I’m in a strange place: very conservative, but not Christian

[Dropship]

What you are proposing is trying to prevent sin with law...
If we want to stop sinners sinning we need to evangelize, show love, give food, share our blessings, be forgiving.
I agree that sinners might cause earthquakes but I’m not to worried about what’s to happen on this earth. God is almighty and forgiving - he won’t, by accident, strike me with an earthquake and if he did it wouldn’t be unreasonable - since he get’s to decide what’s fair...

1- No I'm not proposing to stop sin with law, I take the view that if they're hellbound it serves them right..:)
It's fine of course to try to help Jesus-rejecters see the light, but the time comes when we shouldn't waste any more time on them if they won't listen..:)-
"The Jews argued with him, so Paul said 'I'm clear of my responsibility' and left" (Acts of the Apostles 18:6-7)
"What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?..Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord, I will be a Father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters" (2 Corinthians 6:14-18 )
"He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm" (Proverbs 13:20)
Jesus said-"If any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them" (Mark 6:11)
"Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words" (Proverbs 23:9)

2- When nonchristians unholy bad vibes trigger the San Andreas fault into letting one rip, many innocent Christians will be collateral damage.

 

[Romanov2488]

Christians certainly like and respect God, but we don't "fear" him, why should we?..:)
You list yourself as 'Other Faith', please tell us what it is so we'll know where you're coming from.

I don’t know…many of them describe themselves as “God fearing men.” And I’m an atheist agnostic. You briefly said nonChristians pump out their unholy negative vibes which is Satan’s work yet we aren’t the ones who claim that Satan exists and anyone who doesn’t believe what we believe is destined for hell. It’s negative enough in itself to say that Satan exists (without evidence) and that there’s a place of eternal torment called hell, again..without evidence. What exactly would be negative about an atheist saying they don’t believe in hell or the devil due to lack of evidence? He’s not the one making those claims.

To me when you say nonChristians pump out their negative vibes…that means you are referring to the discomfort of having to question your beliefs or them questioning yours. Especially if those beliefs have been held for so long, it’s not so easy to question them because your identity revolves around them. It would be a painful process to deconstruct knowing you’ve lived your life in accordance with those beliefs…but at least the reward is freedom in the end. Freedom of those beliefs. You no longer have to worry about going to heaven or hell because in the end you don’t know. But what strikes me is how the religious claim they know what happens after death, but then say they don’t know what will happen in 2 years. They act as if they don’t know what will happen short term, but from the point of death moving forwards, they know everything else. They can’t predict the future except for the future after death.


Why is religion so preoccupied with what comes after death? Would religion even be a thing if death didn’t exist?

 

[Romanov2488]

Did you read the thread on Evidence to Be Seen?

Just last month there was a miracle at my church.

The month before my wife experience a miracle.

A few years ago a coworker experienced a miracle.

The evidence is overwhelming. The Bible has a way of describing people like you; you don't have eyes to see or ears to hear. Please read the thread on Evidence to Be Seen. Let me know what you think. If it'd help, I'd be happy to tell you the details of the miracles referenced above.

Haven’t looked into it yet. But I will say that since you are saying there is evidence, then that means that there is no longer a need for faith. Faith is diametrically opposed to evidence. You only need faith if you lack evidence. I find that Christians are split into two camps: the first being the ones who admit that it is all faith-based (which I would consider as being honest). And then the ones who claim that no no, there is actually bullet proof, overwhelming evidence. You can’t have faith in something there is evidence of.

You’ve also mentioned ‘miracle’. Miracle is a term typically used when we don’t have an explanation for something and I would agree with you that some things are miracles. However, just because we can’t explain it…why would you rule out all other possibilities and only assume it must be God? There are many instances where we can’t explain something right away until later on.

 

[Wrangler]

But I will say that since you are saying there is evidence, then that means that there is no longer a need for faith. Faith is diametrically opposed to evidence.

Not so! Evidence are data points. An intelligent mind sees the mathematical function, relating all.

Let me give you a working definition of faith. Faith is not beliefs. Everyone has believes. Faith is acting on those beliefs - even when evidence is lacking. An example of faith is the evidence of the sun rising in the morning. Just because it has in the past, does not logically mean it will rise tomorrow. Yet, we act on our faith that the evidence will emerge at the appropriate time.

Make a Blessed Day!

 

[Romanov2488]

Not so! Evidence are data points. An intelligent mind sees the mathematical function, relating all.

Let me give you a working definition of faith. Faith is not beliefs. Everyone has believes. Faith is acting on those beliefs - even when evidence is lacking. An example of faith is the evidence of the sun rising in the morning. Just because it has in the past, does not logically mean it will rise tomorrow. Yet, we act on our faith that the evidence will emerge at the appropriate time.

Make a Blessed Day!

But let me ask you this, when a miracle occurs, there is clear evidence of it occurring. There’s no denying that. I also can’t explain it which is why I call it a miracle. However, why would you assume that the cause of that miracle is a god while ruling out all other possibilities and also knowing that there were many other instances where we said something was a miracle until we found an explanation later on? Assuming that it must be a god is a logical fallacy. Just because I agree with you on something being a miracle doesn’t mean I must also necessarily think a god was behind it. It just means I can’t explain it and if I can’t explain it later on, then oh well. It will remain a mystery.

How many times has humanity inserted God into a gap only to later find out the true cause of event x? Inserting God into every gap in my opinion kills all mystery and spontaneity. Humans in general do not like ambiguity and not knowing something because it makes them feel powerless. But I say there is power in knowing that you don’t know. Usually the dumbest folks are the ones who think they know everything. I like to use my intellect in ways where I can understand its limitations.

 

[Wrangler]

Assuming that it must be a god is a logical fallacy.

Not an assumption. Familiar with Occam's Razor? To recognize the existence of miracles but deny their supernatural cause is the basis for cognitive dissonance. Simple cause and effect.

But I think you owe it to yourself to read the Evidence to be Seen thread.

And I must say, if you knew more about the details of the miracle - and were open to the possibility that cause was supernatural - you might find it compelling. I could be wrong but it seems you are dismissing the cause of miracles based on philosophical grounds rather than educate yourself on the facts of the matter. Is that accurate?

 

[Wrangler]

How many times has humanity inserted God into a gap only to later find out the true cause of event x?

I think this is the fallacy of secularism.

Just because we can explain how an event ocurred does not make it any less miraculous.

My wife recently cut her eyelid nearly off. Given the circumstances, it is a miracle that she did not lose her eye. I doubt a surgeon, with one swing of his scapel could cut her thin eye lid - but not her eye. I guess this goes to probabilistic mechanics. At some point, the odds of something randomly happenig is too remote. Again, I say that I do not have enough faith to be an atheist.

 

[Wrangler]

I like to use my intellect in ways where I can understand its limitations.

You should watch the vid on the Shroud of Turin in the Evidence to Be Seen thread.

The Shroud is a unique 3D image. The geometric scientists at the university in Italy discovered it is not one image but several images made through the depth of the cloth. Various changes in the orientation of the foot, location of coins, belt and thorax are consistent with movement. Other than the foot, the movement is consistent with ... with a breath. How does your intellect process that?

 

[Romanov2488]

Not an assumption. Familiar with Occam's Razor? To recognize the existence of miracles but deny their supernatural cause is the basis for cognitive dissonance. Simple cause and effect.

But I think you owe it to yourself to read the Evidence to be Seen thread.

And I must say, if you knew more about the details of the miracle - and were open to the possibility that cause was supernatural - you might find it compelling. I could be wrong but it seems you are dismissing the cause of miracles based on philosophical grounds rather than educate yourself on the facts of the matter. Is that accurate?

I disagree because there have been many times when we called something a miracle only to later find out the true cause of it. Human beings used to believe that earthquakes and lightning were supernatural, for example.

It’s not that I’m not open to the cause of something being supernatural, it’s that I’m not going to rule out all other possibilities in favor of the supernatural. That’s bias.

Occam’s razor is often stated as an injunction not to make more assumptions than you absolutely need. Occam’s razor is often fetishized and misapplied as a guiding beacon for scientific enquiry. It is invoked in the same spirit as that attested by Newton, who went on to claim that “Nature does nothing in vain, and more is in vain, when less will serve.” Occam’s Razor is non-operational in practice and should be dropped from any kind of a rational argument. Occam’s razor for example can be used to prove that the earth is flat, an incredibly simplistic assumption.

 

[Wrangler]

It’s not that I’m not open to the cause of something being supernatural, it’s that I’m not going to rule out all other possibilities

It seems like you are ruling out the possibility of a supernatural cause until all other possible causes have been proven to not apply. And even then, you seem more biased toward ‘being comfortable’ in the ambiguity of not knowing.

Your own mind is your idol, it seems.

 

[Romanov2488]

It seems like you are ruling out the possibility of a supernatural cause until all other possible causes have been proven to not apply. And even then, you seem more biased toward ‘being comfortable’ in the ambiguity of not knowing.

Your own mind is your idol, it seems.

No, I don’t rule out the possibility of a supernatural cause…but you seem to rule out all other possibilities in which the same could be said about yourself, “Your mind is your idol.”

People usually avoid ambiguity because it’s actually more comfortable. It is more comfortable to avoid ambiguity in favor of a bulletproof explanation. Most scientists and most religious people dislike ambiguity, that I would say they have in common.

 

[Romanov2488]

You should watch the vid on the Shroud of Turin in the Evidence to Be Seen thread.

The Shroud is a unique 3D image. The geometric scientists at the university in Italy discovered it is not one image but several images made through the depth of the cloth. Various changes in the orientation of the foot, location of coins, belt and thorax are consistent with movement. Other than the foot, the movement is consistent with ... with a breath. How does your intellect process that?

Pope Clement Vll declared it was fake over 600 years ago. Some scientists claim it is medieval forgery. There is endless debate regarding the Shroud. I’m not siding with anyone because I don’t know the truth about the Shroud. It’s another mystery in and of itself. Unfortunately I would be a disappointment to both sides here.

 

[Wrangler]

No, I don’t rule out the possibility of a supernatural cause…but you seem to rule out all other possibilities in which the same could be said about yourself, “Your mind is your idol.”

LOL I only said there are miracles. You are the one that is convicted by this, feeling the need to go down the rabbit hole of causes other than the one you don't want to believe in.

Is a professor came out with an outlandish natural cause for something, with charts and graphs and delved into the measuring devices, you'd believe that because "Science", right? In the JFK movie, Kevin Costner said in a court that that quanum theory tells you that an elephant can hang over the edge of a cliff holding onto a daisy BUT USE COMMON SENSE. Do you know that scene? Funny.

 

[Wrangler]

It’s another mystery in and of itself

Come and see the evidence. Watch the video of the spatial relations and geometry experts from the university of Italy.

There is overwhelming evidence in support of the existence of God. You only need to see it for yourself.

Pope Clement Vll declared it was fake over 600 years ago.

This article says only that somone wrote the Pope, claiming it was a forgery. Do you really believe Pope's are in the business of undermining faith? You believe that but not in the cause of miracles. Wow.

 

[Dropship]

…I’m an atheist agnostic. It’s negative enough in itself to say that Satan exists (without evidence) and that there’s a place of eternal torment called hell, again..without evidence....
To me when you say nonChristians pump out their negative vibes…that means you are referring to the discomfort of having to question your beliefs or them questioning yours...
Why is religion so preoccupied with what comes after death? Would religion even be a thing if death didn’t exist?

1- Forget the word "religion" and think "Jesus" mate, he's the rock solid foundation on which Christianity is built..:)
Surely it must grab you the way he waltzed into the temple and blew the snooty priests out of the water?-
HIGH PRIEST- "Jesus of Nazareth, alias the Christ, the Messiah and the Son of God, you stand accused of upsetting us real bad, how do you plead?"
JESUS- "On yer bike Jack!"



He broke the stranglehold of the snoots on the people by saying "The world wants you to dance to its tune....God has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners...to release the oppressed" (Matthew 11:16-17,Luke 4:18)
and the people lurved him to bits for setting them free-
"Jesus saved you from the empty way of life handed you by your forefathers" (1 Peter 1:18)

2- The negative vibes I was talking about is the "spiritual pollution" churned out by nonchristians, just look at the mess they're making of the world like I say in my sig..:)

3- Not only did Jesus ruffle the estab's feathers bigtime, but he went the extra mile and told us how to get off this planet when our bodies die, so in that respect he was like Royce in Predators, what a guy..:)-

 

[Romanov2488]

LOL I only said there are miracles. You are the one that is convicted by this, feeling the need to go down the rabbit hole of causes other than the one you don't want to believe in.

Is a professor came out with an outlandish natural cause for something, with charts and graphs and delved into the measuring devices, you'd believe that because "Science", right? In the JFK movie, Kevin Costner said in a court that that quanum theory tells you that an elephant can hang over the edge of a cliff holding onto a daisy BUT USE COMMON SENSE. Do you know that scene? Funny.

And I only said that those miracles are not necessarily caused by God. This is a Christian forum after all and you’re talking about miracles. I brought the cause of those miracles into question to see where you stand out of curiosity and to no surprise of mine of course…there was no hesitation on your behalf in refuting the possibility of a cause other than God which is why you tried to bring up Occam’s Razor (which I’ve addressed as being commonly misused). It was a valid argument because like I have previously mentioned, there where many instances where we once thought something was a miracle until we found out later on that it wasn’t the case. Children think magic tricks are miracles…until they’re shown how it was performed. I have not asserted that God can never be the cause of any miracles, but simply planted the possibility that a miracle does not automatically necessitate God as its cause-it was to coax critical thinking.

In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since failing explanations can always be burdened with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they tend to be more testable.

 

[McFearless]

1- No I'm not proposing to stop sin with law, I take the view that if they're hellbound it serves them right..:)
It's fine of course to try to help Jesus-rejecters see the light, but the time comes when we shouldn't waste any more time on them if they won't listen..:)-
"The Jews argued with him, so Paul said 'I'm clear of my responsibility' and left" (Acts of the Apostles 18:6-7)
"What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever?..Come out from among them and be separate, says the Lord, I will be a Father to you, and you shall be my sons and daughters" (2 Corinthians 6:14-18 )
"He who walks with the wise grows wise, but a companion of fools suffers harm" (Proverbs 13:20)
Jesus said-"If any place will not welcome you or listen to you, shake the dust off your feet when you leave, as a testimony against them" (Mark 6:11)
"Speak not in the ears of a fool: for he will despise the wisdom of thy words" (Proverbs 23:9)

2- When nonchristians unholy bad vibes trigger the San Andreas fault into letting one rip, many innocent Christians will be collateral damage.

What you just quoted makes no sense democratically. Of course we should wipe the dust off our feet if people won’t listen to the word of God, but you are surely not proposing to abolishing evangelism and count all sinners (collectively) lost for good? Christian’s used to represent a a counter culture in opposition to the way of the world. If we part take in the whole ordeal. We can’t really complain about the unfairness in society if we are a part of that unfairness. In democracy we won’t ever find justice, only a perverted version of it. We should stick to the low..

 

[Romanov2488]

1- Forget the word "religion" and think "Jesus" mate, he's the rock solid foundation on which Christianity is built..:)
Surely it must grab you the way he waltzed into the temple and blew the snooty priests out of the water?-
HIGH PRIEST- "Jesus of Nazareth, alias the Christ, the Messiah and the Son of God, you stand accused of upsetting us real bad, how do you plead?"
JESUS- "On yer bike Jack!"

View attachment 25009

He broke the stranglehold of the snoots on the people by saying "The world wants you to dance to its tune....God has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners...to release the oppressed" (Matthew 11:16-17,Luke 4:18)
and the people lurved him to bits for setting them free-
"Jesus saved you from the empty way of life handed you by your forefathers" (1 Peter 1:18)

2- The negative vibes I was talking about is the "spiritual pollution" churned out by nonchristians, just look at the mess they're making of the world like I say in my sig..:)

3- Not only did Jesus ruffle the estab's feathers bigtime, but he went the extra mile and told us how to get off this planet when our bodies die, so in that respect he was like Royce in Predators, what a guy..:)-

Spiritual pollution as in New Age? I think New Age arose out of the disputes and conflicts between religions claiming exclusivity while still attempting to preserve classical concepts such as God, Satan, etc. whilst changing their meanings. One can still worship Jesus without excluding everyone else who don’t as “lost or damned”. I think that is the entire basis of something called ‘Progressive Christianity’. They hold Jesus in high regard while acknowledging there are also other paths. Regarding what Jesus said about being the way and the truth, they usually look at that as a parable or metaphor if I’m not mistaken.

 

[Wrangler]

And I only said that those miracles are not necessarily caused by God.

Yea, yea. You did not answer my question about the JFK movie. Did you ever see it?

Occam’s Razor is not an argument but a principle. To apply it to directions, the most direct route is usually preferred. The simplest explanation is preferred.

there was no hesitation on your behalf in refuting the possibility of a cause other than God

You misunderstand me. I'm not refuting that only God could have achieved the miracle. That is an argument. I am saying God did perform the miracle, not through argument but witness or testimony.

 

[Romanov2488]

Yea, yea. You did not answer my question about the JFK movie. Did you ever see it?

Occam’s Razor is not an argument but a principle. To apply it to directions, the most direct route is usually preferred. The simplest explanation is preferred.



You misunderstand me. I'm not refuting that only God could have achieved the miracle. That is an argument. I am saying God did perform the miracle, not through argument but witness or testimony.

No, I have not seen the JFK movie. And you wrongly assume that I would take science as gospel in your scenario of a professor making outlandish claims. Science is a reliable tool, but it’s not perfect. You would think I’m for Dr. Fauci, the CDC and the vaccine-I’m not.

And no, I don’t believe 100% what Pope Clement said or others saying the Shroud is medieval forgery. I am skeptical of everything, my main point is that there is endless debate regarding the Shroud. You said popes are not in the business of undermining faith yet many Catholics would disagree with you on that regarding Francis. My question is, do you really believe popes have your best interest in mind?

Let me make this clear. I’m not only skeptical of religion, but also science and anything that is called ‘evidence’. I hold 0 beliefs because in the end I know that I know nothing. Logic and science are tools, they are not set in stone and infallible. I always like to leave some room for not knowing. You said I take comfort in not knowing, I disagree. Not knowing is less comfortable than holding onto a belief that can be shaken. To me, everything is relative.