The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

[Jpsmith1]

While I appreciate what your saying, just think about this for awhile.

I've thought so many times, why did Jesus come when he did? Why not now, with technology everyone could see him in days. But then I realize, that is exactly why he didn't come now.
With AI, Photoshop, video editing, most would think it was a gimmick, a magic trick. He knew coming now would be less believable in the course of time due to technology.

So you say you'd believe if you seen that today, but honestly, deep down, would you?

You really want to sit down with someone that has the knowledge to answer the hard questions? Your not getting it on a one way communication form. PM me your number, I'll call you and talk to you and find out more details, and I will do the research myself to find a quality priest or pastor near you to sit-down and talk with you.

Peace

I don't think that anyone would think it AI or some other trickery if, all of a sudden, someone started visiting pediatric oncology wards and they just emptied out. Kids got to return to their lives of playing and going to school and enjoying just being a kid rather than facing the specter of death at 5 or 6 years old.

If someone started to regrow the limbs of wounded veterans. That would be a worthwhile project for someone.

Again, repeatability.

Don't do it once. Do it again and again and again.

John 14:14 "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." Right?

 

[Jpsmith1]

I’m doing my best to not cherry pick your respond, but it’s definitely worth noting that to this very day there are Catholic priests who have assignments as exorcist. They continually drive out demons in Jesus’s name. This shows repeatable time and time again.

Throughout the dialogue of this thread, you’ve also mentioned the burden of proof through science and how you are constantly researching information (which is great). Would you please consider researching Eucharistic Miracles? Consecrated hosts of our Lord and Savior that are bleeding. Under a microscope these are damaged heart tissue that’s still alive! Samples that have been taken to research facilities without prior knowledge and it cannot be scientifically explained. Some of these miracles have happened within the last 2 decades. These have been repeated and documented over the course of centuries.

He keeps banging steel at 800 yards, yet you keep doubting, saying it’s a fluke.

Jesus reveals himself to us all the time. It’s whether or not we acknowledge him.

Edited: Grammar and readability.

Let me do a little research into these Eucharistic Miracles, ok?

 

[Jpsmith1]

What would make something a miracle to you? Answer honestly, and if there is nothing, then thats ok too.

I think that a single person performing the test i outlined would qualify

It would be studied by science for centuries but, for myself, I think that a single person traveling the country and curing every child with cancer by laying of hands would definitely be a miraculous event.

 

[Jpsmith1]

As I thought. That’s why I hope you can appreciate the irony of your refusal to be open minded when you so easily conclude that non believers would see that God existed if they weren’t close minded.

Very well stated.

 

[Jpsmith1]

Because the evidence of people who have had near death experiences, sometimes death experiences, and care takers who watch people die for a living who report where people will start to reach for heaven, talk to their passed family members, and report seeing God/Jesus right before their death.

These reports are not scientific so I know you will blast them out for anecdotal evidence or some sort of neurochemical reaction to give peace at death's front door. But the people who were clinically dead and came back, what's that say?

How do you reconcile an atheist raised girl in Russia painting a vivid beautiful picture of a man she has seen only in dreams and a child in the US having a death/drowning experience where he was clinically dead, and reporting that the person he saw and identified as Jesus was the man the girl in russia dreams about?

These things are evidence. Not all science can be repeated due to the singularity of it, but over time a pattern develops and shows us something. We can not be tone deaf to the reality of what these experiences tell us.

Is it good to trust a dying brain? One deprived of the oxygen and other things needed to keep it running?

We know that HEALTHY brains do all kinds of weird stuff. My brain turned a whitetail deer into an elk and I nearly shot it. I watched it turn back into a whitetail as it stepped out from behind a tree.

Imagine what i might have seen if I was hypoxic.

 

[Jpsmith1]

More or less agree. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion but that doesn’t mean they get a pass when misrepresenting their support and the opposing viewpoint. I know people on both sides who were once members of the other team. I don’t argue much with happiness, life is too short.

So often the atheist and agnostic viewpoint is just WILDLY misrepresented.

Atheists believe this or that. No we don't. Trying to get Atheists to agree on much of anything is like trying to herd cats. GOOD LUCK.

Except babies. They're delicious. yes, that's a joke, y'all.

 

[Jpsmith1]

Some rhings like love and liyalty have no inherent manner of being “proven” other than feelings, since you can not read minds and can not really know the motivation of the person expressing or showing such things. And can you really even trust feelings since they are simply very influenced puffs of biochemistry in the brain. Do such emotions even really exist?

If you do, proceed to the next question. If not, then just stop here….

Do you believe a spouse cheating on their husband is wrong if the purpose of the cheating is to gain financial freedom or some other worldly gain?

I disagree.

My wife "proves" her love and loyalty to me each day as do I for her.

To your last question, my issue with "cheating" would be that it breaks a spoken or maybe unspoken agreement of exclusivity. Marriage, for most folks, is an agreement that you will be exclusive to one another. Breaking that for ANY reason harms and disrespects the person you have that agreement with.

So, I wouldn't care if it was to gain some financial reward or just because they thought the other person was incredibly attractive. I would find a severing of the 'contract' of exclusivity to be deeply offensive if it happened to me.

Others may feel differently and I don't wish to impose my thoughts or ideas on them. Heck, some people have open relationships in which case, there really is no contract of exclusivity.

 

[Jpsmith1]

I’m doing my best to not cherry pick your respond, but it’s definitely worth noting that to this very day there are Catholic priests who have assignments as exorcist. They continually drive out demons in Jesus’s name. This shows repeatable time and time again.

Throughout the dialogue of this thread, you’ve also mentioned the burden of proof through science and how you are constantly researching information (which is great). Would you please consider researching Eucharistic Miracles? Consecrated hosts of our Lord and Savior that are bleeding. Under a microscope these are damaged heart tissue that’s still alive! Samples that have been taken to research facilities without prior knowledge and it cannot be scientifically explained. Some of these miracles have happened within the last 2 decades. These have been repeated and documented over the course of centuries.

He keeps banging steel at 800 yards, yet you keep doubting, saying it’s a fluke.

Jesus reveals himself to us all the time. It’s whether or not we acknowledge him.

Edited: Grammar and readability.

So, unlike most mornings, I had a little extra down time this morning. Getting the truck worked on so I'm not at work or in constant motion as usual.

I did research these Eucharistic Miracles.

https://www.forensicscijournal.com/articles/jfsr-aid1068.php

Didn't take too long to find a detailed breakdown of how the various proofs put forward fail to rise to the level of something of this importance and how the investigation was poorly handled from a forensic standpoint and that lack of care or knowledge in handling the evidence and investigation really leaves the conclusions in serious doubt.

Because scaling the quality of evidence to the nature of the assertion is important, right?

If I tell you the paint on a bench is wet, the consequences are pretty minor. At worst, you mess up your clothes and I have to repaint the bench.

If we're talking about something of this magnitude, the evidence really needs to be as close to perfect as we can make it.

 

[Beagle1]

So, unlike most mornings, I had a little extra down time this morning. Getting the truck worked on so I'm not at work or in constant motion as usual.

I did research these Eucharistic Miracles.

https://www.forensicscijournal.com/articles/jfsr-aid1068.php

Didn't take too long to find a detailed breakdown of how the various proofs put forward fail to rise to the level of something of this importance and how the investigation was poorly handled from a forensic standpoint and that lack of care or knowledge in handling the evidence and investigation really leaves the conclusions in serious doubt.

Because scaling the quality of evidence to the nature of the assertion is important, right?

If I tell you the paint on a bench is wet, the consequences are pretty minor. At worst, you mess up your clothes and I have to repaint the bench.

If we're talking about something of this magnitude, the evidence really needs to be as close to perfect as we can make it.

If you have time and are interested: more links on Eucharistic Miracles.

https://skepticalinquirer.org/2011/07/eucharistic-miracle-of-lanciano/

Science-Based Medicine

Welcome to Science-Based Medicine - Exploring issues and controversies in the relationship between science and medicine

sciencebasedmedicine.org

http://skepdic.com/euchar.html

https://www.richardcarrier.info/ (Search Buenos Aires miracle)

 

[Yoder]

I appreciate the answer but if God created everything wouldn’t he also be responsible for whatever man created no matter what the circumstances.

This is my best guess based on my beliefs: So, for man to create life, it could be man left to his own free will creating it or it could be divine intervention guiding him. You could argue either side. I think both happen all the time. My proof that we have free will is believing that God never creates evil, only Satan and mankind can do that. God allows it since he allows Satan to rule this world. So, evil exists because of our free will, not from God. He wants everyone to choose God but leaves it up to us to decide. I would think man creating life would be a crippling blow to Christianity, so I doubt it would be the divine. This is why it might change my mind. I don't believe God would allow it to happen, so if it does, I won't know what to believe anymore. I hope this makes sense.

 

[go_deep]

I don't think that anyone would think it AI or some other trickery if, all of a sudden, someone started visiting pediatric oncology wards and they just emptied out. Kids got to return to their lives of playing and going to school and enjoying just being a kid rather than facing the specter of death at 5 or 6 years old.

If someone started to regrow the limbs of wounded veterans. That would be a worthwhile project for someone.

Again, repeatability.

Don't do it once. Do it again and again and again.

John 14:14 "You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." Right?

Right, but not like a genie in a bottle.

I do grasp where your at, I was at a similar place once in my life.

If your not familiar with different writings in the Bible, Jesus healed many people, cripples walked, leapers healed so they could return home, blind could see, Lazarus raised from the dead.
What do everyone on those people have in common? They all still died and had to be judged by God.

All to often we get hung up on the worldly, now problems, when at the end of each and everyone of our lives, we have an eternity problem. Jesus solved the eternity problem by shedding his blood for us, and dying on the cross.

Jesus said to him, “Have you come to believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and have believed.”
John 20:29

 

[dylanvb]

One of the biggest issues with the modern church is that a majority of “Christian’s” are just “Christians” because it’s convenient. They have “faith” because life is good and they haven’t ever had anything difficult happen to them. Now I know that’s relevant to each individual but if you really deep dive into people’s “faith” it’s surface level, has no depth or grounding. People want this jackpot Jesus that’s going to grant them every prayer as soon as they believe in him. This isn’t the God of the Bible, this is a false idol hidden behind Christianity.
The true God of the Bible has promised us all hardship because of sin and the message of the Bible is super simple, we have all sinned, we are all condemned to death, if we believe and have faith in Jesus Christ we will be saved. But this saving isn’t from this life it is from the next. We as Christians are still going to go through hard times, we have to die in order to get to the next life. Stop holding on to worldly things and cling to God, He is the only hope.

And on top of that, we are all hypocrites. We all fall short. This is why we need Jesus. I try my best but I am reminded daily that I cannot get to the top of this ladder on my own.

 

[Shortschaf]

Again, repeatability.

Don't do it once. Do it again and again and again.

Faith is a necessary element of all religions. Your standard of proof above would eliminate the need for faith.

So unless you are willing to relax your personal requirement, you will not be satisfied until you experience or witness your own miracles

 

[Texasbuckeye]

I disagree.

My wife "proves" her love and loyalty to me each day as do I for her.

To your last question, my issue with "cheating" would be that it breaks a spoken or maybe unspoken agreement of exclusivity. Marriage, for most folks, is an agreement that you will be exclusive to one another. Breaking that for ANY reason harms and disrespects the person you have that agreement with.

So, I wouldn't care if it was to gain some financial reward or just because they thought the other person was incredibly attractive. I would find a severing of the 'contract' of exclusivity to be deeply offensive if it happened to me.

Others may feel differently and I don't wish to impose my thoughts or ideas on them. Heck, some people have open relationships in which case, there really is no contract of exclusivity.

OK, so not only do you believe in things that can not be 100% proven other than just by observation from external, but you also have a moral code.

Lets break that down. Up to this point, there have been arguments about faith since it can not be tested, and it isn't provable. The standard for something definitive and real has been something proveable, reliable, repeatable, and testable. Essentially the scientific method. And yet, you are admitting your wife "proves" her love for you despite only external observation of her actions, with noway to gauge the validity, the reliability, or the repeatability other than just observations you see from her. Yet, this is enough for love, and you believe she loves you.

Am I wrong wit this assertion?

Next question:

Regarding your moral code, where does it come from?

 

[Texasbuckeye]

@Beagle1 copied your post here since the quote didn't work for your post:

Even though emotions are subjective experiences that differ from person to person they are caused by brain processes and real. Science doesn't deny they are real. But even though a believer feels God through emotional experiences and those experiences are deeply personal and moving , an emotional conviction doesn't make a belief in God objectively true. So even if your emotions are real, and your interpretation of them is meaningful to you that interpretation is not evidence that God caused them. People feel just as powerfully about different gods—or no god at all. Emotional certainty isn’t enough to prove the cause of it is God related. As I stated in one of my first posts strength of belief ( even when caused by a strong emotional conviction) is not proof of God's existence it just shows we are emotional beings.


My response:

You are going beyond what my question asked. I simply asked, are emotions real? You are reading too far into the question and anticipating my next series of questions without answering the first question. Do you feel emotions are real? Up to this point you have been adamant that you won't believe in something if it isn't reliable, predictable, repeatable, and testable (probably missing a few elements but you get the point). So do you believe in emotions as a real thing or are they simply a figment of imagination and they are not to be trusted at all?

 

[Gobbler36]

Religion is based on what we can do to earn our salvation .
Christianity is bases on what God has done for us thru Jesus Christ.
So religions try to work it out while Christians accept our sinful nature and strive to allow God to guide us thru his word.

This!

 

[Beagle1]

@Beagle1 copied your post here since the quote didn't work for your post:

Even though emotions are subjective experiences that differ from person to person they are caused by brain processes and real. Science doesn't deny they are real. But even though a believer feels God through emotional experiences and those experiences are deeply personal and moving , an emotional conviction doesn't make a belief in God objectively true. So even if your emotions are real, and your interpretation of them is meaningful to you that interpretation is not evidence that God caused them. People feel just as powerfully about different gods—or no god at all. Emotional certainty isn’t enough to prove the cause of it is God related. As I stated in one of my first posts strength of belief ( even when caused by a strong emotional conviction) is not proof of God's existence it just shows we are emotional beings.


My response:

You are going beyond what my question asked. I simply asked, are emotions real? You are reading too far into the question and anticipating my next series of questions without answering the first question. Do you feel emotions are real? Up to this point you have been adamant that you won't believe in something if it isn't reliable, predictable, repeatable, and testable (probably missing a few elements but you get the point). So do you believe in emotions as a real thing or are they simply a figment of imagination and they are not to be trusted at all?

As I previously said - Even though emotions are subjective experiences that differ from person to person they are caused by brain processes and real. Science doesn't deny they are real.

 

[Texasbuckeye]

As I previously said - Even though emotions are subjective experiences that differ from person to person they are caused by brain processes and real. Science doesn't deny they are real.

Ok, so if you are willing to accept emotions as real and valid, albeit subjective, why MuST you have proof of God before believing or even seeking?

I have said before and i will say again, if you ask with a willing open heart for God to a Himself to you, He will. It may be in a small whisper, it may be in a dream, it may be in a amazing piece of scenery, but He will reveal his glory.

You have to be willing to see it though. Its a lot like other interpersonal emotions, if you aren’t laying attention you can miss so much and many times miss the entire thing. Similar to God, the earnest seeker will find Him, but the contemptuous heart will not.

I will warn you, if you ask, dont expect the answer right away, though it might come right away, many times it comes when you are ready for it. But trust me, He is seeking you too.

 

[Beagle1]

Ok, so if you are willing to accept emotions as real and valid, albeit subjective, why MuST you have proof of God before believing or even seeking?

I have said before and i will say again, if you ask with a willing open heart for God to a Himself to you, He will. It may be in a small whisper, it may be in a dream, it may be in a amazing piece of scenery, but He will reveal his glory.

You have to be willing to see it though. Its a lot like other interpersonal emotions, if you aren’t laying attention you can miss so much and many times miss the entire thing. Similar to God, the earnest seeker will find Him, but the contemptuous heart will not.

I will warn you, if you ask, dont expect the answer right away, though it might come right away, many times it comes when you are ready for it. But trust me, He is seeking you too.

You must be able to see that there is a major difference between real on one hand and reliable and credible on the other. Say a man commits murder and claims he was fearful not to because God told him to do it in a vision. The emotion of fear would be real but not the underlying cause of the fear. Would you consider that emotion of fear valid support for the existence of God.

I need proof of God to believe because the concept of God is likely the most important idea in the history of mankind. If true, it has profound implications and because of that, it deserves rigorous standards of evidence, just like any other extraordinary claim.

Regarding your claim that “the earnest seeker will find God,” I know this is meant with good intent but to someone who has sought and not found, it sounds like blame. It implies that failure to find God reflects a deficiency in the seeker rather than the possibility that God may not be there (or may not reveal himself). It becomes a no-win framing: if you find God, you're sincere; if you don’t, you're insincere or hard-hearted.

That mindset can be deeply harmful. There are people who have searched with genuine longing and anguish, and some have even despaired to the point of taking their own lives. Would we say to their grieving families, “If only they had been more earnest, they would have found God”?

Moreover, there are well-documented cases of former devout believers—people like Bart Ehrman and Dan Barker who are authors of some of the books on the list I sent you—who once experienced what they believed was a deep, personal connection to God but later lost their faith after continued study and reflection. Were they not sincere? Or is it possible that sincere people can honestly come to different conclusions?

Faith may be meaningful to you because of how it feels or what it brings to your life, and I can respect that. But for someone who values truth at the cost of discomfort, belief must come with sufficient evidence not just faith.

 

[Jpsmith1]

Faith is a necessary element of all religions. Your standard of proof above would eliminate the need for faith.

So unless you are willing to relax your personal requirement, you will not be satisfied until you experience or witness your own miracles

Which returns me to the question.

Is there ANY assertion, no matter how untrue, that cannot be taken "on faith"?

I will bet that, if all the believers here got together and started talking about specifics, details, minutiae of the things they believe, the 'broad strokes' would be the same but the details would differ. And we're just talking Christians.

So, are some of you wrong? Are you believing in different gods? And all believing with equal conviction...

Or do we just handwave those differences away because its too difficult to explain?

Then, when you add in all the different religions in the world, again all believing with an equal conviction, what is a guy like me to do?