It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Believe as I say, not as I believe

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   
The apologists on this board (and elsewhere) are typically quick to claim that the New Testament was written by eyewitnesses, or at a minimum, those who knew eyewitnesses well.

Even Paul is claimed to be a witness in the sense that Jesus appeared to him spiritually.

So, the men who tell us we must have faith, did not themselves come to believe as the result of faith, but instead, as the result of proof!

Why is it not deamed hypocritical that these men who were given proof for their belief demand faith from everyone else?




posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:27 PM
link   
I would think being 2000 years removed from the events would mandate those of us not there having to rely on faith - and the evidence provided by the Gospels.

Wouldn't you?



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
'Belief' is unimaginable as something one chooses to do and/or emulate in another--either one believes (whatever) or one does not.

How can there be a choice in what your innards tell you is true, true, true?

[edit on 8/18/2005 by queenannie38]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 09:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
I would think being 2000 years removed from the events would mandate those of us not there having to rely on faith - and the evidence provided by the Gospels.

Wouldn't you?


No I wouldn't. Those of us not there are free to treat the claims with the same skepticism we would any other fantastic claims, just as these writers supposedly did before they received first hand witness.


Originally posted by queenannie38
How can there be a choice in what your innards tell you is true, true, true?


That's easy enough. Don't let your innards tell your mind what to believe, let your mind tell your innards what to believe. The innards will follow the lead of the brain once you free the brain to explore.



[edit on 19-8-2005 by spamandham]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 10:12 AM
link   
We have the complete Word of God in the English language. If I had a choice between being there or having God's Word I would want God's Word.

There's tremendous evidence for the accuracy of the Holy Bible but that's not what you need. You need a change of heart. If you do not approach the Word of God with a right heart it is impossible for you to ever have any hope of understanding it or accepting it as true.

I know you will not understand this and for that there is nothing I can do.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
That's easy enough. Don't let your innards tell your mind what to believe, let your mind tell your innards what to believe. The innards will follow the lead of the brain once you free the brain to explore.



[edit on 19-8-2005 by spamandham]
Basically, that's what I mean. My 'innards' are my mind, my soul. My brain is insatiable and unbound. So belief and knowledge have become one in my heart--and what I believe has been strengthened. I have no doubts, and I've never been misled by studying anything.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 03:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Machine
You need a change of heart. If you do not approach the Word of God with a right heart it is impossible for you to ever have any hope of understanding it or accepting it as true.


I don't want to accept it as true.

This thread is not another "why I should or shouldn't believe" thread, it's about the demand for faith on us, when those who tell us of this demand did not themselves have to rely on faith.


Originally posted by Machine
I know you will not understand this and for that there is nothing I can do.


Then it's time to stop trying don't you think? Brush the dust off your sandals already.

[edit on 19-8-2005 by spamandham]



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 08:44 PM
link   
spamandham

I read your last post:

Originally posted by spamandham
This thread is not another "why I should or shouldn't believe" thread, it's about the demand for faith on us, when those who tell us of this demand did not themselves have to rely on faith.


then re-read the first one:


Originally posted by spamandham
So, the men who tell us we must have faith, did not themselves come to believe as the result of faith, but instead, as the result of proof!

Why is it not deamed hypocritical that these men who were given proof for their belief demand faith from everyone else?

And so I'm offering another reply, hopefully more of the type of response you are seeking.

The thing is:

those men who demand faith from everyone else are in error. How can a man demand another man to have faith in a creator/God/savior?

Only the creator/God/Savior, whom you either do or do not have faith or perhaps even interest in, is the Only (and I repeat: Only ) One who has either the authority and/or the ability--any true right--to demand faith from any man.

Because this is the truth as I know it, God as my witness (for real)--when God decides its time for you to know Him, He will make Himself known. And then you won't have to worry about faith--because just as once you had not one shred of it, one day you will have not one shred of doubt. Until then no man can make you--and it doesn't even matter if you believe what I say as true from experience--what will be will be. And it will be for all of us. Every one of us. And it will be all good--no prison death camps under God's rule.

Those who might demand faith from others probably haven't yet had 'God In Your Face'--because when it's God in your face, you just know.



posted on Aug, 19 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
those men who demand faith from everyone else are in error. How can a man demand another man to have faith in a creator/God/savior?

Only the creator/God/Savior, whom you either do or do not have faith or perhaps even interest in, is the Only (and I repeat: Only ) One who has either the authority and/or the ability--any true right--to demand faith from any man.


That's much more reasonable than the typical position of the faithful.



posted on Aug, 20 2005 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
That's much more reasonable than the typical position of the faithful.

Thank you, spamandham.

This I say now, I don't say in the effort to 'convert you.' I respect your right to be an individual with your own mind. I greatly respect someone willing to question out loud the ludicrous and insensible tenets of religion that the world says are God's ways. God's ways are not irrational nor illogical. They are not tryrannical or unfair. If christianity doesn't make sense to a person, it is because they seek Truth above all things--even if they don't realize it.

The religions of the world are based on human insecurity--all prescribing that some are blessed while the rest burn in hell forever. What if there was such a thing? Surely those who spread their own insecurity-borne doctrines and traditions would go there for defaming Truth. But, the good news is, that even the most misguided zealot will be set straight at some point in time. You are fortunate in that you are not as misguided as many 'christians.' In fact, I can't even say you are 'misguided.' You are just questioning and there is every indication that is a good thing, not a bad thing. I hope you know what I'm saying.

I'll surely get
for this post!

Peace!

[edit on 8/20/2005 by queenannie38]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   
We have to have faith that God is alive, because God will not proof to us that he is alive. You can all you want about God not being alive. But what would you do if you found out there is judgement and a life after death????? would faith be in ya after words. Be kinda hard to have faith when you are knowing. If you knew there was a judgement day and life after death you know. you can not have faith with knowing.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by slymattb
We have to have faith that God is alive, because God will not proof to us that he is alive.


If god will not prove it, then how is it claimed that others have spoken to god (Abraham, Moses, Paul, etc.)? Wouldn't direct communication with god be proof? These men were not compelled to rely on faith, they had direct evidence.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 12:37 AM
link   
Yes men have talk with God, and if you ask me this is proof of God. But some agrue and say just because they say they talk, does mean it was God they where talking to. God loves you spam, and he alive.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 01:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by slymattb
Yes men have talk with God, and if you ask me this is proof of God. But some agrue and say just because they say they talk, does mean it was God they where talking to. God loves you spam, and he alive.


I can not tell you whether or not those who claim to have spoken to god actually have or not. But I can tell you that I find such evidence insufficient to back up the claim that it was an actual conversation with god.

Alternative explanations are; they were lying, they were delusional, they were on drugs, they were deceived by some supernatural being other than god, etc.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by slymattb
We have to have faith that God is alive, because God will not proof to us that he is alive.
Sure He will!



Originally posted by spamandhamIf god will not prove it, then how is it claimed that others have spoken to god (Abraham, Moses, Paul, etc.)? Wouldn't direct communication with god be proof? These men were not compelled to rely on faith, they had direct evidence.

That's actually true--Abraham was said to be God's friend--and Moses knew God 'face to face'.

Paul had 'God-In-Your-Face' on the road to Damascus--and it took him all of what, 3 minutes, to change from chasing down believers to beat them for believing in Christ to someone who would spend the rest of his life spreading encouragement for that same belief! The 12 disciples had actual physical evidence enough to sustain their work for the rest of their lives, too.

The situation is somewhat different these days--but essentially the same. God still makes Himself known to men's hearts--on an individual basis--but I am speaking from my own experience, with absolute honesty and no exaggeration, when I say that His inward presence in our existences is no less real, convincing, or transforming, than that of Paul's.

And it's not something that we can achieve or pursue--even by what many call 'faith in Christ.' Because we cannot truly have that faith until He makes Himself known to us, Himself. Until then, the extent of our belief (if we so choose to believe in this manner) rests upon the trustiworthiness of the accounts left to us in writing by those who experienced Him physically. If we believe they are giving their stories with integrity and believe they can be trusted, then we are a step or two closer. Regardless of whether we count them as true or as madmen suffering delusions, or even just myths built up over many, many years--the only way true faith (conviction that God is real) comes is through God making Himself known to us.

So much talk of faith goes around regarding having faith in God and Jesus Christ--that the faith of men goes toward the salvation of those men. But this is a long-standing error: It is not through any faith of our own that we will all be freed from death in the end--it is because God promised Abraham something--because Abraham chose to believe God would do as He said (he knew God--so it wasn't about believing God existed--it was about believing God kept His word) and was willing even to give up his own son--believing that God would not take away the precious thing He had given them, through a previous promise. When God saw this, He swore on His own name that He would give His own Son (not in those exact words, but the meaning is certain) to the world to buy back all men's souls from the bondage of mortality.

And God made good on His word--He was faithful to the fullest extent of His vow--and the whole of the work He did for us to keep His promise was the act of faith which will save all men.

It is not our faithfulness (ability to believe) that saves us--but God's faithfulness (in keeping His word--demonstrating perfect trustiworthiness).

None of us can do a darn thing toward saving ourselves--all we can do is be glad He can--and already has completed the whole thing, for all practical purposes. And God's faithfulness extends to the very last member of humanity--His promise was not to some, but to all--and He will leave not a single soul out of the blessing that He promised long, long, ago--swearing to keep His vow on His own name.



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 01:37 AM
link   
Well if you look in that sense, of course God will proof he is here. But until the timeing of christ comes. Through evidents on earth. We will mostly never find evients that God alive. Faith is the key. Some are just blind.


[edit on 24-8-2005 by slymattb]



posted on Aug, 24 2005 @ 12:24 PM
link   
But still--God will and does prove Himself to the individual in the present time.

I know He does--and I didn't know this before it happened to me. But I never doubted He was reality--for most of my life this was how it was. But a few years back He made Himself known to me and now I no longer operate on faith--I KNOW He's real. The only faith involved now is regarding whether He will do as He's promised--and that's taken care of, too--because once He reveals Himself it is certain He is true--it is just known and undeniable.


That is what I try to witness to others--He will show Himself--you can have proof--patience and obedience are required, but 20 something years wasn't at all a long wait, compared to what I've been given.

The same is available to all. Don't ever forget that--I pray that soon you will know what I mean. It is the most awesome thing possible in the human experience.



posted on Aug, 25 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
spamandham, neither you, nor I, were ever the intended audience of most of the letters written by those who were witnesses of the Messiah's life, death, and resurrection. They were not trying to convince people that did not see, but were actually trying to convince people that did indeed see. The question that should be asked then is, what EXACTLY were they trying to convince people to accept? The answer is NOT, "faith in what hasn't been seen."

If I gave you a list of things that are to occur in the next 6 months, and they were to all come true, you'd truly be an idiot to try refuting whatever claim followed my predictions. Said another way, if I said, a man from the future travelled to our time and gave me details of things to occur, and if they occured, THAT IS PROOF that my claim, that a man came from the future and told me such things, is indeed TRUE. If after 6 months of watching the predictions all come true, I then told you, the man came back and and gave me another list for another 6 months, you and I can elect to have faith, based on the previous track record, or we can elect to be stubborn idiots, and ignore the track record. MARK MY WORDS, there are people for whom you can predict every detail of the next trillion millenia, and they still will say something as stupid as, "it's all a coincidense".

The witnesses of the Messiah were only trying to convince the people of their day, that the man they ALL heard and saw, fulfilled those things which were written, concerning the promised Messiah, which they ALL were waiting for. The events that surrounded His life and death, were PROOF that He was indeed the person He claimed to be, BECAUSE, the events were FORETOLD. The only faith required was to believe His promise, namely, that you would resurrect after death, just as He did. ALL in the immediate regions of Judea and Samaria were well acquainted with His deeds. These deeds, which were witnessed by many, together with the expounding of the events by the witnesses, were to be the support for their faith in His words. So faith is first supported by a track record.

I do not believe in God because of blind faith, I believe solely because He Proved Himself to me, and continues to do so. If God has never proved Himself to you, then in my book, you're somewhat of an idiot for believing, and in reality, what you call faith, is built on nothing whatsoever, and you are in danger of having your house of cards fall appart in your face. However, when you get to that point where you REALLY want to know, all you have to do is ask. You'll only be responsible if He responds. The catch of course is, do you REALLY want to know?

From your perspective, this is a debate, from mine, it is an opportunity to remind those readers that perhaps may be at the point where they REALLY want to know, that NOW is the best time challenge God.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 09:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Behold
spamandham, neither you, nor I, were ever the intended audience of most of the letters written by those who were witnesses of the Messiah's life,


None of the letters you are referring to were written by witnesses of the Messiah's life, so your argument collapses.


Originally posted by Behold
what EXACTLY were they trying to convince people to accept? The answer is NOT, "faith in what hasn't been seen."


Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."


Originally posted by Behold
The witnesses of the Messiah were only trying to convince the people of their day,


What witnesses are you referring to?



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Alternative explanations are; they were lying, they were delusional, they were on drugs, they were deceived by some supernatural being other than god, etc.


Faith would be required of everyone. Even those who "experienced" those events. If Moses didn't want to believe, he could have said "No, you are a sorceror's trick!" to the burning bush. They could have said "It was herbs that Jesus applied to the man's eyes to let him see", etc. They required just as much faith as you do now. If someone came up to you now and said they were pregnant virgins, would you believe them? Not if you didn't have faith.




top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join