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: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:03 AM
link   
Peter, James, John, Matthew. Those are their english names anyway.




posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 10:40 AM
link   
first off i think theres a little confusion going on (so whats new).
belief and faith are two different things. belief is "yes god exhists" faith is "i trust god".

i believe in george bush but i don't have faith in him, you see what i mean.
faith is asked of those who believe, not of those who haven't heard or have and cannot accept. if you don't believe in god you cannot trust in god.

as an observation i often wonder why it is that the non-believers are the ones asking pertinent questions and the believers are blind to the obvious. also seems non-believers have read the bible more dilligently and while they often mis-understand its funny that they are the only ones trying to understand. believers tend to believe any old crap i guess.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
first off i think theres a little confusion going on (so whats new).
belief and faith are two different things. belief is "yes god exhists" faith is "i trust god".
Right. I don't think too many differentiate, especially those who equate church-going with 'obedience' and 'faith.'

Personally, I've always believed God was real and Jesus did exist and was what the bible said He was. Why did I believe this? I honestly don't know--it seems like I was born with it. The first time my mom took me to a sunday school, and they 'introduced' Jesus, I was like 'yeah, I know him,' feeling kind of smug like if He had been my imaginary friend or something. We didn't talk about that stuff at home, but I went to Sunday school and church every week till I was 18.

BUT, I did not believe what they said there at church. It did not make sense! At all! And no one was excited. That seemed odd to me--if what they thought was true (even their confused version) then they ought to be downright excited! Instead of listening intently to the sermons, I read my bible during services. So my opinion that what they said didn't make sense, combined with the little voice in my head that kept saying 'They don't know Him, that's not how He was,' grew stronger, because the bible and the church said two different things.

This may seem odd, but the thing is, when I was in the 5th grade, those tests they give to measure percentile, showed me at the level of a high school graduate in all subjects, except math, which was at that level a few years later. So I could comprehend what I read better than many adults, even. It goes along with that, that I have a logical mind--and I cannot make myself believe something that goes against logic and reason. That doesn't mean I can't believe many things which we do not and can not understand do happen--often it is truly the only conclusion that makes real sense and is logical---IOW, 'we just don't know.' Better to say that, leaving it open to discovery than to get attached to some illogical made up explanation that 'fits', after much coercion, into what is already 'known.'

I think that being 'intelligent' is not the same as 'knowing everything.' It is more like the 'ability to think.' I think it is a sign of insecurity as well as false pride that causes man to feel he can and must know all things--right now!

Anyway, since church didn't make sense, I quit going--best thing I ever did!
I've explored many many paths and subjects of knowledge--and everything always leads me back to the thought 'God is real.' I couldn't 'not believe.'




faith is asked of those who believe, not of those who haven't heard or have and cannot accept. if you don't believe in god you cannot trust in god.

So true! When really bad times came, I only had my belief in God being real to sustain me, and when it was really bad, and my mind couldn't cope, I did actually 'trust'--I totally leaned on that belief, cause I couldn't stand on my own.

After this happening many times, the evidence given in my heart began to reveal my faith was rightfully placed--I got through things that often break other people. I've had some pretty trying experiences that aren't the usual 'bad things' that happen. Things that felt devastating at the time.

God has made Himself known to me, and no longer do I need to 'believe,' because I 'know.' And that knowing transformed me, truly. I am not the same person I was 10 years ago--but yet, I am the same. I've been able to overcome bad habits and attitudes, and even my temper is no longer a problem at all. I look back at myself and marvel at who I was compared to who I am now. In all ways, my 'existence' has improved, although my 'situation' in life (money, etc.) is not any better, perhaps less 'prosperous' than it's ever been. But my wealth lies in peace of mind, lack of stress (total lack of stress, really!), love and memories that I can enjoy without regret or shame. I feel whole.


as an observation i often wonder why it is that the non-believers are the ones asking pertinent questions and the believers are blind to the obvious. also seems non-believers have read the bible more dilligently and while they often mis-understand its funny that they are the only ones trying to understand. believers tend to believe any old crap i guess.
Well, society tells us that 'believers' go to church, etc... The church says 'don't read the bible except in the way we instruct you, don't question what we say--we are the authorities, and if you don't believe this nonsense, we'll make sure you're in hell even before you die, because we'll cast you out as a 'sinner' and talk about you and slander your name.' Oh, yeah, and 'if you don't give us your 10% you will never get rich or even comfortable.'
Believers feel they must proclaim they are 'christian.' I never told anyone my secret thoughts, and so I wasn't judged falsely and I observed from a distance what was true in life--love, sorrrow, truth, delusion of self, jealousy, and how 'evil' comes from those will holes in the middle brought on by broken hearts.
No one feels secure enough to think for themselves, or believe what the bible says, which is that Christ will manifest to any man who follows His commandments--who loves his neighbor.
All I ever did was try to love others and never judge. I didn't worry about 'doctrines', 'creeds', or feel I needed a 'church home' to know God. He didn't say that, men said that. And for the most part, men lie. They first lie to themselves and so don't realize that they have no relationship with truth and therefore cannot recognize it. And, *gasp*, I followed my gut, trusted my instincts, and what didn't seem right turned out not to be true--I was right not to believe what didn't make sense, because over the years, experience has taught me that things that don't make sense don't truly exist--they can't--it's impossible for unreal things to exist in a real world. But the world most people live in, especially the religious ones, is not the real one.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
as an observation i often wonder why it is that the non-believers are the ones asking pertinent questions and the believers are blind to the obvious. also seems non-believers have read the bible more dilligently and while they often mis-understand its funny that they are the only ones trying to understand. believers tend to believe any old crap i guess.


I agree with your entire statement, but only quoted this portion to ADD:
it is because 99% of believers are Non-Thinkers, accepting as Truth whatever nonsense is found in the books they buy, and the garbage that comes from their teachers, that the non-believer has amassed an arsenal of verbal weapons that these same christians cannot in anyway combat, except to repeat their tired cliches.

I gave you my first and only WATS vote since I've been on the forum.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
None of the letters you are referring to were written by witnesses of the Messiah's life, so your argument collapses.
The disciples witnessed His life! The Apostles were witnesses to the resurrection.





Hebrews 11:1, "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Meaning things not seen the eye. Not Christ resurrected, but rather the kingdom of God and God, Himself.



What witnesses are you referring to?
Luke, Peter, James, John, Jude.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Behold
Peter, James, John, Matthew. Those are their english names anyway.


Is it your contention that these men were eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus, and are the authors of the books that bear their names?



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
The disciples witnessed His life! The Apostles were witnesses to the resurrection.


Provide your evidence that any NT writer witnessed the life of Jesus. I can prove to you that Paul did not, and can show you why none of his contemporaries were either (in Paul's mind anyway). I can also prove Luke/writer of Acts did not, which also implicates the other gospels, which are coincidently implicated by gross geographical and historical inaccuracies.

The dates when these books were written eliminates all but Paul and his contemporaries as possible eyewitnesses.

However, I have no intention of going through all this unless you first present strong evidence that any of the NT writers were witnesses of the life of Jesus.



posted on Aug, 26 2005 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by queenannie38
The disciples witnessed His life! The Apostles were witnesses to the resurrection.


Provide your evidence that any NT writer witnessed the life of Jesus. I can prove to you that Paul did not, and can show you why none of his contemporaries were either (in Paul's mind anyway). I can also prove Luke/writer of Acts did not, which also implicates the other gospels, which are coincidently implicated by gross geographical and historical inaccuracies.
What is your purpose in 'proving' these things to me? To tear down something that I experience, just because you do not, for whatever reason? Do you really think you can?

I do not try to 'prove' anything to you, I just speak what I understand, and whether you believe it or not, doesn't change the fact that I understand things that can't be 'proven' except by God.

Am I jerk about it? I really don't think I am--I don't enter into such a conversation for the purpose of 'coverting' you--I don't try to 'prove' anything to you.

Am I a fool, just because you don't believe the things that are important to me? Maybe in your eyes, I am. But that's nothing to me--I don't look for anyone's approval to bolster something that is between me and God only. Nor do I presume to approve or disapprove things of that nature in anyone else.

So lay off the challenge. I've already read, heard, and studied the proofs you speak of--and I've had many years of various ideas about authenticity and questions of all sorts. In the end, that stuff doesn't matter, because what's true is true and truly, it is largely dependent upon one's outlook and expectations when they 'investigate.' We find what we look for, most of the time.



The dates when these books were written eliminates all but Paul and his contemporaries as possible eyewitnesses.
When the books were written really doesn't mean anything at all--do you really think everything is written immediately after it happens? Much of these same type of allegations were made before the dead sea scrolls were found, but they have been proven and that really just only shows that the ancient past is dim to our eyes, no matter what. We can't be sure when things were originally written--deciding the earliest mss we have is the earliest is just plain ignorant.

I don't say these things in defense of what I believe--common sense and observation has taught me that men find rational justification for anything they want--atheists and religious zealots alike.


However, I have no intention of going through all this unless you first present strong evidence that any of the NT writers were witnesses of the life of Jesus.
Hey, don't sweat it--I have no intention of compiling and presenting strong evidence of anything for the purpose of debate or being proven either wrong or right. You said 'what witnesses' and I just replied, somewhat naively, it would seem--thinking you didn't know who was being referred to.

You obviously don't believe the bible--I obviously do. I can't make you believe, and you can't make me not believe. So what's the point? Next time I won't naively answer such a baited question.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 12:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38

Originally posted by spamandham
Provide your evidence that any NT writer witnessed the life of Jesus. I can prove to you that Paul did not, and can show you why none of his contemporaries were either (in Paul's mind anyway). I can also prove Luke/writer of Acts did not, which also implicates the other gospels, which are coincidently implicated by gross geographical and historical inaccuracies.
What is your purpose in 'proving' these things to me? To tear down something that I experience, just because you do not, for whatever reason?


Are you now claiming that you "experience" that the writers of the NT were eyewitnesses of Jesus?!


Originally posted by queenannie38
Do you really think you can?


Certainly. However, I seriously doubt you will accept it, which is why I won't expend the time unless you first expend a bit of time proving your claim.


Originally posted by queenannie38
So lay off the challenge.


If you don't want challenges, then don't make claims you are unwilling to support. Few people care what you believe, they care about why you believe it. You are just wasting forum space if you state your beliefs but refiuse to explain why and how.


Originally posted by queenannie38
I don't say these things in defense of what I believe--common sense and observation has taught me that men find rational justification for anything they want--atheists and religious zealots alike.


More than that, what they believe stems from such rational justifications originally.


Originally posted by queenannie38
You obviously don't believe the bible--I obviously do. I can't make you believe, and you can't make me not believe.


If your mind is closed, then I certainly can't persuade you. But, as a former believer, I can attest that minds can in fact be changed. If I were to see a compelling argument, I would believe again.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:51 AM
link   
weak minds have no faith of the truth. Strong minds believe in whats liveing and true.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
Are you now claiming that you "experience" that the writers of the NT were eyewitnesses of Jesus?!
No, I was referring to my own experiences, not as an eyewitness but definitely as a witness that God is real.




Certainly. However, I seriously doubt you will accept it, which is why I won't expend the time unless you first expend a bit of time proving your claim.
Why would I accept some kind of human-given proof over the proof that has been given me by God? You think you know where my thoughts originate from, but you don't. As far as expending time to prove my claim to you--it's not my job. And it wasn't a 'claim'--as I said I misunderstood your 'what witnesses' question--I was just clarifying what I thought you didn't understand. I don't go around trying to prove anything to anyone. How can I? I, at least, realize this.


Few people care what you believe, they care about why you believe it. You are just wasting forum space if you state your beliefs but refiuse to explain why and how.
Why and how? Because God revealed Himself to me. How? In my mind, in my thoughts, through revelations and giving me knowledge I know would be impossible to learn or even imagine. I know my own mind, and know my own thoughts. I know when things arise that are not of my own device. Maybe that's not true for many people, I don't know. I know what I know and unless you knew me, you really can't know that I've literally been transformed. There are people in my life that would both tell you that it's true and would also tell you just how being a witness to me changing changed them, as well. And not once did I seek to 'prove' anything to them, or 'convince' them. I didn't preach or nag, I just got up every day like everyone else.


More than that, what they believe stems from such rational justifications originally.
No doubt. But that is not the only source of understanding. There is the human mind and there is the Living Mind.



If your mind is closed, then I certainly can't persuade you. But, as a former believer, I can attest that minds can in fact be changed. If I were to see a compelling argument, I would believe again.
No, my mind is not 'closed,'--it is more open than you can realize. I don't firmly attach some idea as permanent in my mind--the only one that is affixed was the one I was born with and it hasn't changed--I can't make it change. Being a 'believer' is not the same as 'knowing.' And I know. Maybe you doubt that, but that's of no effect on my conviction. Your doubt is your doubt--not mine, and you're no different from those who try to push their beliefs on someone else--you try to push your doubt on others.

I know minds can change in 'believers'--this is the mechanism:

Believer believes.
Believer studies and then has questions.
Believer seeks the answers from other 'believers'.

This is where the choice is made.

A believer's true choice lies in either
'being patient and waiting on the LORD to reveal Himself, which is faith.'
OR
'being impatient and seeking answers in men, which is idolatry and lack of faith.'

I've done the first one and nothing you can say could persuade me to do the second one, especially after my patience has already paid off!



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 04:42 PM
link   
" If I do not believe as you believe, it proves that you do not believe as I believe, and this is all that it proves. " Thomas Paine

" If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. " Lyall Watson

‘Treat the other man's faith gently; it is all he has to believe with. His mind was created for his own thoughts, not yours or mine. ‘ Henry S. Haskins

'99.999% of what affects our reality will be undetectable by our senses. Man must learn to think for himself rather than follow blindly what he has been taught. '
-Buckminster Fuller



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by slymattb
weak minds have no faith of the truth. Strong minds believe in whats liveing and true.


Strong minds reject the very concept of faith. Weak minds believe what feels comfortable.



posted on Aug, 27 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
Believer believes.
Believer studies and then has questions.
Believer seeks the answers from other 'believers'.


or (4), believer recognizes the incestuousness of depending only on believers and suspects they may in fact be involved in a cult. You claim you have an open mind, yet you imply you have closed off certain paths of searching.

Do you consider non-Christian sources, and if so, do you automatically dismiss them simply because they challenge your faith?



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 12:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham

Originally posted by queenannie38
Believer believes.
Believer studies and then has questions.
Believer seeks the answers from other 'believers'.


or (4), believer recognizes the incestuousness of depending only on believers and suspects they may in fact be involved in a cult.
So--since other 'believers' depend on each other (which is the very thing we are not to do, especially not before we depend on God Psalms 118:8)--that makes 'believing' invalid?

The way I see it, it just proves the soundness of one of the main themes of the bible: Depend on God, not Man and not Self.



You claim you have an open mind, yet you imply you have closed off certain paths of searching.
Why do you say that? Because I don't want to 'explore' the paths you are suggesting? Did you not understand me to say that I have already looked into those things--I knew what you were talking about, believe it or not.


Do you consider non-Christian sources,
Honestly? I usually consider non-Christian sources more than 'christian' sources--I find that 'christian' sources mainly follow preacher-men and 'fathers'. I am not a christian. I believe in the Christ, that is, Messiah--I worship God, not Christ. Christians worship Christ--protestants, that is--the catholics worship Mary and the Pope.

BUT I can learn from anything--even error-ridden rapture-ready charismatic materialism inspired writings. Because I know to learn is not to mimic, but to observe, research, think critically, accumulate small insights into the 'big picture', etc...


and if so, do you automatically dismiss them simply because they challenge your faith?
I don't dismiss anything--except that which doesn't make sense or feel true deep inside--and I don't even really 'dismiss' it--it just doesn't get the seat of 'truth' in my mind. Only a brighter and clearer truth can supplant that which is there--and it has and will again.

As far as 'challenging' my faith--nothing's ever threatened it's existence--I've even tried to talk myself out of it--to see how firm it was--I can't even even begin to because I honestly cannot imagine that there is not a God. It's not a choice. Because of that, I've not been scared to explore all manner of things my whole life, looking for truth--I wasn't scared I'd go astray, after all, if I trust that God won't let me stray since He knows I'm truly looking for Him, and Him alone--why wouldn't He live up to that?

I've looked into just about everything I've heard of. Something new is encountered, I look into it. There is truth and proof of God everywhere. Not the nonsense god that man dreams up, but the God that really is.

So your assumptions are not applicable to me.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 12:49 AM
link   

Strong minds reject the very concept of faith. Weak minds believe what feels comfortable.

So you believe that a strong mind does not believe in faith. When in fact we both know there are strong minds everwhere, in faith and out.

God bless ya queen. Your a smart lady of the lord. We should always worship God in Heaven, through the power of Jesus. I said this once I pray To God in the name of Jesus. But I dont really pray to Jesus. Jesus is a Great Son of God, he is The Great Son of God. Through Jesus's love and forgiveness of sins, we may come to God.

The only reason I look at my self as a christian is because I believe in the Bible, if you believe in what in the bible your a christian.But most christian's it seams believe whats not in the bible. So I am not the same as some christians.



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 08:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by slymattb
So you believe that a strong mind does not believe in faith. When in fact we both know there are strong minds everwhere, in faith and out.


No, there are brilliant minds in and out of faith (though mostly out). A strong mind is one which is not ruled by preconceptions, one which is capable of admitting error, one which is capable of change.

I would love to have a conversation with someone who has a strong mind and has faith so I could learn why faith is a valid way of obtaining knowledge. I have yet to find such a person.


Originally posted by slymattb
The only reason I look at my self as a christian is because I believe in the Bible, if you believe in what in the bible your a christian.


Is this what Jesus said?



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by spamandham
I would love to have a conversation with someone who has a strong mind and has faith so I could learn why faith is a valid way of obtaining knowledge. I have yet to find such a person.
Since it seems that you discount anyone with faith as being capable of having a 'strong mind'--how can you expect to find someone like that? Will you look beyond the fact that they have faith, with an open mind, and see evidence of a strong mind? What would that evidence, be, exactly?



posted on Aug, 28 2005 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenannie38
[Since it seems that you discount anyone with faith as being capable of having a 'strong mind'--how can you expect to find someone like that?


They would have to have a solid defense in favor of the concept of faith. However, it would have to be one heck of a defense, because we all reject faith in ordinary matters, it's only when we start talking about ephemeral concepts (like religion and politics) that faith comes into play.



posted on Aug, 29 2005 @ 01:21 AM
link   
'They would have to have a solid defense in favor of the concept of faith. However, it would have to be one heck of a defense, because we all reject faith in ordinary matters, it's only when we start talking about ephemeral concepts (like religion and politics) that faith comes into play. '
Spamandham

I have a fair mind... I don't know what qualifies for strong to you, but the school system here found that I had a 148 IQ at 12 years old, and more recently, I tested at 98.4 percentile in intelligence, relative to the general population. I don't ask others to defend faith. It is in every field, not just the two you mention. Sports, business, love, friendship, crises, rescues, survival, etc. If the fact that I have faith in the concept of faith means that to you I do not have a strong mind, so be it. I am indifferent. I thought I had faith all my life, because it appeared that relative to those all around me I had lots. I sure got told I had too much often enough. Last year, at 39 years old, I learned how weak that faith was. It is much, much stronger now.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join