Christian faith: Calvinism is back

[Noir]

I would consider them wrong, but not necessarily a crack pot.
I think the actress Shirley McClain is kind of a crack pot who believe in Crystal power but not everyone who believes in Crystals or the new age religions are crack pots most are just mistaken average folks.

Well there you are, you believe that other people are wrong (and in some case crack pots) because their religion (based on faith in the ommision of proof) does jot agree with your religion (based on faith in the ommission of proof)
However, if someone says 'the sun revolves around the earth' we know they are a crackpop/ignorent because by using science we can prove them wrong. This is a difference between science and relgion.

(but again I sate we can only know they are wrong within our own undertsanding, which we must take as a given as we can only understand what is in essence understandable. Reminds me of a quote (possibly by B. Russel), is the universe queerer than we suppose or queerer than we can suppose? However that is a very deep philosophical question and as such has no place in this topic.)

[darin]

Apparently not...

lol! Touche!

[revelarts]

Well there you are, you believe that other people are wrong (and in some case crack pots) because their religion (based on faith in the ommision of proof) does jot agree with your religion (based on faith in the ommission of proof)
However, if someone says 'the sun revolves around the earth' we know they are a crackpop/ignorent because by using science we can prove them wrong. This is a difference between science and relgion.

(but again I sate we can only know they are wrong within our own undertsanding, which we must take as a given as we can only understand what is in essence understandable. Reminds me of a quote (possibly by B. Russel), is the universe queerer than we suppose or queerer than we can suppose? However that is a very deep philosophical question and as such has no place in this topic.)

let me be clear, being wrong and being a crack pot are 2 totally separate things. At least in my thinking. And we got here because you made the claim that science was so superior to religion because it is open to questioning, but in a real world practical sense you know science is not.


"Based on Faith and the Ommission of proof" Um ... I think you added that part.
I'm not sure you will not accept evidence that substantiates religion because it's "religion". I could give you plenty of historical, medical and deductive evidences but your not really an unbiased seeker. seems You've made up your mind. If someone prayed for a person to rise from the dead in the Name of Jesus in front you and they did rise, I suspect you'd give it a scientific explanation and if none where available you'd leave it open for further scientific inquiry.

Sure my position admits to the idea of some people being wrong or right. But it's open to conversation "come let us reason together says the Lord" "the Brearans where more NOBLE" because the studied the scriptures to see if the things that Paul spoke of were so. I can debate a mormon about facts of there historical records, or J. Wittnesses about there fail prophesies, on a factual basis as well as the origin of there holy books. The fact may convince them maybe not but it doesn't make them crazy. Human beings have lots of motivations and triggers, Facts sadly aren't the only ones or the highest on the list.

But you say you can NEVER be sure..... BUT where current science says so, your not allowed to says science is wrong on certain points, but if you do your an idiot crack pot. Sounds like a bad religion with a changing scriptures to me.

At least my position gives people dignity to be wrong but not necessarily stupid or nuts. Yours makes people wrong, idiots and nigh on crazy if you don't believe the current "level of understanding" scientific position.

[SassyLady]

is this your question?


we don't set the limits.....we don't get to choose what brings about salvation....if God has told us that believing in Jesus Christ is necessary to be saved, what right to we have to say this is too limiting, that we should have other choices?.....


...if they have never read the Bible because they have chosen not to read the Bible then yes they have rejected God and his grace.....if they have never read the Bible because they live somewhere where they have been prevented from reading the Bible, then I expect he will work it out another way.....

obviously he has made no choices....he has not rejected God....

I totally disagree. Rejecting the Bible is not rejecting God. It is only rejecting a group of people's ideas about God.

instead of trying to play this as an injustice against third world tribes and six month old infants, please recognize you're just trying to justify the rejection of God by people who do have the knowledge and have made their choices.....you're criticizing me because I say God won't let people into heaven who HAVE rejected his existence......why should someone who refuses to believe he IS think it's wrong that they aren't included?......

I disagree with you because these are the premises upon which I base my belief system:

Nine New Revelations
The new revelations are contained in a series of nine statements that the book offers for readers to consider as they explore the possibility of changing their present beliefs about God and about Life.

These nine statements are:

1) God has never stopped communicating directly with human beings. God has been communicating with and through human beings from the beginning of time. God does so today.

2) Every human being is as special as every other human being who has ever lived, lives now, or ever will live. You are all messengers. Every one of you. You are carrying a message to life about life every day. Every hour. Every moment.

3) No path to God is more direct than any other path. No religion is the “one true religion”, no people are “the chosen people”, and no prophet is the “greatest prophet.”

4) God needs nothing. God requires nothing in order to be happy. God is happiness itself. Therefore, God requires nothing of anyone or anything in the universe.

5) God is not a singular Super Being, living somewhere in the Universe or outside of it, having the same emotional needs and subject to the same emotional turmoil as humans. That Which Is God cannot be hurt or damaged in any way, and so, has no need to seek revenge or impose punishment.

6) All things are One Thing. There is only One Thing, and all things are part of the One Thing That Is.

7) There is no such thing as Right and Wrong. There is only What Works and What Does Not Work, depending upon what it is that you seek to be, do or have.

8) You are not your body. Who you are is limitless and without end.

9) You cannot die, and you will never be condemned to eternal damnation.

From "The New Revelations" by Neale Donald Walsh, author of Conversations with God

[PostmodernProphet]

Because of the way you deal with people - even other Christians - is not showing the love of God, so it makes me doubt you know it yourself.

One can't show God's love when they themselves have never experienced it.

???....is there something in this thread that leads you to this conclusion......is it wrong to correct errors?......have I not demonstrated that what I have said is true, using linked sources?.....

I totally disagree. Rejecting the Bible is not rejecting God. It is only rejecting a group of people's ideas about God.

obviously, refusing to read about the God described in the bible is a rejection of the God described in the bible....you would therefore be considering only another group of people, or your own, ideas about God.....my own gut reaction is that a God capable of creating the universe would be capable of assuring that the Bible contained what he wanted it to......

I disagree with you because these are the premises upon which I base my belief system:

Do you believe that God will accept those who refuse to believe he exists?......

There is no such thing as Right and Wrong. There is only What Works and What Does Not Work, depending upon what it is that you seek to be, do or have.

Did Auschwitz "work"?........

[-Cp]

???....is there something in this thread that leads you to this conclusion......

Yes.. there is..... this little chestnut of "love":

.and when you get to the point where you tell me to stop calling myself a Christian, then I get to the point of telling you to fuck off.....I'll stick to debating with the rational posters....

[BoogyMan]

The over-reaction is yours...trying to equate science with Christianity. What specific branch of science is it you have a problem with btw? Are you accusing chemists of worshipping the elements? Maybe botanists are actually secretly worshipping the dandelion.

As I said...you're terrified.

I am? Wow, no clue I was terrified. I use scientific methodologies on a daily basis to do my work, and yet, here I am defending religion.

What I am equating is your FAITH in science as the answer to all things. There is a difference

[PostmodernProphet]

Yes.. there is..... this little chestnut of "love":

lol....so I haven't experienced God's love unless I embrace those who tell me I'm not fit to call myself a Christian?......

[Missileman]

I am? Wow, no clue I was terrified. I use scientific methodologies on a daily basis to do my work, and yet, here I am defending religion.

What I am equating is your FAITH in science as the answer to all things. There is a difference

As I've said, and you've argued against, faith is belief where no evidence exists. My belief in scientific principles is not a matter of faith. Science has yet to, and maybe it never will derive the answers to everything. That isn't a license to insert child-like, weak-minded superstition as a substitute for "we don't know".

[BoogyMan]

As I've said, and you've argued against, faith is belief where no evidence exists. My belief in scientific principles is not a matter of faith. Science has yet to, and maybe it never will derive the answers to everything. That isn't a license to insert child-like, weak-minded superstition as a substitute for "we don't know".

But your use of, how did you phrase it, "child-like, weak-minded superstition" is fine eh? Most of the scientific community today seems ill content to claim "we don't know." Consider the falsification of the peer review process in the climate change debacle as an excellent example of this.

I see the hypocriticality of your position and it amuses me.

[Missileman]

But your use of, how did you phrase it, "child-like, weak-minded superstition" is fine eh? Most of the scientific community today seems ill content to claim "we don't know." Consider the falsification of the peer review process in the climate change debacle as an excellent example of this.

I see the hypocriticality of your position and it amuses me.

You keep calling me a hypocrite when I've made no statement to justify it...are you hoping if you say it often enough it will become true?

[-Cp]

lol....so I haven't experienced God's love unless I embrace those who tell me I'm not fit to call myself a Christian?......

Did Christ not embrace EVERYONE? Even those who killed him? How can you call yourself a "christian" (Christ-like) if you don't show love those whom you even despise?

[SassyLady]

???...
obviously, refusing to read about the God described in the bible is a rejection of the God described in the bible....you would therefore be considering only another group of people, or your own, ideas about God.....my own gut reaction is that a God capable of creating the universe would be capable of assuring that the Bible contained what he wanted it to......

That would be like me saying that if you refuse to read Conversations With God, then you are refusing to accept God.....because I am sure that he is also capable of making sure it contains what he wants it to be. So, if one reads it, and not the Bible, and accepts what CWG has to say about God, then your premise of accepting God is valid, even though the individual might have never read the Bible....correct??

Do you believe that God will accept those who refuse to believe he exists?......

Yes .... because God has never rejected them to begin with, therefore, there is no rejection.

Did Auschwitz "work"?........

In whose eyes? For a time it was working for some people and not working for others .... eventually it was eradicated and the majority of the world would say it didn't work, which is why it is no longer in existence. What is your point?

Does always turning the other cheek "work", or does it sometimes lead to demise of the human body, even though it is considered a good thing to do? Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't.

[BoogyMan]

Did Christ not embrace EVERYONE? Even those who killed him? How can you call yourself a "christian" (Christ-like) if you don't show love those whom you even despise?

Christ accepted those who came to Him on His terms, not their own. Big difference.

[darin]

Christ accepted those who came to Him on His terms, not their own. Big difference.

Point of order...Christ embraced those before they made even ONE STEP towards him. Christ threw his love towards people...without any demands.