Jump to content

What Would it Take for You to Believe in God?


Enon Bengal

Recommended Posts

Are there documented cases where the language has been identified as one unknown to the speaker? It doesn't take much to flop around going "deeba dabba dooba dabba" so the connection to divine influence seems like a stretch. What purpose would God have in making someone spout gibberish? Why not make them recite scripture in Aramaic or the like? And why does this only seem to happen to members of churches where this sort of thing is not only accepted but encouraged? Point being, it'd be a lot more interesting if the hand of God had reached down and made Obama do this during the State of the Union Address.

 

 

 

http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/g/speakingtongues.htm

 

 

Go to a Church where they speak tongues. It isn't just jibberish. 

They actually have interpreters. 

Learn more about it or I might have to call you "ignorant" :ninja: 

 

My Mamaw told me she used to speak in tongues before she ever attended a Church.

I seen her do it while she was just sitting around talking about God. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
 
I should have known better.   You can believe angels hold up the wings of an airplane as it flies over the midwest.  You would be patently wrong.  This extends to evolution.  You clearly don't understand it and I don't feel bad telling you that, you are ignorant.  I did not address you as ignorant at first, I asked a reasonable question.  You responded with nonsense so don't get pissy when someone calls you on bullshit and hide behind "i just came to state my beliefs."  You responded, and therefore engaged (not just stated) and openly divulged how much you don't know.  I'm willing to talk about what I believe, I haven't really done much of that in this thread, despite what you've assumed-gotten angry about-and subsequently ranted about.  There's room for a higher power in my view of the universe, though I believe it operates just fine without one.


Sorry, bro, but all you have shown is that your bias for scientific idea is as bigotted as a teavangeliban's religion. Your ignorance is simply rooted in scientific bullshit. Religious people see miracles, scientist see theories and both act like it's black or white. I see the divinity in science and the science in divinity, because both are simply man's way of understanding that they cannot understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://christianity.about.com/od/glossary/g/speakingtongues.htm

 

 

Go to a Church where they speak tongues. It isn't just jibberish. 

They actually have interpreters. 

 

I went to a Pentecostal service once & witnessed it first hand, along with people falling out and flailing around on the floor.  In some churches everyone kneels and in some they roll in the aisles, either way it struck me as a learned group behavior.  For a member of clergy to then "interpret" it as having religious significance doesn't really confirm anything to me. These are the same folks who have no problem telling people that God came to them and told them their congregation needs to buy them a new Cadillac.  For them to say the noises someone is making mean this or that isn't very convincing; it's self-serving and exactly what you'd expect them to say. If one interpreted it to mean the congregation should find their own path to God and spend more time doing good works and less time worshiping I might put more stock in it.

 

I'm not dismissing the possibility of it being divine, but I've never once seen it happen in any other church service. Yet I go to one Pentecostal service and it's happening left and right? The Pentecostals would tell you this is because they're the only "true" Christians, but I think it's more likely that "speaking in tongues" is as much a part of the performance as Communion is in others.

 

In other words I'm not denying that it happens, but I question its importance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes you should have. 

 

By the way, thanks for telling me what I can believe. What a relief. 

 

Anyway, to answer your question that you posed to me earlier, Yes, I think it makes sense 

and is plausible that life would be expected to thrive and evolve under the medium. 

 

But considering that 1) I have witnessed Family members and others being touched by the power 

of God first hand. 2) I choose to believe in a higher power rather than to say "It just happened."

3) I would rather be called ignorant, uneducated or whatever insults you or  whoever wants to throw at me

than be wrong about a God, that is just as plausible and feasible as your THEORY.

 

You see, I never said you were wrong. Never insulted your intelligence, hell, I didn't even address you at all until

you felt the need to address me after my initial post. When I responded I asked rhetorical questions and said

"we can go back and forth like this all day." 

 

Just because we don't share the same views does not make me ignorant. I think you are ignorant

for thinking so. I guess I hit a nerve with "what my Dad told me." I really don't care. I didn't share my

views as a shot towards anyone. And I sure as hell ain't going to sit here and take anyone's shots

because of it.  Believe that. 

 

Believe what you want. It makes no difference to me. I just shared my views. Never once did I mention

Jesus, Angels or anything of the like. So who's ignorant? That's right, you are. You made an argument

out of nothing. I swear I hate this fucking board sometimes. 

 

 

When you want to share your undeniable, indisputable proof, the rest of the World will be indebted to you.

Until then, eat shit, fuck off, suck a dick and Fuck you. 

 

Seriously. I'm not kidding, 

This area of the forum is not for you, you've shown that over and over again.  Your fundamental misunderstanding of evolution is highlighted in bold.  Evolution makes no fucking claims one way or the other about any of that, just like I haven't in this thread.  But you are so much in the dark about this that you keep thinking I'm talking about all life arising from nothing (which is my belief, but I haven't begun to elaborate that here) instead of the reality that I've been asserting that the mechanisms of evolution (selection, mutation, flow, and drift) exist no matter how hard one doesn't want them too.  And in this mis-understanding you've extrapolated it out to me proving there is no god.  The machinery of evolution is as understood and predictable as the science behind lift in aeronautics...hence the angels example.  You can have your belief that we didn't evolve from a common ancestor, but you're wrong much the same way one would be if they believed prayer is the effective mechanism behind vaccinations.

 

Glad you answered my original question, that's really all I wanted when I posted.  Not sure why you keep thinking I attacked your dad or named your father on purpose, I was trying to illustrate that the knowledge of the scientific community is more correct about the subject of evolution than what someone has heard from their pastor, sunday school teacher, parents, or fox news.  I remember when your father passed away, I apologize for hitting a nerve, but if you weren't so caught up in being angry at everything I post you'd see there was a point behind that line.  I've also witnessed plenty of people talk in tongues, while I was on religious retreats no less, and it was the first event that caused me to begin losing my faith.

 

Again, you said "if we evolved from monkeys, why are they still here?" (paraphrasing)  That line is what has brought us this far.  That line is the one thing I took offense too because its a blatant misunderstanding of the subject and despite your backtracking about missing links, one who understands the process would never utter that first line.  I keep trying to talk specifically about evolution and you keep confusing that to mean everything from nothing-no god-fuck you.  

IIRC you have two young children, twins maybe?  Did you vaccinate them?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, bro, but all you have shown is that your bias for scientific idea is as bigotted as a teavangeliban's religion. Your ignorance is simply rooted in scientific bullshit. Religious people see miracles, scientist see theories and both act like it's black or white. I see the divinity in science and the science in divinity, because both are simply man's way of understanding that they cannot understand.

No actually you're making the same mistakes Oldschooler is making.  I haven't begun to talk about world view, just the fact that the mechanisms of evolution are alive and well and undeniable.  You both are the ones that are can't rectify a world with Evolution and god, not me hence your on to my love of "scientific bullshit."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This area of the forum is not for you, you've shown that over and over again.  Your fundamental misunderstanding of evolution is highlighted in bold.  Evolution makes no fucking claims one way or the other about any of that, just like I haven't in this thread.  But you are so much in the dark about this that you keep thinking I'm talking about all life arising from nothing (which is my belief, but I haven't begun to elaborate that here) instead of the reality that I've been asserting that the mechanisms of evolution (selection, mutation, flow, and drift) exist no matter how hard one doesn't want them too.  And in this mis-understanding you've extrapolated it out to me proving there is no god.  The machinery of evolution is as understood and predictable as the science behind lift in aeronautics...hence the angels example.  You can have your belief that we didn't evolve from a common ancestor, but you're wrong much the same way one would be if they believed prayer is the effective mechanism behind vaccinations.

 

Glad you answered my original question, that's really all I wanted when I posted.  Not sure why you keep thinking I attacked your dad or named your father on purpose, I was trying to illustrate that the knowledge of the scientific community is more correct about the subject of evolution than what someone has heard from their pastor, sunday school teacher, parents, or fox news.  I remember when your father passed away, I apologize for hitting a nerve, but if you weren't so caught up in being angry at everything I post you'd see there was a point behind that line.  I've also witnessed plenty of people talk in tongues, while I was on religious retreats no less, and it was the first event that caused me to begin losing my faith.

 

Again, you said "if we evolved from monkeys, why are they still here?" (paraphrasing)  That line is what has brought us this far.  That line is the one thing I took offense too because its a blatant misunderstanding of the subject and despite your backtracking about missing links, one who understands the process would never utter that first line.  I keep trying to talk specifically about evolution and you keep confusing that to mean everything from nothing-no god-fuck you.  

IIRC you have two young children, twins maybe?  Did you vaccinate them?  

 

 

 

Wait. You took "offense" to me saying something about monkeys, but I am not supposed to take offense over 

you saying something about my Dad? Allllllllllllrighty then. 

 

 

Look at the thread title. It says What would it take for YOU to believe in God.

I posted my thoughts and beliefs and then was called ignorant and uneducated. lol 

 

This forum is for me as much as anyone. I can't help it people want to be assholes

after I state my opinion. 

 

Good day to you sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read today that you shouldn't call anyone "father". It was in Matthew, maybe chapter 25... somewhere in there.

I don't think it was referring to father as in dad but Catholicism father. Kinda cool. Kinda different. Didn't know about it.

 

I've heard that too and some people believe that.

 

http://bible.cc/matthew/23-9.htm

 

Matthew 23:9

 

New International Version (©1984)
And do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
New Living Translation (©2007)
And don't address anyone here on earth as 'Father,' for only God in heaven is your spiritual Father.

English Standard Version (©2001)
And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven.

Holman Christian Standard Bible (©2009)
Do not call anyone on earth your father, because you have one Father, who is in heaven.

International Standard Version (©2012)
And don't call anyone on earth 'Father,' because you have only one Father, the one in heaven.

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Aramaic Bible in Plain English (©2010)
And you should not call yourselves “Father”, in the earth, for one is your Father who is in Heaven.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
And don't call anyone on earth your father, because you have only one Father, and he is in heaven.

King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, who is in heaven.

American King James Version
And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

American Standard Version
And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, even he who is in heaven.

Douay-Rheims Bible
And call none your father upon earth; for one is your father, who is in heaven.

Darby Bible Translation
And call not any one your father upon the earth; for one is your Father, he who is in the heavens.

English Revised Version
And call no man your father on the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Webster's Bible Translation
And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father who is in heaven.

Weymouth New Testament
And call no one on earth your Father, for One alone is your Father--the Heavenly Father.

World English Bible
Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven.

Young's Literal Translation
 and ye may not call any your father on the earth, for one is your Father, who is in the heavens,

This does not, of course, forbid us to apply the term to our real father.

And call no man your father upon the earth,.... Not but that children may, and should call their natural parents, fathers;

 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father

 

Actually gives a fairly decent explanation of the question and goes more in depth than just what I provide;

 

Joseph said: "So it was not you who sent me here, but God; and he has made me a father to Pharaoh.  (Gen. 45:8)

Job said:   "I was a father to the poor, and I searched out the cause of him whom I did not know" (Job 29:16).

God said of Eliakim:  I will clothe him with [a] robe, and will bind [a] girdle on him, and will commit . . . authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah" (Is. 22:20–21).

the imperative "call no man father" does not apply to one’s biological father. It also doesn’t exclude calling one’s ancestors "father," as is shown in Acts 7:2, where Stephen refers to "our father Abraham," or in Romans 9:10, where Paul speaks of "our father Isaac."

a careful examination of the context of Matthew 23 shows that Jesus didn’t intend for his words here to be understood literally. The whole passage reads, "But you are not to be called ‘rabbi,’ for you have one teacher, and you are all brethren. And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. Neither be called ‘masters,’ for you have one master, the Christ" (Matt. 23:8–10).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No actually you're making the same mistakes Oldschooler is making.  I haven't begun to talk about world view, just the fact that the mechanisms of evolution are alive and well and undeniable.  You both are the ones that are can't rectify a world with Evolution and god, not me hence your on to my love of "scientific bullshit."


Sorry, bro, but your ideas are based in the same idea structure as those who have always been persecuted by the church, and at the same time, persecuted the church. You cannot imagine an existence where Evolution and God don't contradict each other, while I think they are both proof of the other. I fully and totally believe that the bible that me and all of my Christian friends read is simply the interpretations of men of that they did not understand. I also believe that science is simply the works of men to try to understand that which they do not understand. Both believe in a deity that provides answers, for the Christians it's God, for the Sciencetians it's Logic. Old at least seems willing to entertain portions of your thought, but you don't seem to believe that you owe him the same GRACE.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sciencetian's




I put more faith in a thermometer or barometer than I do a Bible when trying to predict the weather. For areas where Doppler radar is unavailable the Bible might be more useful but I still might trade it for a map and compass. Logic isn't the same as faith. Faith and Holy Books are there for us where logic fails. The collection that became the Bible has a long, unpleasant history but I consider it about equal with what I've read of scripture from other major religions. In my mind they're all theories about the same thing. Theories that can't be proven using a thermometer.

That's the difference between science and religion, one is verifiable and one is a question of faith. Where one contradicts the other I'm going to accept that the ancient book I'm reading must have lost something in translation. Science doesn't require faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I put more faith in a thermometer or barometer than I do a Bible when trying to predict the weather. For areas where Doppler radar is unavailable the Bible might be more useful but I still might trade it for a map and compass. Logic isn't the same as faith. Faith and Holy Books are there for us where logic fails. The collection that became the Bible has a long, unpleasant history but I consider it about equal with what I've read of scripture from other major religions. In my mind they're all theories about the same thing. Theories that can't be proven using a thermometer.
That's the difference between science and religion, one is verifiable and one is a question of faith. Where one contradicts the other I'm going to accept that the ancient book I'm reading must have lost something in translation. Science doesn't require faith.


But isn't logic just the things you believe until proved different? In the 1400's, it was quite logical to believe that the sun revolved around the earth. In the 1900's, it was quite logical to think that heavier than air contraptions couldn't fly. In the 1970's, it was quite logical to think that we couldn't transfer data from one place to another basically instantaneously. Who knows what things that are totally logical today, will be proven to be utterly illogical tomorrow? To me, the evidence of god is in man's ability to learn and create. The bible says that man was created in God's image. He created, and therefore we can create as well. Adam and Eve didn't eat from the tree of immortality, they ate from the tree of knowledge.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've heard that too and some people believe that.

 

http://bible.cc/matthew/23-9.htm

 

 

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/call-no-man-father

 

Actually gives a fairly decent explanation of the question and goes more in depth than just what I provide;

 

So what is you guy's interpretation of that? As you know, Catholics refer to the pope as "our holy father" - and even call the local priests 'father'. Seems pretty straightforward to me in that respect...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what is you guy's interpretation of that? As you know, Catholics refer to the pope as "our holy father" - and even call the local priests 'father'. Seems pretty straightforward to me in that respect...

 

I doubt you would get what would be considered a straight answer on "interpretation."

 

http://wisdom4today.org/wisdom/is-the-bible-subject-to-interpretation/

 

Is the Bible subject to interpretation?

 

Most people, when asked, will say that the reason we have so many denominations is because the Bible is subject to interpretation. When considering why we have so many denominations, they are right to a point. The reason we have so many denominations is because people interpret the Bible their own way, not because it is subject to interpretation. For the Bible to be “subject” to interpretation, would literally mean that the Bible is supposed to be interpreted according to man’s wisdom, not God’s.

 

..........................

 

When considering all of these questions, studying of God’s Word will not only result in better understanding, it will result in a closer relationship with the Lord.

In conclusion, is the Bible subject to private interpretation? The answer Biblically is no.

 

In other words, the Bible is not subject to interpretation but is subject to studying to obtain a better understanding.

 

IMHO, interpretation causes many conflicts within a community such as the subject of abortion, homosexuality, violence, etc...  When people (religious, political, etc...) utilize some version of a religious phrase or deity to justify something (war, laws, stance, persecution, etc...) it always causes some concern in my eyes... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But isn't logic just the things you believe until proved different?


In a word, no. Science and logic are based in reason and observable, verifiable fact. It's not a parable about a woman being made out of a dude's rib and them being misled by a talking snake. If that seems as legit to you as the laws of thermodynamics I invite you to place one hand on your stove and the other on your Bible before arguing the point any further.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In a word, no. Science and logic are based in reason and observable, verifiable fact. It's not a parable about a woman being made out of a dude's rib and them being misled by a talking snake. If that seems as legit to you as the laws of thermodynamics I invite you to place one hand on your stove and the other on your Bible before arguing the point any further.

Science is base on reason and observation, but it is also the interpretation of fact, that's why most aspects are called theories.  It's how we believe things are, what are understanding allows us to understand.  I'm a chemist by education, so I do understand science, and I understand that the best scientists are ALWAYS trying to find new answers for the things you quantify as FACTS today.  Your dislike of "God" is simply founded in your inability to understand, just like some of the things written in the bible were based on their inability to understand.

 

By the way, I piss the religious scholars off just as much as I piss you off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15535211.jpg

Pissed off? I thought I was having a moderately interesting theological discussion. If that was supposed to be trolling I think you're doing it wrong.

I don't troll.  being a couple of days, I probably remember some of Nuts comments instead of yours.  if you want to continue, feel free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...