Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Arguments for God and "faith".

popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 1:49:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There's a common refrain I hear from both theists and non-theists that somehow if we were able to "prove" that God exists through philosophical arguments there would be no room for faith. (This is usually followed up with some line of argumentation that, necessarily, faith must be unsupportable by rational argumentation/evidence because, otherwise, it wouldn't be "faith".) I must admit, I have a hard time taking this line of thought seriously and I always have had a hard time understanding why people think this is true. I think people who think this may not be thinking epistemology all the way through, and my man Keith DeRose explains why. (Because I'm lazy.) TL;DR my takeaway for the purposes of this post is that one could think that there are very good and excellent reasons to believe in the existence of God - partly due to philosophical arguments - and have plenty of room left over for faith. It's simply the nature of philosophical arguments (even deductive ones) that they don't offer 100% iron clad proof on difficult matters (and God's existence certainly qualifies as a difficult matter, imo). Thoughts? I heartily recommend reading the whole post and the comments though - that is if you're in to heady philosophical discussions. I generally agree with it on the subject matter of "knowing" about God's existence.

"The Arguments for and against God's Existence

While it's not my main area, I do have a strong teaching interest--that occasionally becomes a writing interest--in the philosophy of religion. (And I suspect I'll be working in that area more in the future, D.V.) So I know the philosophical arguments for and against God's existence pretty well, and have taught the main ones quite a few times. And I'm not going to go into this all that much here, and will have nothing to say here about any particular arguments, but I feel quite confident that nobody knows whether God exists on the basis of any philosophical argument. They're just not good enough to produce knowledge of their (theistic or atheistic) conclusions.
.
I do think some of these arguments (on both sides) are pretty good so far as philosophy goes. But generally, that doesn't go very far, and doesn't make it anywhere near to knowledge. Some of these arguments are relatively good at accomplishing what philosophical arguments generally do, and, in particular, some of them are successful at showing how someone might reasonably believe the conclusions of the arguments.
.
But as it generally goes with philosophical arguments, they don't produce knowledge of their controversial conclusions about substantive philosophical matters.
.
As happens in other areas, sometimes when engaged in philosophical argument, we easily slip into talking as if, and it very much feels as if, we know that our position is correct. But really we don't. That's how I feel generally about philosophy. Which is not to put philosophy down. Philosophy is wonderful--and in large part precisely because it deals with questions where we can't yet know what is right. (I think there's something to the idea that once we get to the point that philosophy is producing actual knowledge about a topic, then the area of philosophy that deals with the area is likely to break off and no longer be thought of as philosophy.)
.
So my skepticism about coming to know whether God exists by means of philosophical arguments is very much of a piece with my general thoughts about the limitations of such arguments. Nothing in particular against theists or atheists here.
.
Since atheists' only real hope of knowing that God doesn't exist would be through some kind of philosophical argument (perhaps some argument from evil), their knowing that God doesn't exist doesn't seem to me a very serious possibility. If anyone is going to know whether God exists, it will have to be theists, knowing that God does exist. And they will have to do it by some means other than through philosophical arguments. But how, then?
.
When Mahalia Jackson (yes, many others have performed this song as well, but for me, this song totally belongs to Jackson) sings (you hear it here):
.
There are some things I may not know
There are some places, oh Lord, I cannot go
But I am sure of this one thing
That God is real
For I can feel Him in my soul

.
The song is much more effective than it would be if the last line above instead went:
.
For I have found a version of the cosmological argument that is clearly enough sound

.
(Why I think atheists don't have a corresponding serious possibility of knowledge of God's non-existence through (ir)religious experience turns out to be something that gets way too complicated way too quickly for me to address here.)"
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 2:05:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Since atheists' only real hope of knowing that God doesn't exist would be through some kind of philosophical argument (perhaps some argument from evil), their knowing that God doesn't exist doesn't seem to me a very serious possibility. If anyone is going to know whether God exists, it will have to be theists, knowing that God does exist. And they will have to do it by some means other than through philosophical arguments. But how, then?

Man may not know what is true, but he certainly does know what is false. The God that interferes with the world to produce observable changes lends his existence/non-existence to empirical scrutiny. So the only God that is unfalsifiable is that which does nothing we can perceive .... at which point he would also be unverifiable.

So knowledge and certainty are symmetrically distributed among atheists and theists.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Thalos
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 2:16:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 2:05:41 PM, 000ike wrote:
Since atheists' only real hope of knowing that God doesn't exist would be through some kind of philosophical argument (perhaps some argument from evil), their knowing that God doesn't exist doesn't seem to me a very serious possibility. If anyone is going to know whether God exists, it will have to be theists, knowing that God does exist. And they will have to do it by some means other than through philosophical arguments. But how, then?

Man may not know what is true, but he certainly does know what is false. The God that interferes with the world to produce observable changes lends his existence/non-existence to empirical scrutiny. So the only God that is unfalsifiable is that which does nothing we can perceive .... at which point he would also be unverifiable.

So knowledge and certainty are symmetrically distributed among atheists and theists.

How is it easier to know what's false than what's true? And how do we know that theism's false if it's in principle unfalsifiable? (Which it doesn't seem to be anyhow..)
'to your wounds, DDO -
Thalos
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 2:24:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Re: the blog post -

I agree that justification in terms of argument for theism isn't necessary to be a theist. Nevertheless I do think they're sufficient for some folks. We assent to knowledge and often times this takes the push of 'seeing' the soundness of an argument. From which case the individual can claim to know something about God.

Sure there's controversy behind such arguments but that controversy is secondary to the reasons themselves supporting the premises in the valid argument. Insofar as a person 'sees' its truth, then assenting to that truth isn't a problem.

From there, further warrant in terms of experience of God can provide epistemological bedrock for the genuine seeker; such bedrock is a type of faith, which is prior to all knowledge whatever- the only question is whether that faith is conducive to reason or not, if so, then it's a reasonable faith, if not, then intellectual nihilism and ultimate skepticism is the result.
'to your wounds, DDO -
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2013 5:18:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 1:49:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
There's a common refrain I hear from both theists and non-theists that somehow if we were able to "prove" that God exists through philosophical arguments there would be no room for faith. (This is usually followed up with some line of argumentation that, necessarily, faith must be unsupportable by rational argumentation/evidence because, otherwise, it wouldn't be "faith".) I must admit, I have a hard time taking this line of thought seriously and I always have had a hard time understanding why people think this is true. I think people who think this may not be thinking epistemology all the way through, and my man Keith DeRose explains why. (Because I'm lazy.) TL;DR my takeaway for the purposes of this post is that one could think that there are very good and excellent reasons to believe in the existence of God - partly due to philosophical arguments - and have plenty of room left over for faith. It's simply the nature of philosophical arguments (even deductive ones) that they don't offer 100% iron clad proof on difficult matters (and God's existence certainly qualifies as a difficult matter, imo). Thoughts? I heartily recommend reading the whole post and the comments though - that is if you're in to heady philosophical discussions. I generally agree with it on the subject matter of "knowing" about God's existence.

"The Arguments for and against God's Existence

While it's not my main area, I do have a strong teaching interest--that occasionally becomes a writing interest--in the philosophy of religion. (And I suspect I'll be working in that area more in the future, D.V.) So I know the philosophical arguments for and against God's existence pretty well, and have taught the main ones quite a few times. And I'm not going to go into this all that much here, and will have nothing to say here about any particular arguments, but I feel quite confident that nobody knows whether God exists on the basis of any philosophical argument. They're just not good enough to produce knowledge of their (theistic or atheistic) conclusions.
.
I do think some of these arguments (on both sides) are pretty good so far as philosophy goes. But generally, that doesn't go very far, and doesn't make it anywhere near to knowledge. Some of these arguments are relatively good at accomplishing what philosophical arguments generally do, and, in particular, some of them are successful at showing how someone might reasonably believe the conclusions of the arguments.
.
But as it generally goes with philosophical arguments, they don't produce knowledge of their controversial conclusions about substantive philosophical matters.
.
As happens in other areas, sometimes when engaged in philosophical argument, we easily slip into talking as if, and it very much feels as if, we know that our position is correct. But really we don't. That's how I feel generally about philosophy. Which is not to put philosophy down. Philosophy is wonderful--and in large part precisely because it deals with questions where we can't yet know what is right. (I think there's something to the idea that once we get to the point that philosophy is producing actual knowledge about a topic, then the area of philosophy that deals with the area is likely to break off and no longer be thought of as philosophy.)
.
So my skepticism about coming to know whether God exists by means of philosophical arguments is very much of a piece with my general thoughts about the limitations of such arguments. Nothing in particular against theists or atheists here.
.
Since atheists' only real hope of knowing that God doesn't exist would be through some kind of philosophical argument (perhaps some argument from evil), their knowing that God doesn't exist doesn't seem to me a very serious possibility. If anyone is going to know whether God exists, it will have to be theists, knowing that God does exist. And they will have to do it by some means other than through philosophical arguments. But how, then?
.
When Mahalia Jackson (yes, many others have performed this song as well, but for me, this song totally belongs to Jackson) sings (you hear it here):
.
There are some things I may not know
There are some places, oh Lord, I cannot go
But I am sure of this one thing
That God is real
For I can feel Him in my soul

.
The song is much more effective than it would be if the last line above instead went:
.
For I have found a version of the cosmological argument that is clearly enough sound

.
(Why I think atheists don't have a corresponding serious possibility of knowledge of God's non-existence through (ir)religious experience turns out to be something that gets way too complicated way too quickly for me to address here.)"

No religious man, including all Christians, have any idea what faith means. All they have is hope in changed words in their holy books that lead them far from the Truth.
Thalos
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 4:46:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/1/2013 5:18:57 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/1/2013 1:49:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
There's a common refrain I hear from both theists and non-theists that somehow if we were able to "prove" that God exists through philosophical arguments there would be no room for faith. (This is usually followed up with some line of argumentation that, necessarily, faith must be unsupportable by rational argumentation/evidence because, otherwise, it wouldn't be "faith".) I must admit, I have a hard time taking this line of thought seriously and I always have had a hard time understanding why people think this is true. I think people who think this may not be thinking epistemology all the way through, and my man Keith DeRose explains why. (Because I'm lazy.) TL;DR my takeaway for the purposes of this post is that one could think that there are very good and excellent reasons to believe in the existence of God - partly due to philosophical arguments - and have plenty of room left over for faith. It's simply the nature of philosophical arguments (even deductive ones) that they don't offer 100% iron clad proof on difficult matters (and God's existence certainly qualifies as a difficult matter, imo). Thoughts? I heartily recommend reading the whole post and the comments though - that is if you're in to heady philosophical discussions. I generally agree with it on the subject matter of "knowing" about God's existence.

"The Arguments for and against God's Existence

While it's not my main area, I do have a strong teaching interest--that occasionally becomes a writing interest--in the philosophy of religion. (And I suspect I'll be working in that area more in the future, D.V.) So I know the philosophical arguments for and against God's existence pretty well, and have taught the main ones quite a few times. And I'm not going to go into this all that much here, and will have nothing to say here about any particular arguments, but I feel quite confident that nobody knows whether God exists on the basis of any philosophical argument. They're just not good enough to produce knowledge of their (theistic or atheistic) conclusions.
.
I do think some of these arguments (on both sides) are pretty good so far as philosophy goes. But generally, that doesn't go very far, and doesn't make it anywhere near to knowledge. Some of these arguments are relatively good at accomplishing what philosophical arguments generally do, and, in particular, some of them are successful at showing how someone might reasonably believe the conclusions of the arguments.
.
But as it generally goes with philosophical arguments, they don't produce knowledge of their controversial conclusions about substantive philosophical matters.
.
As happens in other areas, sometimes when engaged in philosophical argument, we easily slip into talking as if, and it very much feels as if, we know that our position is correct. But really we don't. That's how I feel generally about philosophy. Which is not to put philosophy down. Philosophy is wonderful--and in large part precisely because it deals with questions where we can't yet know what is right. (I think there's something to the idea that once we get to the point that philosophy is producing actual knowledge about a topic, then the area of philosophy that deals with the area is likely to break off and no longer be thought of as philosophy.)
.
So my skepticism about coming to know whether God exists by means of philosophical arguments is very much of a piece with my general thoughts about the limitations of such arguments. Nothing in particular against theists or atheists here.
.
Since atheists' only real hope of knowing that God doesn't exist would be through some kind of philosophical argument (perhaps some argument from evil), their knowing that God doesn't exist doesn't seem to me a very serious possibility. If anyone is going to know whether God exists, it will have to be theists, knowing that God does exist. And they will have to do it by some means other than through philosophical arguments. But how, then?
.
When Mahalia Jackson (yes, many others have performed this song as well, but for me, this song totally belongs to Jackson) sings (you hear it here):
.
There are some things I may not know
There are some places, oh Lord, I cannot go
But I am sure of this one thing
That God is real
For I can feel Him in my soul

.
The song is much more effective than it would be if the last line above instead went:
.
For I have found a version of the cosmological argument that is clearly enough sound

.
(Why I think atheists don't have a corresponding serious possibility of knowledge of God's non-existence through (ir)religious experience turns out to be something that gets way too complicated way too quickly for me to address here.)"

No religious man, including all Christians, have any idea what faith means. All they have is hope in changed words in their holy books that lead them far from the Truth.

Apparently this one knows something we don't.. I'd like to know what it is?
'to your wounds, DDO -
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 1:05:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/2/2013 4:46:25 AM, Thalos wrote:
At 9/1/2013 5:18:57 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/1/2013 1:49:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
There's a common refrain I hear from both theists and non-theists that somehow if we were able to "prove" that God exists through philosophical arguments there would be no room for faith. (This is usually followed up with some line of argumentation that, necessarily, faith must be unsupportable by rational argumentation/evidence because, otherwise, it wouldn't be "faith".) I must admit, I have a hard time taking this line of thought seriously and I always have had a hard time understanding why people think this is true. I think people who think this may not be thinking epistemology all the way through, and my man Keith DeRose explains why. (Because I'm lazy.) TL;DR my takeaway for the purposes of this post is that one could think that there are very good and excellent reasons to believe in the existence of God - partly due to philosophical arguments - and have plenty of room left over for faith. It's simply the nature of philosophical arguments (even deductive ones) that they don't offer 100% iron clad proof on difficult matters (and God's existence certainly qualifies as a difficult matter, imo). Thoughts? I heartily recommend reading the whole post and the comments though - that is if you're in to heady philosophical discussions. I generally agree with it on the subject matter of "knowing" about God's existence.

"The Arguments for and against God's Existence

While it's not my main area, I do have a strong teaching interest--that occasionally becomes a writing interest--in the philosophy of religion. (And I suspect I'll be working in that area more in the future, D.V.) So I know the philosophical arguments for and against God's existence pretty well, and have taught the main ones quite a few times. And I'm not going to go into this all that much here, and will have nothing to say here about any particular arguments, but I feel quite confident that nobody knows whether God exists on the basis of any philosophical argument. They're just not good enough to produce knowledge of their (theistic or atheistic) conclusions.
.
I do think some of these arguments (on both sides) are pretty good so far as philosophy goes. But generally, that doesn't go very far, and doesn't make it anywhere near to knowledge. Some of these arguments are relatively good at accomplishing what philosophical arguments generally do, and, in particular, some of them are successful at showing how someone might reasonably believe the conclusions of the arguments.
.
But as it generally goes with philosophical arguments, they don't produce knowledge of their controversial conclusions about substantive philosophical matters.
.
As happens in other areas, sometimes when engaged in philosophical argument, we easily slip into talking as if, and it very much feels as if, we know that our position is correct. But really we don't. That's how I feel generally about philosophy. Which is not to put philosophy down. Philosophy is wonderful--and in large part precisely because it deals with questions where we can't yet know what is right. (I think there's something to the idea that once we get to the point that philosophy is producing actual knowledge about a topic, then the area of philosophy that deals with the area is likely to break off and no longer be thought of as philosophy.)
.
So my skepticism about coming to know whether God exists by means of philosophical arguments is very much of a piece with my general thoughts about the limitations of such arguments. Nothing in particular against theists or atheists here.
.
Since atheists' only real hope of knowing that God doesn't exist would be through some kind of philosophical argument (perhaps some argument from evil), their knowing that God doesn't exist doesn't seem to me a very serious possibility. If anyone is going to know whether God exists, it will have to be theists, knowing that God does exist. And they will have to do it by some means other than through philosophical arguments. But how, then?
.
When Mahalia Jackson (yes, many others have performed this song as well, but for me, this song totally belongs to Jackson) sings (you hear it here):
.
There are some things I may not know
There are some places, oh Lord, I cannot go
But I am sure of this one thing
That God is real
For I can feel Him in my soul

.
The song is much more effective than it would be if the last line above instead went:
.
For I have found a version of the cosmological argument that is clearly enough sound

.
(Why I think atheists don't have a corresponding serious possibility of knowledge of God's non-existence through (ir)religious experience turns out to be something that gets way too complicated way too quickly for me to address here.)"

No religious man, including all Christians, have any idea what faith means. All they have is hope in changed words in their holy books that lead them far from the Truth.

Apparently this one knows something we don't.. I'd like to know what it is?

If you're willing to listen, I can tell you what happened in the past, present and future.
Thalos
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2013 6:58:08 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/2/2013 1:05:11 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2013 4:46:25 AM, Thalos wrote:
At 9/1/2013 5:18:57 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/1/2013 1:49:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
There's a common refrain I hear from both theists and non-theists that somehow if we were able to "prove" that God exists through philosophical arguments there would be no room for faith. (This is usually followed up with some line of argumentation that, necessarily, faith must be unsupportable by rational argumentation/evidence because, otherwise, it wouldn't be "faith".) I must admit, I have a hard time taking this line of thought seriously and I always have had a hard time understanding why people think this is true. I think people who think this may not be thinking epistemology all the way through, and my man Keith DeRose explains why. (Because I'm lazy.) TL;DR my takeaway for the purposes of this post is that one could think that there are very good and excellent reasons to believe in the existence of God - partly due to philosophical arguments - and have plenty of room left over for faith. It's simply the nature of philosophical arguments (even deductive ones) that they don't offer 100% iron clad proof on difficult matters (and God's existence certainly qualifies as a difficult matter, imo). Thoughts? I heartily recommend reading the whole post and the comments though - that is if you're in to heady philosophical discussions. I generally agree with it on the subject matter of "knowing" about God's existence.

"The Arguments for and against God's Existence

While it's not my main area, I do have a strong teaching interest--that occasionally becomes a writing interest--in the philosophy of religion. (And I suspect I'll be working in that area more in the future, D.V.) So I know the philosophical arguments for and against God's existence pretty well, and have taught the main ones quite a few times. And I'm not going to go into this all that much here, and will have nothing to say here about any particular arguments, but I feel quite confident that nobody knows whether God exists on the basis of any philosophical argument. They're just not good enough to produce knowledge of their (theistic or atheistic) conclusions.
.
I do think some of these arguments (on both sides) are pretty good so far as philosophy goes. But generally, that doesn't go very far, and doesn't make it anywhere near to knowledge. Some of these arguments are relatively good at accomplishing what philosophical arguments generally do, and, in particular, some of them are successful at showing how someone might reasonably believe the conclusions of the arguments.
.
But as it generally goes with philosophical arguments, they don't produce knowledge of their controversial conclusions about substantive philosophical matters.
.
As happens in other areas, sometimes when engaged in philosophical argument, we easily slip into talking as if, and it very much feels as if, we know that our position is correct. But really we don't. That's how I feel generally about philosophy. Which is not to put philosophy down. Philosophy is wonderful--and in large part precisely because it deals with questions where we can't yet know what is right. (I think there's something to the idea that once we get to the point that philosophy is producing actual knowledge about a topic, then the area of philosophy that deals with the area is likely to break off and no longer be thought of as philosophy.)
.
So my skepticism about coming to know whether God exists by means of philosophical arguments is very much of a piece with my general thoughts about the limitations of such arguments. Nothing in particular against theists or atheists here.
.
Since atheists' only real hope of knowing that God doesn't exist would be through some kind of philosophical argument (perhaps some argument from evil), their knowing that God doesn't exist doesn't seem to me a very serious possibility. If anyone is going to know whether God exists, it will have to be theists, knowing that God does exist. And they will have to do it by some means other than through philosophical arguments. But how, then?
.
When Mahalia Jackson (yes, many others have performed this song as well, but for me, this song totally belongs to Jackson) sings (you hear it here):
.
There are some things I may not know
There are some places, oh Lord, I cannot go
But I am sure of this one thing
That God is real
For I can feel Him in my soul

.
The song is much more effective than it would be if the last line above instead went:
.
For I have found a version of the cosmological argument that is clearly enough sound

.
(Why I think atheists don't have a corresponding serious possibility of knowledge of God's non-existence through (ir)religious experience turns out to be something that gets way too complicated way too quickly for me to address here.)"

No religious man, including all Christians, have any idea what faith means. All they have is hope in changed words in their holy books that lead them far from the Truth.

Apparently this one knows something we don't.. I'd like to know what it is?

If you're willing to listen, I can tell you what happened in the past, present and future.

all ears as always..
'to your wounds, DDO -
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 12:55:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/2/2013 6:58:08 PM, Thalos wrote:
At 9/2/2013 1:05:11 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2013 4:46:25 AM, Thalos wrote:
At 9/1/2013 5:18:57 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/1/2013 1:49:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
.

When Mahalia Jackson (yes, many others have performed this song as well, but for me, this song totally belongs to Jackson) sings (you hear it here):
.
There are some things I may not know
There are some places, oh Lord, I cannot go
But I am sure of this one thing
(Why I think atheists don't have a corresponding serious possibility of knowledge of God's non-existence through (ir)religious experience turns out to be something that gets way too complicated way too quickly for me to address here.)"

No religious man, including all Christians, have any idea what faith means. All they have is hope in changed words in their holy books that lead them far from the Truth.

Apparently this one knows something we don't.. I'd like to know what it is?

If you're willing to listen, I can tell you what happened in the past, present and future.

all ears as always..

First of all, we have a Creator ( Master Programmer ) who planned to have "beings" in many different world experiences and give each "being" a different experience than the next "being".

In order to do this, He had to build His first machine called His voice, which is called the "Word of God" in the scriptures. Everything was spoken into existence from His first machine as invisible wavelengths of energy, which is known as His Kingdom of Heaven, Christ, Kingdom of God, Son of God, Holy Spirit, Zion, Jacob, Light, Eternal Life, Breath of Life, Book of Life, Tree of Life, etc.

These wavelengths of energy have to be processed to give man a defined world experience ( life ). Each "being" has a brain ( also made of wavelengths of energy, known today as information ) , a processor of information. From this brain, which is the same thing as a processor of computer binary code, wavelengths of energy are converted into a defined world within our Creator's mind, ( which is also the mind of all His "beings" ). This defined world is where we experience being in a flesh that sees, hears, tastes, smells, touches, speaks and emotionally feels.

The defined worlds ( illusions called visions and dreams ) are not real but they are made to make us believe they are real.

The world we're all experiencing today was made to deceive man with wavelengths of energy designed to vibrate differently than the created energy we're our "being" was created. These wavelengths of energy that vibrate in disharmony with God's creation is called "Lucifer" in the book of Genesis, also known as the "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Devil, Satan, Serpent, Wicked flesh, Antichrist, False Prophet, the Beast, etc.

This created delusion ( Lucifer ) was meant to be a contrast in the minds of His "beings" so He could come into the mind of His prophets and saints with His information from His original creation called "Christ", or Kingdom of Heaven. These different wavelengths of energy is what calls God's servant out from the flesh of His propohets and saints to have their flesh write, do and say things according to God's eternal plan for us all.

This contrast of thought within our minds worked great to divide up His servant from His created men. Men are created differently than God's servant ( the Word ) because God's man was created to have two bodies of flesh ( both male and female ) to be partners in the next age. God's servant will awaken in thousands of bodies in the next age and be used to speak the new language into existence and all the knowledge that we need to understand each other when we share our visions and dreams with each other.

The original prophecies that God had His servant in the flesh of His prophets write were about future events, but mostly about the next age. Some of the prophecies were showing how ALL the flesh of God's people has to be destroyed in this age befor we go on to the next age. They also show us saints coming with the "good news" that ALL God's people will be saved from this world delusion and be given new bodies of flesh to experience the New Heaven and Earth that He has prepared for us to experience many new visions and dreams ( illusions ) from our individual "beings" within our new flesh.

No Christian has ever known God's promises and plans for us in the new age to come because the Roman religious leaders, who were deceived by the religious Jews who were jealous of the saints testimonies, had passed a law to kill all the saints who testify from God's knowledge that we possess in our created existence called "Christ", or wavelengths of energy that vibrate in perfect harmony.

Rome gathered all the Christ-like religions in their Empire where antichrists were using stolen words from the testimonies of the saints and using them for their own purpose to make good livings by enslaving their followers to their own selfish rules. Rome had to form a religious government called the Vatican to change all the rules and start a new religion called Christianity and form the Roman Catholic church to totally deceive the original believers of the saint's testimonies.

These former believers were lied to by the Vatican with all their new laws and soon, they forgot all about the teachings from Christ that the saints testified to. Without a saint around, it was easy for Rome to deceive their new Christians into their Christianity and keep them confused with their own laws instead of teaching them from Christ ( which was unknown to the Roman religious leaders ) like the saints did.

From that time on, the new testament that Rome produced, made sure that no saints would ever exist again but they didn't realize that all God's saints were made by God and not by words in a book. They didn't know that God planned on having one more saint in the last days of this age to testify to the Roman deception that deceived all their Christians. I am that last saint with God's knowledge to understand what Rome did to deceive God's people and also what the religious Jews added to their old testament writings to control their people a long time before the first saints appeared in this world.

The Jews added their own laws to the writings of the prophets to do the same thing as the Romans did with their new testament. They made lots of wealth by their false tithing laws and laws about sex, living arrangments, church heirarchy, hell belief, communion, and many other religious beliefs that came out of the beast, which was God's plan to teach men how to build things but at the same time, deceive them from the Truth.

The beast is information to keep men confused by believing their thoughts about building shapes they got from looking at the stars came from their own "being", instead of from our Creator. These selfish thoughts gave them power over the people they had to build their false gods ( buildings ) into cities and new governments that deceived everyone into different nations and languages. ( This is the symbolic "tower of Babel story" found in Genesis ) that continues on today in the minds of ALL God's people, except for me, who now understands God's delusion.

God needed the beast to teach men how to build His latest technology to teach us about energy ( God's invisible Heaven ) and how He created us. Now that I understand how He did all this, we can end this age.

The new Heaven and Earth will be much different than what we're experiencing now.

( to be continued if you're still interested in listening )
Thalos
Posts: 20
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/3/2013 10:08:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/3/2013 12:55:15 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2013 6:58:08 PM, Thalos wrote:
At 9/2/2013 1:05:11 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/2/2013 4:46:25 AM, Thalos wrote:
At 9/1/2013 5:18:57 PM, bornofgod wrote:
At 9/1/2013 1:49:51 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
.

When Mahalia Jackson (yes, many others have performed this song as well, but for me, this song totally belongs to Jackson) sings (you hear it here):
.
There are some things I may not know
There are some places, oh Lord, I cannot go
But I am sure of this one thing
(Why I think atheists don't have a corresponding serious possibility of knowledge of God's non-existence through (ir)religious experience turns out to be something that gets way too complicated way too quickly for me to address here.)"

No religious man, including all Christians, have any idea what faith means. All they have is hope in changed words in their holy books that lead them far from the Truth.

Apparently this one knows something we don't.. I'd like to know what it is?

If you're willing to listen, I can tell you what happened in the past, present and future.

all ears as always..

First of all, we have a Creator ( Master Programmer ) who planned to have "beings" in many different world experiences and give each "being" a different experience than the next "being".

In order to do this, He had to build His first machine called His voice, which is called the "Word of God" in the scriptures. Everything was spoken into existence from His first machine as invisible wavelengths of energy, which is known as His Kingdom of Heaven, Christ, Kingdom of God, Son of God, Holy Spirit, Zion, Jacob, Light, Eternal Life, Breath of Life, Book of Life, Tree of Life, etc.

These wavelengths of energy have to be processed to give man a defined world experience ( life ). Each "being" has a brain ( also made of wavelengths of energy, known today as information ) , a processor of information. From this brain, which is the same thing as a processor of computer binary code, wavelengths of energy are converted into a defined world within our Creator's mind, ( which is also the mind of all His "beings" ). This defined world is where we experience being in a flesh that sees, hears, tastes, smells, touches, speaks and emotionally feels.

The defined worlds ( illusions called visions and dreams ) are not real but they are made to make us believe they are real.

The world we're all experiencing today was made to deceive man with wavelengths of energy designed to vibrate differently than the created energy we're our "being" was created. These wavelengths of energy that vibrate in disharmony with God's creation is called "Lucifer" in the book of Genesis, also known as the "Tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Devil, Satan, Serpent, Wicked flesh, Antichrist, False Prophet, the Beast, etc.

This created delusion ( Lucifer ) was meant to be a contrast in the minds of His "beings" so He could come into the mind of His prophets and saints with His information from His original creation called "Christ", or Kingdom of Heaven. These different wavelengths of energy is what calls God's servant out from the flesh of His propohets and saints to have their flesh write, do and say things according to God's eternal plan for us all.

This contrast of thought within our minds worked great to divide up His servant from His created men. Men are created differently than God's servant ( the Word ) because God's man was created to have two bodies of flesh ( both male and female ) to be partners in the next age. God's servant will awaken in thousands of bodies in the next age and be used to speak the new language into existence and all the knowledge that we need to understand each other when we share our visions and dreams with each other.

The original prophecies that God had His servant in the flesh of His prophets write were about future events, but mostly about the next age. Some of the prophecies were showing how ALL the flesh of God's people has to be destroyed in this age befor we go on to the next age. They also show us saints coming with the "good news" that ALL God's people will be saved from this world delusion and be given new bodies of flesh to experience the New Heaven and Earth that He has prepared for us to experience many new visions and dreams ( illusions ) from our individual "beings" within our new flesh.

No Christian has ever known God's promises and plans for us in the new age to come because the Roman religious leaders, who were deceived by the religious Jews who were jealous of the saints testimonies, had passed a law to kill all the saints who testify from God's knowledge that we possess in our created existence called "Christ", or wavelengths of energy that vibrate in perfect harmony.

Rome gathered all the Christ-like religions in their Empire where antichrists were using stolen words from the testimonies of the saints and using them for their own purpose to make good livings by enslaving their followers to their own selfish rules. Rome had to form a religious government called the Vatican to change all the rules and start a new religion called Christianity and form the Roman Catholic church to totally deceive the original believers of the saint's testimonies.

These former believers were lied to by the Vatican with all their new laws and soon, they forgot all about the teachings from Christ that the saints testified to. Without a saint around, it was easy for Rome to deceive their new Christians into their Christianity and keep them confused with their own laws instead of teaching them from Christ ( which was unknown to the Roman religious leaders ) like the saints did.

From that time on, the new testament that Rome produced, made sure that no saints would ever exist again but they didn't realize that all God's saints were made by God and not by words in a book. They didn't know that God planned on having one more saint in the last days of this age to testify to the Roman deception that deceived all their Christians. I am that last saint with God's knowledge to understand what Rome did to deceive God's people and also what the religious Jews added to their old testament writings to control their people a long time before the first saints appeared in this world.

The Jews added their own laws to the writings of the prophets to do the same thing as the Romans did with their new testament. They made lots of wealth by their false tithing laws and laws about sex, living arrangments, church heirarchy, hell belief, communion, and many other religious beliefs that came out of the beast, which was God's plan to teach men how to build things but at the same time, deceive them from the Truth.

The beast is information to keep men confused by believing their thoughts about building shapes they got from looking at the stars came from their own "being", instead of from our Creator. These selfish thoughts gave them power over the people they had to build their false gods ( buildings ) into cities and new governments that deceived everyone into different nations and languages. ( This is the symbolic "tower of Babel story" found in Genesis ) that continues on today in the minds of ALL God's people, except for me, who now understands God's delusion.

God needed the beast to teach men how to build His latest technology to teach us about energy ( God's invisible Heaven ) and how He created us. Now that I understand how He did all this, we can end this age.

The new Heaven and Earth will be much different than what we're experiencing now.

( to be continued if you're still interested in listening )

seems like you're reading scientific magic into the religion
'to your wounds, DDO -
Dogknox
Posts: 5,069
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 8:39:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Jesus claimed to be God!
Jesus DID exist!!

John 14:20
On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one."

Jesus performed miracles..

&

Only God can forgive sins, Jesus forgave sins!!!
Mark 2:7
"Why does this fellow talk like that? He"s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

You have to prove Jesus is NOT God!!

popculturepooka
You said.. Since atheists' only real hope of knowing that God doesn't exist would be through some kind of philosophical argument (perhaps some argument from evil), their knowing that God doesn't exist doesn't seem to me a very serious possibility.


I reply: at best atheists' have FAITH God does not exist!
Philosophical arguments cannot apply; For or Against.. To actual KNOWING (for sure)!

Miracles throughout history are considered from God!
popculturepooka You can't discredit the >>FACT<< there are miracles! Sure the atheist can discredit some miracles by explanations from science but not all of them!!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 9:02:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 8:39:38 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Jesus claimed to be God!
Jesus DID exist!!

John 14:20
On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one."

Jesus performed miracles..

&

Only God can forgive sins, Jesus forgave sins!!!
Mark 2:7
"Why does this fellow talk like that? He"s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

You have to prove Jesus is NOT God!!

popculturepooka
You said.. Since atheists' only real hope of knowing that God doesn't exist would be through some kind of philosophical argument (perhaps some argument from evil), their knowing that God doesn't exist doesn't seem to me a very serious possibility.


I reply: at best atheists' have FAITH God does not exist!
Philosophical arguments cannot apply; For or Against.. To actual KNOWING (for sure)!

Miracles throughout history are considered from God!
popculturepooka You can't discredit the >>FACT<< there are miracles! Sure the atheist can discredit some miracles by explanations from science but not all of them!!

O....kayyyy...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Dogknox
Posts: 5,069
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 9:15:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 9:02:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/4/2013 8:39:38 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Jesus claimed to be God!
Jesus DID exist!!

John 14:20
On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one."

Jesus performed miracles..

&

Only God can forgive sins, Jesus forgave sins!!!
Mark 2:7
"Why does this fellow talk like that? He"s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

You have to prove Jesus is NOT God!!

popculturepooka
You said.. Since atheists' only real hope of knowing that God doesn't exist would be through some kind of philosophical argument (perhaps some argument from evil), their knowing that God doesn't exist doesn't seem to me a very serious possibility.


I reply: at best atheists' have FAITH God does not exist!
Philosophical arguments cannot apply; For or Against.. To actual KNOWING (for sure)!

Miracles throughout history are considered from God!
popculturepooka You can't discredit the >>FACT<< there are miracles! Sure the atheist can discredit some miracles by explanations from science but not all of them!!

O....kayyyy...

??????
I expected a better reply???
What did a say or not say, that you can't understand?? Do you reject even the slightest idea that Miracles exist??!
Was I off mark in my reply?

Did Jesus say the the things he did, because he was a Whack-Oh OR was it because, Jesus IS God!?? Take your pick.
I KNOW Jesus existed in history!
I KNOW what was written about Jesus inside of scriptures and out!
I KNOW there are thousands of unexplainable miracles though out history!

Dogknox
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2013 10:21:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Dogknox: "popculturepooka You can't discredit the >>FACT<< there are miracles! Sure the atheist can discredit some miracles by explanations from science but not all of them!!"

Anna: Yeah, they can. Every last one of them. Do you realize how silly this statement sounds: "Sure the atheist can discredit some miracles by explanations from science." Then they weren't miracles in the first place, were they?

And, FYI, the popish "church" has the Holy Rollers beat 10 to 1 in the game of "Miracle Jeopardy." Believe me, if anybody in the Vatican could perform a miracle, it would be on world-wide television. They can't. Nobody can. There's no need for them. They were needed at one time to confirm the veracity of the speaker.

"And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following." (Mark 16: 20)

Do Catholic missionaries do that? Nope.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Dogknox
Posts: 5,069
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2013 10:06:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 10:21:14 PM, annanicole wrote:
Dogknox: "popculturepooka You can't discredit the >>FACT<< there are miracles! Sure the atheist can discredit some miracles by explanations from science but not all of them!!"

Anna: Yeah, they can. Every last one of them. Do you realize how silly this statement sounds: "Sure the atheist can discredit some miracles by explanations from science." Then they weren't miracles in the first place, were they?

And, FYI, the popish "church" has the Holy Rollers beat 10 to 1 in the game of "Miracle Jeopardy." Believe me, if anybody in the Vatican could perform a miracle, it would be on world-wide television. They can't. Nobody can. There's no need for them. They were needed at one time to confirm the veracity of the speaker.

"And they went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following." (Mark 16: 20)

Do Catholic missionaries do that? Nope.

annanicole You asked.. Then they weren't miracles in the first place, were they?

I reply: You are wrong... The miracle can be discredited does not mean it is not a miracle!

Example... The "Stigmata" body marks, sores, or sensations of pain in locations corresponding to the crucifixion wounds of Jesus Christ, such as the hands, wrists, and feet

Saint Paul's Letter to the Galatians where he says, "I bear on my body the marks of Jesus."

The "Stigmata" appeared on "Saint Francis".
On "Padre Pio" the "Stigmata" is unexplainable and the wounds never became infected.

annanicole The Atheist will say: "They are self inflected!" This is all they have to go on!! Does not explain why the wounds bleed when they say mass ("Padre Pio" for example)

I ADD... It is said "Padre Pio" knew the sins of the person confessing his sins before he confessed them! Many times it was reported, he would ask the person to continue because he missed the confession of so and so . The Atheist could say; "It is a lie"! BUT.. The people would line up around the block to go to the sacrament of confession to Padre Pio! The many thousands against the few Atheists!

Wikipedia
Notable stigmatics
Saint Paul the Apostle
Blessed Lucia Brocadelli of Narni
Saint Catherine of Ricci
Saint Catherine of Siena
Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich
Saint Francesco di Assisi
Saint Gemma Galgani
Saint Veronica Giuliani
Saint John of God
Saint Faustina Kowalska
Saint Marie of the Incarnation
Marie Rose Ferron
Marcelline Pauper, member of the Sisters of Charity of Nevers
Marthe Robin
Therese Neumann
Saint Padre Pio of Pietrelcina
Saint Rita of Cascia
Zlatko Sudac
Natuzza Evolo
Maria Esperanza de Bianchini


Wikipedia
The Miracle of the Sun; Saturday the 13th of October 1917 which was attended by 30,000 to 100,000 people, who were gathered near F"tima, Portugal.
Three children stated that the Lady (The Virgin Mary) had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them and provide a miracle "so that all may believe."

annanicole The whole town showed up and saw the sun spinning backwards across the sky!

annanicole the atheist will say: "Thirty Thousand are wrong"!! They will say "The news papers that printed the story were WRONG"! Does not mean the miracle did not happen!

Dogknox
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2013 10:55:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 9:15:44 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 9/4/2013 9:02:13 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/4/2013 8:39:38 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Jesus claimed to be God!
Jesus DID exist!!

John 14:20
On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one."

Jesus performed miracles..

&

Only God can forgive sins, Jesus forgave sins!!!
Mark 2:7
"Why does this fellow talk like that? He"s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

You have to prove Jesus is NOT God!!

popculturepooka
You said.. Since atheists' only real hope of knowing that God doesn't exist would be through some kind of philosophical argument (perhaps some argument from evil), their knowing that God doesn't exist doesn't seem to me a very serious possibility.


I reply: at best atheists' have FAITH God does not exist!
Philosophical arguments cannot apply; For or Against.. To actual KNOWING (for sure)!

Miracles throughout history are considered from God!
popculturepooka You can't discredit the >>FACT<< there are miracles! Sure the atheist can discredit some miracles by explanations from science but not all of them!!

O....kayyyy...

??????
I expected a better reply???
What did a say or not say, that you can't understand?? Do you reject even the slightest idea that Miracles exist??!
Was I off mark in my reply?

Did Jesus say the the things he did, because he was a Whack-Oh OR was it because, Jesus IS God!?? Take your pick.
I KNOW Jesus existed in history!
I KNOW what was written about Jesus inside of scriptures and out!
I KNOW there are thousands of unexplainable miracles though out history!

Dogknox

You expected a better reply to what? Your post had nothing to do with the subject matter.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
sdavio
Posts: 1,798
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2013 11:22:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Our own brain is our God, since it is everything; it's the universe we live in.. hence people like bornofgod being so convinced that they can experience him. Our experience, our consciousness, can be as complicated as the entire universe; because that's what it is, essentially. However the problem lies in the word 'God' making it seem like there's some outlying, separate system interacting with this one. It's a similar illusion to the 'self' as a detached thing; which leads to weird uses of grammar like "my brain" or "I don't feel like myself." That there is something separate from, outside the individual parts of our body that is actually 'us.' It's the same way when people use 'God' as a detached being, looking over the universe; or somehow separate from the universe, rather than being the universe itself. Does God create meaning, or is he himself the meaning? It's mostly a problem of grammar, I think, since relating to the rules of the universe through the word 'God' and with labels like 'He' automatically makes it seem separate.. That also leads to all the negative stuff that comes from it I think because people see meaning as some separate thing which they might come to, ie, 'finding God.'
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/5/2013 5:06:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"The many thousands against the few Atheists!"

That's because the many thousands are superstitious and deluded - with you being a prime example.

"Saint Paul's Letter to the Galatians where he says, "I bear on my body the marks of Jesus."

Paul bore the wounds, the stripes, the sores which were inflicted by his persecutors and the persecutors of the cause of Christ, mainly Jews. Hence, they were the "marks of Jesus".

"It is said "Padre Pio" knew the sins of the person confessing his sins before he confessed them!"

Whoop-de-doo! Put a Catholic priest on nationwide television and pick some random Catholic from the audience - and let the priest rattle of specifically every sin.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/6/2013 5:45:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/4/2013 8:39:38 PM, Dogknox wrote:
Jesus claimed to be God!
Jesus DID exist!!

John 14:20
On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one."

Jesus performed miracles..

&

Only God can forgive sins, Jesus forgave sins!!!
Mark 2:7
"Why does this fellow talk like that? He"s blaspheming! Who can forgive sins but God alone?"

You have to prove Jesus is NOT God!!

popculturepooka
You said.. Since atheists' only real hope of knowing that God doesn't exist would be through some kind of philosophical argument (perhaps some argument from evil), their knowing that God doesn't exist doesn't seem to me a very serious possibility.


I reply: at best atheists' have FAITH God does not exist!
Philosophical arguments cannot apply; For or Against.. To actual KNOWING (for sure)!

Miracles throughout history are considered from God!
popculturepooka You can't discredit the >>FACT<< there are miracles! Sure the atheist can discredit some miracles by explanations from science but not all of them!!

Neither Jesus nor Isaiah claimed their flesh was God. They were speaking for our invisible Father, our Creator and God in Heaven. The invisible Creator is our Savior and King.

Isaiah 43
1: But now thus says the LORD, he who created you, O Jacob, he who formed you, O Israel: "Fear not, for I have redeemed you; I have called you by name, you are mine.
2: When you pass through the waters I will be with you; and through the rivers, they shall not overwhelm you; when you walk through fire you shall not be burned, and the flame shall not consume you.
3: For I am the LORD your God, the Holy One of Israel, your Savior. I give Egypt as your ransom, Ethiopia and Seba in exchange for you.
14: Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer, the Holy One of Israel: "For your sake I will send to Babylon and break down all the bars, and the shouting of the Chalde'ans will be turned to lamentations.
15: I am the LORD, your Holy One, the Creator of Israel, your King."

Was Isaiah saying he was God, too, or was he God's servant in the flesh who speaks for Him?

Was Jesus a servant of God's or was he God, the Lord and Savior of All God's people, Israel?
Dogknox
Posts: 5,069
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2013 4:19:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/5/2013 5:06:31 PM, annanicole wrote:
"The many thousands against the few Atheists!"

That's because the many thousands are superstitious and deluded - with you being a prime example.

"Saint Paul's Letter to the Galatians where he says, "I bear on my body the marks of Jesus."

Paul bore the wounds, the stripes, the sores which were inflicted by his persecutors and the persecutors of the cause of Christ, mainly Jews. Hence, they were the "marks of Jesus".

"It is said "Padre Pio" knew the sins of the person confessing his sins before he confessed them!"

Whoop-de-doo! Put a Catholic priest on nationwide television and pick some random Catholic from the audience - and let the priest rattle of specifically every sin.

annanicole As pointed out (above) The miracle can be discredited does not mean, it is not a miracle!
annanicole By your own response it proves miracle can be discredited but does not mean they are not a miracle!

I reply: You are wrong...once again.
From
Wikipedia
The Miracle of the Sun; Saturday the 13th of October 1917 which was attended by 30,000 to 100,000 people, who were gathered near F"tima, Portugal.
Three children stated that the Lady (The Virgin Mary) had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them and provide a miracle "so that all may believe."

annanicole The whole town showed up and saw the sun spinning backwards across the sky!

annanicole the atheist and YOU will say: "Thirty Thousand are wrong"!! You will say; "The news papers that printed the story of the MIRACLE were WRONG"! It does not mean the miracle did not happen! Your rejecting the miracle does not mean it is not from God!

I pointed this out... It is said; "Padre Pio" knew the sins of the person confessing his sins before he confessed them! Thousands say he did know of their sins.... YOU the Atheist must say the thousands are wrong!!

It is just this simple!
Miracles have happened throughout the last two thousand years.
Constantine saw the "Cross" in the sky and the words "You will conquer under this sign"! He had the cross painted on all the armor in his army!! He won the battle!!
Because of him the Catholic Church was made the Church of the world!
Because of a MIRACLE Constantine made the Catholic Church the Church of his kingdom!
You disagree?????
History says you are WRONG!!!!

The ONE Church Jesus established is the Holy Catholic Church the very same church he is ALWAYS with to this very day!
The ONLY Church guided by the Holy Spirit FOREVER!!!
Dogknox
Posts: 5,069
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2013 2:50:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
annanicole I add... Are you saying "Saint Francis" put the Stigmata on his own body?!

You say.. Paul bore the wounds, the stripes, the sores which were inflicted by his persecutors and the persecutors of the cause of Christ, mainly Jews. Hence, they were the "marks of Jesus".

I reply: So says you!!
I ask; were the mark of Jesus self inflected by Paul on himself???!!
Because Paul was to bear the marks of Jesus does it mean others cannot also!?

annanicole The Stigmata appeared on "Padre Pio" it is a MIRACLE!! Unexplained except by you and other Atheists as a LIE from Satan to bring believers to God.. HA-HA!!!
The Stigmata appeared on "Saint Francis" it is a MIRACLE!!
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 4:18:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Once we start thinking we can prove our faith, the concept of faith becomes meaningless.

I think some people want to have their cake, and eat it too.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 4:22:52 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 4:18:42 PM, Polaris wrote:
Once we start thinking we can prove our faith, the concept of faith becomes meaningless.

I think some people want to have their cake, and eat it too.

Prove it.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Dogknox
Posts: 5,069
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 5:24:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
annanicole WHAT...?
Does the cat have your tongue?

You have lots of accusations.... No scriptures, nothing except denial of history and truth!!!!

Again I ask.. Did Saint Francis put the Stigmata on his own body to deceive the people?!
OR..
Or was it a miracle, what does history have to say about it?

The Stigmata appeared on "Padre Pio" it is a MIRACLE!! Did Satan cause it to happen to draw people to Christ!? Did Padre Pio do it to his own body, what does history have to say about it?!!

annanicole Unexplained so it is a MIRACLE!!

Because it is a MIRACLE, you are in the wrong camp.. Don't you think!!
annanicole
Posts: 19,787
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 6:41:26 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Anna: Paul bore the wounds, the stripes, the sores which were inflicted by his persecutors and the persecutors of the cause of Christ, mainly Jews. Hence, they were the "marks of Jesus".

Dogknox: I reply: So says you!! I ask; were the mark of Jesus self inflected by Paul on himself???!!

Anna: I just said who inflicted them.

*****

Dogknox: "The Stigmata appeared on "Padre Pio" it is a MIRACLE!! Unexplained except by you and other Atheists as a LIE from Satan to bring believers to God.. HA-HA!!!"

Anna: Padre Pio was nothing but an old con - and the pope himself agreed until public outcries changed his policy.

"The founder of Milan's Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, friar, physician and psychologist Agostino Gemelli, who met Padre Pio once, for a few minutes, but was unable to examine his stigmata, concluded Padre Pio was "an ignorant and self-mutilating psychopath who exploited people's credulity."

There's a Catholic doctor - a physician - and a psychologist who called a spade a spade.

"The accounts of those who stayed with Padre Pio till the end, state that the stigmata had completely disappeared without even leaving a scar."

Note: OF COURSE they had! They were self-inflicted - and he used carbolic acid to do it. Think of it, Dogknox! Get you some carbolic acid and some ignorant Italians, and you might become Saint Dogknox one day.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 8:30:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 4:22:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/9/2013 4:18:42 PM, Polaris wrote:
Once we start thinking we can prove our faith, the concept of faith becomes meaningless.

I think some people want to have their cake, and eat it too.

Prove it.

Prove what exactly? That the concept of a provable faith is oxymoronic. It is by definition.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 8:46:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 8:30:32 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/9/2013 4:22:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/9/2013 4:18:42 PM, Polaris wrote:
Once we start thinking we can prove our faith, the concept of faith becomes meaningless.

I think some people want to have their cake, and eat it too.

Prove it.

Prove what exactly? That the concept of a provable faith is oxymoronic. It is by definition.

1. This post has nothing to do with "proving" faith in the first place.

2. What concept of faith are you working with?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Polaris
Posts: 1,120
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 9:12:18 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 8:46:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/9/2013 8:30:32 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/9/2013 4:22:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/9/2013 4:18:42 PM, Polaris wrote:
Once we start thinking we can prove our faith, the concept of faith becomes meaningless.

I think some people want to have their cake, and eat it too.

Prove it.

Prove what exactly? That the concept of a provable faith is oxymoronic. It is by definition.

1. This post has nothing to do with "proving" faith in the first place.

2. What concept of faith are you working with?

Religious faith. Consult the parable of doubting Thomas.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2013 10:29:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 9/9/2013 9:12:18 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/9/2013 8:46:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/9/2013 8:30:32 PM, Polaris wrote:
At 9/9/2013 4:22:52 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/9/2013 4:18:42 PM, Polaris wrote:
Once we start thinking we can prove our faith, the concept of faith becomes meaningless.

I think some people want to have their cake, and eat it too.

Prove it.

Prove what exactly? That the concept of a provable faith is oxymoronic. It is by definition.

1. This post has nothing to do with "proving" faith in the first place.

2. What concept of faith are you working with?

Religious faith. Consult the parable of doubting Thomas.

Still vague. "Religious faith" is open to multiple conceptions, and thus the parable is open to multiple interpretations. What do you view religious faith as constituting?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!