used in the Address, you both no doubt would never admit or accept that Lincoln said any of it. Your true colors are showing, your absolute hatred of anything Christian has you in complete denial of anything & anyone who references God. You always say that you don't need to prove something (bible) isn't true, and that its up to me to prove that it is true. But here, Einstein did an interview with George Viereck in 1929, you have a copy of it, and yet your in complete denial that Einstein knew anything about what he was quoted as saying. Bottom line, the burden of proof now falls into your laps, you need to prove that Einstein was the clueless moron that your portraying him to be. And after you do that, find some evidence to prove Lincoln and Christ were misquoted too. Me thinks tour typical Liberals, who automatically deny that anything you don't agree with has got to be false. I'm beginning to think that if someone slapped either of you upside the head, you'd want pictures to prove that it actually happened, and even then you would undoubtedly insist that the pictures were photo shopped.. Wow, just Wow http:// http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/what_life_means_to_einstein.pdf

No doubt, Einstein wasn't too bright, so perhaps he was oblivious to what the paper quoted him as saying? After all, it was printed in 1929 and Einstein died in 1955, so he probably didn't have time to correct the misquote? (Hows that for sarcasm Jonathan) What's really got me curious is why you guys have gotten so upset by the quote in the first place? He pretty much manages to compliment Christians while simultaneously referring to the gospel as a myth.. A compliment and insult in the same sentence, that's genius .

It does seem a tad hypocritical ... You've always contended that Moses was fiction, Jesus didn't exist, etc... Always demanding proof, where's the evidence? Now the shoe is on the other foot, and your the one with nothing but faith to fall back on. Now its you who dismisses something you disagree with despite evidence to the contrary. Its not me that doesn't care about the facts, its you who denies a direct quote from a news paper article that Einstein himself never denied saying. Maybe you can relate to people of faith now? You have complete confidence that the Einstein quote is a lie, simply because you don't agree with it. You've put your Agnostic attitude on a shelf and have gone with your gut feeling, evidence be damned.

You can't possibly know that.. It may be your opinion, but certainly not a statement of fact.

Semantics? I construed it to mean that I intentionally put up a quotation that I knew was fraudulent... To me, "your quotation" insinuated that it was something I had made up and attributed to Einstein. That's why I went out of my way to show that it was a quote that was all over the internet. I wanted to show that I didn't just pull it out of thin air.. Three post up from this entry, Jonathan still insist that; Einstein would never say that... So in that sense, it doesn't seem he agrees that its an accurate quote? Sorry if I misinterpreted it, but that's my take on it.

It has nothing to do with belief, the news paper article was an interview which quoted Einstein. You don't need faith, the article is the evidence. This is what I meant when I wrote; "If you don't agree with something, you automatically deny its legitimate".. I stand by it.

Seems directly contradictory to dan's( ) claim...but i'm sure he can easily post a link backing his good word up. Actual copy of the newspaper article itself... Go to last page, its at the top of the second column; http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/what_life_means_to_einstein.pdf Well, lets iron this out to see who's lying by intent.. Here's 11 links to substantiate that I did not fabricate the Einstein quote. Someone is reality impaired, but it ain't me. http://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/wp-content/uploads/satevepost/what_life_means_to_einstein.pdf https://www.quora.com/What-was-Einsteins-opinion-on-Jesus https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/38024/did-einstein-comment-on-feeling-the-presence-of-jesus-while-reading-the-gospels https://ifunny.co/picture/as-a-child-i-received-instruction-both-in-the-bible-b5jr4slx4 http://libertytree.ca/quotes/Albert.Einstein.Quote.C07C https://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Wolves/einstein.htm https://www.darwinthenandnow.com/scientific-revolution/albert-einstein/ https://libertychurchonline.wordpress.com/apologetics-quick-fact-sheet/ https://odb.org/2016/12/18/who-do-you-say-he-is/ https://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html https://www.einsteinandreligion.com/einsteinonjesus.html Lets me know if you need more? Or consider doing a Google search yourself.

That's cool... I once felt the same way as you do, so I completely understand that what floats my boat doesn't ring true for others.

No personal attack imo? Although "Your quotation stinks of fraud" seems tantamount to calling me a liar.. I apply the same standards to myself as I do Jonathan, I am narrow minded in what I believe and I reject everything I don't agree with. Everyone automatically rejects what they don't believe is legitimate. Nothing new here, just individuals denying what the other considers true.

My point was that there will never be efficient evidence for an Agnostic to believe else wise, which is why they are not flexible. And if there ever were that kind of evidence, belief becomes a moot point, because you don't need to believe what's known. Your correct, fundamentalism will never change, it can't, so I am inflexible too. "I don't know" is practically the definition of indecisiveness, its the inability to make a decision based on the absence of facts. While I understand the need to know the certainty of something prior to embracing it, the biblical God wants us to accept his Word by faith. You first hope its true, then believe its true, and finally have faith its true. There's no absolutes, because obedience to God is not based on what's known, but what's accepted. Adam and Eve knew not to touch the forbidden tree, but they did it anyway. Do you know why? Faith trumps knowledge. The "nature" of my belief is simply the bible. We know God through his Word, so in that since, God is knowable..I know what Agnosticism is, but there's no riding the fence, when a person says that they'll only accept what's known and proven to their satisfaction, they have technically made a decision and are not flexible. Christians are called by faith, so a person without faith is stagnant without that trust. When a person "does not care", they are spiritually dormant because no one can make them care. Sorry if that makes me sound inconsiderate, but there's no empathy for apathy. And of course I believe my belief is right, that's why I hang onto it. Connecting with God is a spiritual endeavor, not the result of scientific confirmation that He exist. Do you believe murder and theft are okay? Neither does God, so perhaps what you think isn't so far apart from the God you dismiss? Likely so, there can no agreement between believers and nonbelievers, there is no convincing either, but my interest is really in biblical discussions, and this thread on Exodus just seem to fit the bill.. Perhaps not? But you must admit, the forum is pretty boring without any religious or moral debate.

Agnosticism is indecisiveness, because there is no objective evidence, its also inflexible. "Show me and I'll believe" is not a flexible position. Agnostics don't know anything so they can't commit to anything. That's living in a constant state of ❔❓.. How can you be flexible when you can't decide whether something is true or not. To me its a state of confusion. its like asking a woman to marry you and she has no answer. I suppose if Christ came and smacked an Agnostic between the eyes with a 2x4, then they would change their mind and make a decision. So in that regard, they are flexible. But accepting God is all about faith, so when an Agnostic rejects faith, they are inflexible. Granted, faith is not flexible, you believe without evidence.. Atheism is not flexible either, they don't believe no matter the evidence. jmo

Well, that's not surprising...Its from an interview from "What Life Means to Einstein" in the Saturday Evening Post, October 26, 1929.. I'll just add pre-1929 newspaper articles to the list of things you don't believe.. Lincoln mentioned God in his Gettysburg Address, so I'm sure you've chalked that off as fake too. Anything written that you don't agree with is fraud. That's the one dimensional narrow mindedness I mentioned before.. If you don't agree with something, you automatically deny its legitimate. Keep denying the truth and maybe it will magically go away?

As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene...No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. (Albert Einstein)

Oh no, one step forward and two steps back... Your slipping into your empiricist ways again

That's enough.... Sometimes we accidentally reveal more than we intended. Under that crisp exterior, your just a big softy. Congratulations, your making progress, I'm quite certain that you'll be professing Christ in no time. True, but Judaism rules, the Israeli flag flies, the Prime Minister is Jewish...Besides the West Bank and Gaza, Israel is the reclaimed promised land.