13 May 10
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI eagerly anticipate such evidence of a flat earth; on the receipt of such I'll ne sure to revise my position.
So you could never accept that the world is flat? What if people began to come out with information that data that had previously shown us that the world was round was all just a ruse? In fact, what if everyone became convinced of this except you? This would really hit home if people you look up to and respect and trust began saying that the world was flat ted by aliens would keep their mouths shut.
The same could be said about believing in Islam.
If I receive even one, just one, teensie weenie shred of *proper* evidence for your god (say an empty coke on my desk turning into a lizard) or any other I'll revise my position of non-belief on that too
13 May 10
2 edits
Originally posted by AgergI have no such evidence that the earth is flat. However, I have evidence as to the varacity of scripture. Interested?
I eagerly anticipate such evidence of a flat earth; on the receipt of such I'll ne sure to revise my position.
If I receive even one, just one, teensie weenie shred of *proper* evidence for your god (say an empty coke on my desk turning into a lizard) or any other I'll revise my position of non-belief on that too
13 May 10
5 edits
Originally posted by whodeyBased on prior conversations with/ receipt of evidence from other believers I strongly doubt you have such evidence! You only think you have evidence, it is most surely the sort I would fail to accept as valid.
I have no such evidence that the earth is flat. However, I have evidence as to the varacity of scripture. Interested?
I suppose I have to grant you a request for it on my part though...so go for it
13 May 10
Originally posted by AgergI'm just saying if I were to force myself into believing in what you believe then there is no reason not to do my very best at believing anything else which seems nonsensical
That assumes that anyone who does accept the proposal has convinced themselves that five is less than four; are uncertain as to their height; the world is flat and etc..
Assuming nothing of the sort! I'm just saying if I were to force myself into believing in what you believe then there is no reason not to do my very best at believing anything else which ...[text shortened]... at believing in Islam?!..go the extra mile in trying to believe, you might just do it! 🙂[/b]
I think you're making more of the proposal than is on the table. Is it that difficult for you to accept the proposition of personality, of soul? If so, then your presence in a forum dedicated to the pursuit of spiritual matters is contradictory.
If I was a believer then I'd probably believe all (or a significant portion of what) the Bible has to say.
These are not the conditions of salvation. Salvation is nothing more than acceptance of the gift offered.
Note, negating the Bible is not the same as failing to accept the Bible, or passages contained within as evidence for a position inspired from the Bible.
I hadn't thought of that, to be honest. I naively assumed that once a person became convinced of the supernatural nature of the Bible's origins, one would automatically accept its message and author. But you are right: even when faced with irrefutable truth, some people will still reject it.
Why don't you try really really really hard at believing in Islam
Do you understand the basic origins and idea behind Islam? I think not, for if you did, you wouldn't be offering the same as some kind of opposing position.
13 May 10
Originally posted by UllrQuite the contrary. It's not advice just a dose of reality and in addition posting on these forums in and of itself solicts a response so no it is not unsolicited.
"Is this unsolicited advice?"
Quite the contrary. It's not advice just a dose of reality and in addition posting on these forums in and of itself solicts a response so no it is not unsolicited.
"Not true. Condition of acceptance is simple acceptance: His work for my work. Nothing more, nothing less."
Good then we agree. There is work involved thus proving that the gift that you previously suggested was free is indeed not free.
Your claim that nothing is free seems to be in jeopardy with your post.
Good then we agree. There is work involved thus proving that the gift that you previously suggested was free is indeed not free.
Yes, apparently we do: the work is not being done by the person accepting the same, thus free.
13 May 10
Originally posted by FMFAgain, assuming the sou's eternal status once initiated, why not accept a gift freely given which will determine where that soul spends that eternity?
Not so.
Believer: someone who thinks there is a gift and thinks they can accept it in some way.
Unbeliever: someone who doesn't think there is a gift and therefore isn't 'rejecting' anything.
13 May 10
3 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI think you're making more of the proposal than is on the table. Is it that difficult for you to accept the proposition of personality, of soul? If so, then your presence in a forum dedicated to the pursuit of spiritual matters is contradictory.
[b]I'm just saying if I were to force myself into believing in what you believe then there is no reason not to do my very best at believing anything else which seems nonsensical
I think you're making more of the proposal than is on the table. Is it that difficult for you to accept the proposition of personality, of soul? If so, then your presence in not, for if you did, you wouldn't be offering the same as some kind of opposing position.[/b]
No contradiction...this is the "spirituality" forum, not "pursuit of spirituality" forum. I enjoy the discussions; and yes...with no justification or explanation for what a soul is in terms of that which cannot be described in physical terms I really do I find it difficult to accept the proposition of a soul.
These are not the conditions of salvation. Salvation is nothing more than acceptance of the gift offered.
It's a lot more than that, apart from (as others have said) the fact that it is far from "free" (in that failure to accept implies an alleged horrible eternity in Hell imposed by God who made such a place or state of being exist), it is also a requirement that one recognises the existence of such a gift as something more than a hollow promise made by those with precisely no capacity to validly testify it is genuine.
I hadn't thought of that, to be honest. I naively assumed that once a person became convinced of the supernatural nature of the Bible's origins, one would automatically accept its message and author. But you are right: even when faced with irrefutable truth, some people will still reject it
Your objective should be to demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt on our parts that it really has a supernatural origin and is irrefutable truth (which means going further than what it takes to convince you). You can't go round saying we reject irrefutable truth if it isn't the case we have become convinced it has a supernatural origin and additionally we don't see any such truth.
Do you understand the basic origins and idea behind Islam? I think not, for if you did, you wouldn't be offering the same as some kind of opposing position.
Set aside your convictions, your experiences, your logic, and anything else. Suspend all reason and just believe. If you cannot do this then you should try to realise why I cannot do likewise.
13 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBut these "non-believers" you talk about do not assume "the soul's eternal status" so for them there simply is no "gift given", freely or otherwise, and your OP question is therefore the mischievous chat room equivalent of an optical illusion.
Again, assuming the soul's eternal status once initiated, why not accept a gift freely given which will determine where that soul spends that eternity?
13 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHHeh!...argument #134
Given that the soul lives forever and our only choice is where we shall spend that existence, what keeps the unbeliever in such a state? Meaning, why not simply accept a free gift and move on?
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm
😵
13 May 10
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThis is not naive! I'm sure that if one were to become convinced of the supernatural nature of the bible's origins, one would have no option but to accept it's message and author. What does sound a little naive, however, is the assertion that the bible contains irrefutable truth. It is perfectly possible for a rational and intelligent individual to dismiss the bible as a product of men without any divine influence whatsoever.
I naively assumed that once a person became convinced of the supernatural nature of the Bible's origins, one would automatically accept its message and author. But you are right: even when faced with irrefutable truth, some people will still reject it.
13 May 10
3 edits
Fearful Unbelief
Long standing gut penchant of a majority of this 'spirituality' forum's participants for meandering philosophical speculations; overly defensive split fine hairs, quasi-intellectual posturing; daily proliferation of imbedded false premises; convoluted debaters technique probes; pseudo-erudite grandstanding of morbid preoccupations with meaningless questions; fixated tangential disputes about subjective interpretations of simple words outside their original authoritative source context continue to generate heat rather than light and rob this potentially beneficial conversation of the least chance for increased understanding by distorting its focus and neutralizing the essential gravitas of its central topic. Spirituality concerns the soul, not the pie hole.
..........................................
13 May 10
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyLead by example then Gramps - set up a thread and let's discuss it.
[b]Fearful Unbelief
Long standing gut penchant of a majority of this 'spirituality' forum's participants for meandering philosophical speculations; overly defensive split fine hairs, quasi-intellectual posturing; daily proliferation of imbedded false premises; convoluted debaters technique probes; pseudo-erudite grandstanding of morbid preoccup ...[text shortened]... uality concerns the soul, not the pie hole.
..........................................[/b]