Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Misty]

Yes it would. Religions keep changing their definitions to counter advances in science & philosophy. It's not that long ago that the bible was described by Christians as word for word, the literal truth. Now you get senior churchmen saying that a lot of it is a metaphor. This will keep on happening. No matter what discoveries are made by science, religions will change their reasoning, because a belief in a supernatural entity is a need that's within some people.

Economics did not get in the way of Christianity flourishing. I am sure the Amish people have not had their head in the sand, but have plans that address their survival as the economy changes.

Most religions change when enlightened with new information. Your example of senior churchmen is nothing new. Various opinions have been around since the birth of humans.

[Rederic]

Most religions change when enlightened with new information. Your example of senior churchmen is nothing new. Various opinions have been around since the birth of humans

.

But what of Christianity. The New Testament is the absolute bedrock of your faith. I've heard churchmen question the virgin birth & various miracles supposedly performed by Jesus. How do you decide what is just a story & what is truth?

[Misty]

.

But what of Christianity. The New Testament is the absolute bedrock of your faith. I've heard churchmen question the virgin birth & various miracles supposedly performed by Jesus. How do you decide what is just a story & what is truth?

Excellent question. The answer is as diverse as conversions. I, for instance, believe that anything inconsistent with love is either misunderstood, or tampered with by mankind. I am sure I would believe God if there were no bible. It occurred to me while a young child that my very life and the world around me was/is the work of a higher power. Truth is my existence and all that is around me. Truth is also my death. The bible helps me make sense of some things. When people say Jesus is the only way is true. But, I think of it differently than traditional Christians. He is the only way because he built the bridge between mankind and God for all to cross. It is the faith Jesus portrayed and not that of man that reunites man with God.

[Rederic]

The answer is as diverse as conversions. I, for instance, believe that anything inconsistent with love is either misunderstood, or tampered with by mankind. I am sure I would believe God if there were no bible. It occurred to me while a young child that my very life and the world around me was/is the work of a higher power. Truth is my existence and all that is around me. Truth is also my death. The bible helps me make sense of some things. When people say Jesus is the only way is true. But, I think of it differently than traditional Christians. He is the only way because he built the bridge between mankind and God for all to cross. It is the faith Jesus portrayed and not that of man that reunites man with God.

I'm a simple man, I work with my hands. None of this makes any sense to me.

[Fanman]

Xris,

Xris wrote: You have constantly asked me to provide links to my claims and now it is your turn. Give me a link that proves conclusively that your claims are true. Prove to me that your god exists?

Oh, so you your notion here is "tit for tat," how mature of you... Unfortunately, I cannot prove to you that God exists. I have tried before and failed miserably, so I'm not going to go around in circles with you. This isn't even the appropriate topic of discussion to do so. Bear in mind Xris, that belief in God requires a degree of faith, as you don't have any faith what-so-ever, I don't think that there is any chance of you believing in God. No matter what 'evidence' I provide.

[Misty]

I am a simple man. I work with my hands. None of this makes any sense to me.

Simple in what way? You write well and seem honest, so I do not see you as simple. All people use their hands to work or play, that is if they have hands. I wish i could articulate what I mean so you understood. Maybe in time. What is important for you is what you think, as you are living your life.

[Xris]

Xris,



Oh, so you your notion here is "tit for tat," how mature of you... Unfortunately, I cannot prove to you that God exists. I have tried before and failed miserably, so I'm not going to go around in circles with you. This isn't even the appropriate topic of discussion to do so. Bear in mind Xris, that belief in God requires a degree of faith, as you don't have any faith what-so-ever, I don't think that there is any chance of you believing in God. No matter what 'evidence' I provide.

Fanman you fail to understand how most atheist see the belief in god as no less ludicrous than the belief in fairies or that the moon is made of cheese. You want precise details on my post about the Amish but you can not imagine why your god should not be placed under the same scrutiny. You had no faith in my report on the Amish but you expect me to accept your god, just because you had an experience. I was abducted by aliens, I was forced to indulge in a sexual practice. I am now the proud father of six humanoid children. Do you believe me? It is a principle you have accepted. A principle that believers can indulge in the most outrageous claims, while us heathens have to give collaborating evidence for the simplest of arguments.

[Maldon007]

I dont think he asked you to accept his god. As stated and as is obvious, no proof exists or can exist, beyond a reasonable doubt. But you were asked for details about a clearly earthly phenomenon that should have some easily aquired exidence, if true.

But instead of just adding a link, as usual, you drag the discussion miles off course with nonsense. And as usual you equivicate for whatever reason. Good job.

[Fanman]

Xris,

Xris wrote: Fanman you fail to understand how most atheist see the belief in god as no less ludicrous than the belief in fairies or that the moon is made of cheese. You want precise details on my post about the Amish but you can not imagine why your god should not be placed under the same scrutiny. You had no faith in my report on the Amish but you expect me to accept your god, just because you had an experience. I was abducted by aliens, I was forced to indulge in a sexual practice. I am now the proud father of six humanoid children. Do you believe me? It is a principle you have accepted. A principle that believers can indulge in the most outrageous claims, while us heathens have to give collaborating evidence for the simplest of arguments.

Oh, what makes you think that I "fail to understand" how atheists perceive the concept of God, and belief in God, what have I said which gives you that impression? Once again you are making assertions and then challenging them... I merely asked you to support your claims with evidence, which you did, so what is the big deal? One would expect evidence based argument on a philosophy forum. I have no problem with God being placed under scrutiny, again, what did I do which gave you that impression that I did? I am not expecting you to believe in God based upon the strength of my personal experiences; once again that is your assertion. You don't seem to be taking on board the point that I am attempting to hammer home: Faith is required to believe in God. Without faith, there is no belief in God it is that simple. Theists will augment their faith with personal experiences and their ideas about why God exists, however these 'proofs' and ideas are not accepted as evidence of God's existence.

In the book of Isaiah (54:17) there is a prophecy concerning the servants of the Lord, it states: “No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD.” This prophecy came true in my life. Therefore, I believe that the fulfilment of this prophecy in my life constitutes evidence that God exists. Without faith, I don't think that many people would agree with me.

[Xris]

Fanman. I appreciate your points but please do not assume that every time I make a comment on a particular topic I am required to prove that point from some link on the net. We all know that every link has a bias and no one can truly prove the point being made. If I have watched a programme or read an article that has impressed me I will not use that dishonestly to simply make my views more valid.Thanks xris.

[Fanman]

Xris,

Fanman. I appreciate your points but please do not assume that every time I make a comment on a particular topic I am required to prove that point from some link on the net. We all know that every link has a bias and no one can truly prove the point being made. If I have watched a programme or read an article that has impressed me I will not use that dishonestly to simply make my views more valid.Thanks xris.

In post #423 you stated: “The Amish are encountering profound problems. Land in America has suddenly become a scarcity and as families grow they have to change their agricultural heritage. How do they maintain a dogma that relies on certain basic concepts? It is in crisis and the only way is to look beyond their confines and they are ill prepared. Indoctrination has limited their ability to adjust and adapt.”

I replied to you in post #426, I stated: “I am curious, where did you get this information from? The documentary that I watched about the Armish community never mentioned any of the problems that you have cited. In what ways has indoctrination "limited their ability to adjust and adapt." Do you have any examples?”

What was wrong with my response? Should I just accept what you say as gospel truth? This is a forum full of debate and questioning. If you are going to make claims, you should expect people to ask you to substantiate them, and to challenge them. I don't think that all links are biased, some will be and others will be objective. Also, I never said that you were being dishonest, that is your assertion.

[Xris]

Well looking back I was probably responding to others insistence, rather than yours. So I must apologize Fanman for my over reaction to your request.

[Bermudj]

Well looking back I was probably responding to others insistence, rather than yours. So I must apologize Fanman for my over reaction to your request.

True apologies are acts of courage.

[Fanman]

Xris,

There's no need to apologise, but thanks. These things happen.

[Stephengoswami]

Lower type of loveless people compensate by terror and lower emotions. They abuse all not only children. If they repent and go to learn love from a teacher they shall be corrected while courts’ punishment never corrects