Dan56

I wasn't suggesting that you live my truth, I was responding to your negative "downside" list of my faith (not authentic, time consuming, being a coward, & feeling threatened).. And also your negative "upside" list of my faith (no hope, no evidence, no inner peace). So I was defending my perspective, not denigrating yours.. And when I say that you believe in nothing, I'm specifically referring to anything divine or spiritual. Yes, I often compare my own perspective to that of others, but isn't that what Jonathan was doing when he disparaged my faith by pointing out his downside perspective of what I believe? Not to mention his list of "no upside" to believing in God? I don't embrace those definitions because I don't agree with them. God definitely test the hearts of men, it started in the Garden of Eden.. And I don't believe God knows every decision we will make, what we do and say reveals the heart. As I've pointed out before, God did not know whether Abraham would sacrifice Issac until he was about to do it, and then God said, "Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God" (Genesis 22:12). So I believe we are here to demonstrate our faith, "Whosoever Believeth" (John 3:16) is a call to believe, its not foreknown who will be moved to accept the invitation.

I see your prospective on things, I just don't have much to say about it. You believe in nothing divine because you trust nothing that can't be factually proven and verified. Everyone wants solid evidence in order to formulate a logical conclusion, but such evidence eliminates the necessity of belief. Because I state my perspective doesn't mean I don't understand what others think, and I understand the desire to 'know' that something is true rather than trusting, hoping, wanting, or guessing that its true. Faith isn't in everyone's playbook, but its what's required to accept the supernatural. I do realize that my position is a dead end street to those who require definitive proof. So while God makes sense to me, I also get the "prove it" attitude. But God will never be authenticated or revealed via physical observation, its all about having faith in something beyond yourself.

Because a church doesn't agree with you, doesn't mean there's an absence of love. That's what Jesus was referring to when he said "If thine eye offend thee, pluck it out..... And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell" (Matthew 5:30). You were propagating falsehoods among the congregation, so the Elders couldn't very well allow you to infect the whole flock. Considering that your objection was with a church that was obedient to the gospel, its no wonder that you found no comfort there.. Glad you found comfort in your own mind though.

I tend to agree, religion never saved anyone and they can all be wrong.. But for me, Christ wasn't a religion, my faith is in him and him alone. I don't place much confidence in any denomination or the church down on the corner. Everyone struggles with one question, 'What is the truth?' I've chosen Christ and have experience no downside to that decision. The world is full of lies, misinformation, deceit, confusion, and information overload, so to have one steadfast truth to cling to is an undescribable comfort and assurance that surpasses all else. But you have to accept it to know it.

True, you can lose your a$$ when investing, especially when your rolling dice... But there's no down side to Christ... Even if your wrong, you have hope in the interim. I'm going to say something that may be construed as being extremely controversial here; Merry Christmas 🎄

What you say is true, there are no indisputable facts to qualify the legitimacy of any belief. While I personally accept by faith that the Word was literally made known & manifested among us, others believe it was a hoax, and I suspect that even if they personally witnessed Christ and the miracles, they still wouldn't have any faith. "God requires faith because it allows humans the ability to choose or reject Him. Without the ability to make choices, humanity would cease to be human as we know it. Because people can choose to have faith or not to have faith, there is a way for God to know those who have believed in Him and those who have not. Faith in God is not "blind faith" as some argue. Instead, it is a choice based on the available information." Your concluding the proposition is false. Suppose it were true? In which case hope, belief, & faith changes everything.. e.g; I bought Apple (AAPL) stock 20 years ago at $11.88 per share because I "believed" my money would double, today the stock is around $280.

For me its not blind faith, the bible is reasonable evidence, and for me it is self-evident. But some folks don't it see what I see and aren't open to believing. I don't read bald assertions, but see specific prophesies that demonstrate an obvious truth. I have no difficulty rejecting other religions either, but Christ was unique, no man could have or ever has done what he did, and it was all foretold. So I hold to what rings true for me, but of course, its up to every individual to discern the truth from a lie.

I'm aware that your idea of 'truth' is not mine, but why prohibit me from stating what I believe. What you believe makes little since to me either, but your obviously content with it, so it doesn't bother me. Your reality has no answers, its very limited to what you can physically observe, which provides no hope, no purpose, and no meaning to life. Sometime fantasy is better than a nightmare .. And just to note, my last entry quoted no scripture? This coming from a man that has no comprehension of anything he cannot physically evaluate. Talk about limitations and a rigid mind. Can't see it, can't hear it, can't touch it, can't believe it.. Consider the odds that there are things that aren't defined by science and will never be proven by human reasoning alone. I have a yearning to know about things that you have no answers for and don't care about, if that's an issue, I'm fine with it.

The truth isn't meant to entertain you. Not much fascination with non-believers repetitive ramblings either. Doesn't matter who said it, my point was that this is folly; "endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture".. Atheist have no spiritual understanding, so atheists defining God in a negative manner are like fish criticizing fresh air. Of course the bible is the only legitimate source of Christ, and who better than those who lived and traveled with him to testify and record what they learned and witnessed. Your correct, most saw Christ as a prophet or Rabbi, but it became clear that he was much more than that when his guarded tomb was empty. He was crucified for blasphemy when he proclaimed himself to be the Son of God, so your correct, even the religious community denounced him. But that was all prophesied, and it was later evident that Jesus embodied and fulfilled all the prophesies of the coming Messiah, and it was that recognition that made it obvious that Christ was much more than a prophet.

I understand the definitions of Atheism, Agnosticism, and Apatheism.. One doesn't believe, one doesn't know, and the other doesn't know or care. Hardly difficult concepts to grasp, and none require any in-depth explanation or analysis. Varying beliefs are not a weakness of an interfaith church... Those who believe in the divine are not narrow minded just because they can't prove their faith to your satisfaction. And fundamentalist do try to abide by a set of standards, but we don't project those moral standards onto nonbelievers. Perhaps you have no purity test because you don't believe in anything that formally sets a core set of values? Yes, we are Interfaith, but what's your faith? You may embrace Universal Life, but simultaneously condemn the idea of everlasting life.

Remember, Christ was the manifestation of God on earth, so people (witnesses) did see him, did hear him, did see God intervene in miraculous ways, and we have the written testimony from those witnesses. And it shouldn't be hard to accept the physical evidence, he rose from the grave, that's why no one could produce his body. “To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, and whose philosophy consists in holding humanity in contempt, is like administering medicine to the dead, or endeavoring to convert an atheist by scripture.” ― Thomas Paine How about the witnesses who gave accurate testimony about things that happened after their birth... Talk about credibility... The divine word is its own best witness, you seem to be suggesting that the God and Creator of all that is, needs to be authenticated and confirmed at the County Courthouse. That's not only ridiculous, its impossible. You can't prove God by typical physical investigation, He's revealed by spirit and truth to those who seek Him and is hidden from those who try to rationalize God via human evaluation. "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent" (Matthew 11:25). How's that for evidence, Jesus said it 2000 years ago and its still valid today, your the fulfillment of a prophecy and didn't even know it

Sorry if that hurt your feelings, but its difficult to care about belief in nothing, because there's just nothing there to care about or comment on. Agnosticism = zip, and Apatheism =

True, many types of evidence require belief; e.g. If several witnesses all testify to the same exact thing, a jury is likely to believe them and accept their testimony as reliable evidence, even though they could all be lying. Science isn't a religion, but you have faith in nothing else, and that's your Achilles heel .

Verse 16 says that; but its preceded by, "And I will remember my covenant, which is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh." (Genesis 9:15). So I'm not sure what the point is? Are you guys trying to prove that God is forgetful? Can you give me a specific instance in the bible that would indicate that God forgot something? Are you suggesting that "I will see it & remember" is an example of God not being omniscient? Do you really think God needs to see a rainbow in order to recall His covenant? That's kind of like me saying that you need to see the dog house you made for your dog in order to remember that you have a dog .. And my point was that God is not a forgetful moron precisely because no one has demonstrated it. You know, I didn't bring the "Flood" topic up, I was just responding to the comments of others about the flood. Even you chimed in with 4 flood post beginning with; "I don't believe in a biblical world wide flood and think the story of Noah is adopted from other religions." If you don't care, why make comments about the mountain ranges and all? I don't particularly care about your views on why you believe in nothing either, but I'm polite enough to respond to those who disparage what I believe. And the person who started this 'Converts' thread wrote in the first post; "Most evangelical Faith's do a good enough job on their own because despite all the effort they put into it there is still no empirical evidence and it's no more than a belief coupled with an assertion and twisting arguments to suit their ministry." Sounds like a connotation introducing religion. Never-the-less, I'll leave you now to discuss religious converts in this nonreligious topic .

There is Factual or objective evidence, but there is also circumstantial evidence, demonstrative evidence, documentary evidence, exculpatory evidence, hearsay evidence, prima facie evidence, statistical evidence, testimonial evidence, physical evidence, direct evidence, character evidence, analogical evidence, etc... I'm not saying that all types of evidence prove anything, but it could all be construed as relative information or fall under the category of subjective evidence.... I didn't know I had a specific stance? And I can't very well ask Wikipedia to restate their opinion!

You just don't have a grasp of biblical expression. The bow was in recognition of the covenant, it was to mark the occasion with a sign, which would forever after bring the covenant into remembrance. Consider the previous verse, "I will remember My covenant, which is between me and you" (Genesis 9:15). Those words are point blank, God saying "I will remember" and not that He needs a reminder. There are other passages where God ask us to bring things to His remembrance in prayer (Isaiah 43:26), but that again is for our sake, and not because we worship an absent minded God. We don't know exactly what direction the ark went, Ararat just means Armenia.. For that matter, no one is sure where the ark originated, it could have flowed West from Persia and settled in the Turkey/Armenian foot hills from the backside? Its all speculation, but my point was that the deluge was regional and the high mountains weren't completely under water, I believe it just covered about 15 cubits (22 feet) of the tallest mountains (Genesis 7:20). But I wasn't there, so its just one of many theories, all I know is that no life would have survived the aftermath of a world-wide flood. "The geology of the pre-flood earth was presumably much different than we see today since the Bible states that after the flood, the mountains rose up and the valleys of the seas sank down...the pre-flood mountains were much lower than we see today which is borne out by flood models like the Hydroplate" Theory by Dr Walt Brown.

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Well, to me its just God assuring Noah that He will not forget the covenant that He just made. The rainbow was a token of that covenant, it represented a promise that would never escape God's remembrance. Perhaps it wasn't written as, "man will see it and remember" because that statement would not have been true, many men don't recall the covenant no matter how many rainbows they see? But clearly, It doesn't imply that an omniscient God is a forgetful moron who needed to tie a bow in the sky to remember a covenant, but rather a sign of reassurance of a promise that God would not renege on His word and would not flood the earth again. To me, "I will remember" is a factual statement, it doesn't imply that God is forgetful.

Well, that's a step in the right direction ... The flood was regional, not God I don't recall speculating about Mt Hermon per se? I suspect the ark landed somewhere in the northern foothills of the Tarim Basin. After the flood, Noah may have traveled near Pamir (Eden) when he migrated to UR (southern Iraq), but I don't think Pamir was a plateau 4000 years ago. I simply believe it was a limited flood that possibly occurred in the Tarim Basin or eastern Turkestan region. If so, the ark didn't leave that area and likely landed in the northern foothills of the basin. So no, Noah never 'sailed' over Pakistan to get to Mt Ararat in Turkey. The "Mountains of Ararat" in Genesis 8:4 clearly refers to a general region, not a specific mountain. There was no Mount Ararat in biblical times. This site has the map that I previously referred to; http://www.depodio.com/noah.htm

I'm aware of an absence of verifiable facts to prove the bible, but there is prophetic evidence. Even that type of evidence must be believed though, if you deny Christ even existed, then of course any prophecy of him is moot. You obviously dismiss all evidence that can't be factually confirmed, but as I've mentioned, any jury would consider the written testimony (affidavit) of a witness as evidence. And imo, when you have several people all swearing to have witnessed the same things as demonstrated by the gospels, then the preponderance of non-contradictory recorded testimonies certainly lend credibility to a truth.. But as you say, its still not concrete evidence, because it still requires belief. If I were on a jury and had the sworn non-conflicting affidavits of a half dozen people who witnessed a murder and identified the killer, I'd convict the defendant, especially if the witnesses had no motivation, purpose, or reason to be anything but truthful. You on the other hand, would let the killer go because there was no video providing direct evidence of the defendant killing his victim. That's the basic difference between us, we don't weigh evidence the same way.

What definitive answers does your science provide about the origin of life? Zip! Imo, every hypotheses science has come up with to explain how life originated is more mythological than anything I believe. Not to mention a complete absence of the meaning or purpose of life. Find your answers where you can, but I personally ain't satisfied with scientific explanations. Its not my truth, its biblical truth.. Other ideas aren't facts, and most are backed by less evidence than the bible.

I believe Eastern China experienced the deluge,... I remember posting 3 links that supported my point of view, and my position hasn't changed. I entertained whether the bible was true or false, and after careful consideration, I became convinced that it was true.. I'm as much of a free thinker as those who have determined the bible is false.. Prove to me where its false and I'll adjust my thoughts accordingly. That verse and others are often ascribed for the sake of men, who being forgetful, need help with their memory. It doesn't imply that forgetfulness or remembrance belongs to God. This isn't a notation that God made for himself, but was written to us to remain mindful of the covenant.

No, I know that you have an apathetic mind-set, which is why I wrote that your content not knowing anything, and as you added, your not looking for answers, and don't care either.. Apatheism =

I've always said and believed that Noah's Flood was regional, so I'm not making things up as I go along. I'm probably the most consistent person here, while you've indulged in many beliefs. My belief is more important because it provides answers where science is silent. You have no facts to confirm where you came from or where your going, so no facts equate to "I don't know and I don't care". And as I've said, a fulfilled prophecy is a subjective fact, but you ignore those type of facts because they interfere with what you prefer to believe. The rainbow was a reminder for us, not God. I'm relatively certain that God would not forget his own covenant with us.

Your just unfamiliar with biblical terminology, if you substitute the word 'world' with 'land', you'll recognize the whole world did not go under water, 'erets' is specific to a large area of land/earth directly related to the story being told.. Most fundamentalist believe in climate change, we just don't accept all of the scientific propaganda that insinuates people are the cause of it. Longer term history demonstrates radical climate change has always existed. They say that the North Pole is getting warmer, but they fail to mention that Antarctica is simultaneously getting colder. The North Pole is becoming warmer, the South Pole is becoming colder