Why Should Jesus Love Me?

hick-up

“squuuze me”

Since: Feb 09

Florida, USA

#542809 Jun 2, 2013

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#542810 Jun 2, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>Right.
<quoted text> Correct, both do require a faith to believe, but do not require faith to not believe.
Additionally...
The 1st instance is supported by non biased evidence. The paper is read, the door is opened, the hammers are there. Belief was warranted. Non belief was also eliminated when the door was opened.
The 2nd instance requires a faith supported belief. The only evidence supporting that belief is written on the paper, and that alone. Non belief is warranted in this instance.
The 1st instance doesn't ask you to believe at all. It's a simple statement that there is something behind the door. Some may choose to believe, others may not, nevertheless, both the believer and non believer are convinced when the door is opened.
The 2nd instance asks you to believe with no evidence. It requires that you believe the hammers are there by faith, with no evidence other than what is provided in the the written statement.
<quoted text> No, the 1st one is substantiated.
The 2nd isn't.
<quoted text> No, the difference is the 1st is able to be verified.
The 2nd relies solely on what is written on the paper, and requires that the belief is supported by faith alone.
Keep in mind, the 1st and 2nd instance may have nothing behind the door.
<quoted text> Nope. You're introducing imagined scenarios and aspects of your faith supported religious beliefs into the examples now.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_disso...
<quoted text> Again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bi...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_disso...
<quoted text>The examples and explanations are appropriate, and illustrate the differences between non biased evidence supported belief(1st), and faith supported belief alone(2nd).
I think I am starting to get what you are trying to say and yes what I added would only be speculation, but it is the way I look at all things. When something is added that apparently adds nothing to it. I ask why and speculate as to why. But, still only speculation.
I am still missing something in the story though. Note you wrote "keep in mind, the 1st and 2nd instances may have nothing behind the door." So previous to the door being opened, both instances are relying on the same thing it seems to me, faith in the accuracy of the paper saying there is something on the door.
I so see your point though that one instance has the door opened and thus their beliefs in the accuracy is substantiated. While as of yet, the door has not been opened in the other instance, thus their faith in the accuracy of what the paper says is neither substantiated or unsubstantiated. And if I am correct in this understanding, then I would agree with the likeness. The door has to be opened and what is on the other side will substantiate or not.
I know this was a bit time consuming, so thank you for going into it a bit more. While I might or might not agree with another persons view, I do like to have a clear understanding of their view. I appreciate it.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#542811 Jun 2, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
#2.
Hahaha LOL Good one.

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#542812 Jun 2, 2013
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahaha yes, I do. The language he is using is English. The application of it, well, lets just sy either you get it or you don't :)
I think the key to understanding what many people say is to look to the message rather then look to the words used to relay that messsage so much. Once you have the message, use the words to understand how they feel about the message.
In simple words this is the best I can do to explain it.
In honesty though, I think you were clowning, rather than actualy seriously wanting to know. Which if I am right, supports my point about the message before focusing on the words :)
And if you can follow what I just said, that is impressive. I am not sure I can :)
On another note, I hope you are haveing a great evening :)
In my opinion, the shrink butchers the language on purpose. There is absolutely no reason to post in English if you don't know it. Most people here are fluent in more than one language. I'm almost positive that somebody could translate. What point does posting gibberish serve?

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#542813 Jun 2, 2013
BIBLE TRUE JEHOVA wrote:
<quoted text>
I love few of you with my true believer compassion,and always like to read your ,LW,epi,skom, and very few left here
their ears are dull,eyes doesn't exist without of light earth superior animals doesn't need any eyes to see light,light doesn't exist for them, ears don't hear any voice of spokesamn from wildreness, also they don't need to have any hearing(ears)
I only know that 1 John 5;4 is simple true and on time
"FOR WAHTSOEVER IS BORN OF GOD OVERCOMETH THE WORLD;
and this is the victory that overcometh the world,EVEN OUR FAITH
they have temporary joy to ban and hating those who tell them sad truth about their moral filth,
their joy is like one hour before,never return,never come back,and never bring negative impact to GODS CHOSEN ONES EPH 1;2-12
May God bless you always BMB
good night
True and good night to you as well.

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#542814 Jun 2, 2013
Lost In Transition wrote:
<quoted text>
#2.
I will always think of you as #2.

:-)

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#542815 Jun 2, 2013
Good Night All.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#542816 Jun 2, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
In my opinion, the shrink butchers the language on purpose. There is absolutely no reason to post in English if you don't know it. Most people here are fluent in more than one language. I'm almost positive that somebody could translate. What point does posting gibberish serve?
I am not saying that this is the case, but it would be a reason for someone to do that. Topix seems to be about talking about different subjects. Many do so with the intent of irritating others, as you yourself have previously admitted to doing. Does the way he writes irritate you? From what I have seen, it does many. And if, someone were keeping score. He and his style, are undefeated. His words and use of them have ticked off many while everything thrown at him bounces off. And in the midst of his words there are sometimes very insightful messages.
As with anyone, I try to look beyond the words and listen to the message.
Is this crazy thinking? Some would say yes. I would say if you think so, then ignore it.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#542817 Jun 2, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I will always think of you as #2.
:-)
And you'll always think of me as #1.

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#542818 Jun 2, 2013
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
<quoted text>
I am not saying that this is the case, but it would be a reason for someone to do that. Topix seems to be about talking about different subjects. Many do so with the intent of irritating others, as you yourself have previously admitted to doing. Does the way he writes irritate you? From what I have seen, it does many. And if, someone were keeping score. He and his style, are undefeated. His words and use of them have ticked off many while everything thrown at him bounces off. And in the midst of his words there are sometimes very insightful messages.
As with anyone, I try to look beyond the words and listen to the message.
Is this crazy thinking? Some would say yes. I would say if you think so, then ignore it.
I really couldn't say. I've never responded to one of his posts. I've read one or two sentences and then scrolled on.

I do sometimes irritate others, on purpose. Hopefully, I do that in a way that other people can read. I have nothing against eliciting views. Sometimes I elicit smiles. It's what I do to learn but I do it without broken English. That's my point.

Since: May 09

Location hidden

#542819 Jun 2, 2013
blind man n the bleachers wrote:
I think I am starting to get what you are trying to say and yes what I added would only be speculation, but it is the way I look at all things. When something is added that apparently adds nothing to it. I ask why and speculate as to why. But, still only speculation.
I am still missing something in the story though. Note you wrote "keep in mind, the 1st and 2nd instances may have nothing behind the door." So previous to the door being opened, both instances are relying on the same thing it seems to me, faith in the accuracy of the paper saying there is something on the door.
I so see your point though that one instance has the door opened and thus their beliefs in the accuracy is substantiated. While as of yet, the door has not been opened in the other instance, thus their faith in the accuracy of what the paper says is neither substantiated or unsubstantiated. And if I am correct in this understanding, then I would agree with the likeness. The door has to be opened and what is on the other side will substantiate or not.
I know this was a bit time consuming, so thank you for going into it a bit more. While I might or might not agree with another persons view, I do like to have a clear understanding of their view. I appreciate it.
So, "just have faith that they are there, based upon the information you have", wasn't quite enough, was it?

I find it interesting that you feel in both instances, the door should be opened to verify what is stated on the paper.

Faith alone in what was written and plainly stated, "just have faith that they are there, based upon the information you have", wasn't quite enough. You thought the door should be opened so you could verify what was written...

Yet atheists are condemned, reviled and thought to be horrible people because they say:

"I need more evidence to verify what is claimed, and without evidence for the claim, a belief supported by faith alone isn't enough".

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#542820 Jun 2, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
And you'll always think of me as #1.
I think highly of you; even when you call me goofy.

;-)

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#542821 Jun 2, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I think highly of you; even when you call me goofy.
;-)
I called you goofy?

I normally save that for the goofy.

Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#542822 Jun 2, 2013
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>So, "just have faith that they are there, based upon the information you have", wasn't quite enough, was it?
I find it interesting that you feel in both instances, the door should be opened to verify what is stated on the paper.
Faith alone in what was written and plainly stated, "just have faith that they are there, based upon the information you have", wasn't quite enough. You thought the door should be opened so you could verify what was written...
Yet atheists are condemned, reviled and thought to be horrible people because they say:
"I need more evidence to verify what is claimed, and without evidence for the claim, a belief supported by faith alone isn't enough".
I have no problem with a peson saying they need more evidence. Or with their conclusion based on the evidence they have. I believe each person must make their own choice. And draw their own conclusion.
I could say I saw a robin today. You could read it and say that I did not see a robin today. I need more evidence to believe that. I could describe what I saw, what the bird did, or anything else. And there is nothing I could say that would be concluseve evidence that I did see a robin to anyone that did not experience what I did. I would be wrong to be upset if you chose not to believe it. But equaly, I think you would be wrong to be upset because I beleive I did see a robin. You don't know what I have experienced or not. You can only speculate. And we both, in my oppinon, should respect the right of the other to chose to believe it or not. You don't see what I see and I don't see what you see. While not being upset, I can hope that someday, you too will see a robin. And until that time, if it should come, I can only tell you how beautiful that robin looks to me.
I have enjoyed the discussion and while I originaly did not understand what you were getting at, found your presented story to be thoughtful after all.
I must call it a night. So,
Good Night Scar, rest well.
Rosa Winkel

Australia

#542823 Jun 2, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
<quoted text>
In my opinion, the shrink butchers the language on purpose. There is absolutely no reason to post in English if you don't know it. Most people here are fluent in more than one language. I'm almost positive that somebody could translate. What point does posting gibberish serve?
True, and there's always Google Translate.

It might be a bit difficult posting in Mandarin tho. Unless u had a special keyboard. Some Asian 'net cafes have them.

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#542824 Jun 2, 2013
Serah wrote:
<quoted text>Are we supposed to be in awe of that posting?
I'm not sure what you're supposed to be.

Are you posting with a friend? Who is we? I've spent some time in the "special house" too. I found it soothing but the food sucked. Is that your experience as well?

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#542825 Jun 3, 2013
Rosa Winkel wrote:
<quoted text>
True, and there's always Google Translate.
It might be a bit difficult posting in Mandarin tho. Unless u had a special keyboard. Some Asian 'net cafes have them.
Google Translate doesn't work with Mandarin, Cantonese or Korean. I hate Pinyin.

hick-up

“squuuze me”

Since: Feb 09

Florida, USA

#542826 Jun 3, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
I see Brother Marine is back trying to float arguments that I and others have defeated already.
Thinking Man,
Are you the one called Brother Marine?
It matters not to me what you call yourself. I for one was enjoying your posts.

Tide claims that he & others have defeated you, if you are indeed Brother Marine, and the arguments that you bring.

Be not concerned with the claims of Tide and "others", for they bring nothing new to this thread. Any of the regular posters here will affirm that this thread has seen many posters of their ilk come and go, and they all share the same common denominator; they all spew the same ol, tired, rhetoric. The "prove it" theme is sorely worn.

Their mission it appears is to stifle a voice. What they have failed to address is how they intend to stop those that yearn to hear that voice ...to repress those that seek. It's amusing really, to watch them march, their banner held high ...with their flank fully exposed.

Their tactics of smothering & suffocating have yeilded them little if any rewards. It is quite entertaining.

Soplease carry your message, just as they carry theirs ...and let the will of the people be the victor.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#542827 Jun 3, 2013
Khatru wrote:
The Gospel of Peter says that the first witnesses were Peter, the Jewish Elders, a Roman centurion and his men (about eighty soldiers). All of them saw Jesus emerge from his tomb followed by a talking cross. They then witnessed Jesus grow to a height of several thousand feet.
The Thinking Man wrote:
The Gospel of Peter was written in the mid to late 2nd century. It wasn't written by the Apostle Peter. The Gospel of Peter was a gnostic gospel written in the name of Peter to compete with the early Christian movement. Peter had already been dead by 80-100 years before that.
Wasn't it you telling us that history is fuzzy:

The Thinking Man wrote: "All of history is hearsay if you're using chronological proximity as your basis for not accepting the available evidence. Historicity isn't determined "beyond reasonable doubt" as is a criminal court case. Historicity is determined by several factors."

Are you going to deny the eyewitness testimony of over eighty people to this pivotal event in human history?

Suddenly, history has become an exact science for you, now that you want to exclude embarrassing scripture. Suddenly, you feel confident that scripture can be excluded, and that you can assert with authority that the Peter was not the author - precisely the kind of thing that you were criticizing skeptics for when directed at the scriptures that you prefer.

We call this special pleading, a favorite of faith based thinkers.

It's most famous application is in the way believers demand exacting proof of SCIENTIFIC theories, and reject incomplete hypotheses such as abiogenesis because they are not road maps from free amino acids to a living cell, but accept their own dogma based on nothing but an self-contradictory and error filled ancient book with such rigorous descriptions as "then god created the animals."

It's also apparent when believers demand PHILOSOPHICAL rigor for the origins of the universe - nothing comes from nothing, and everything must have a cause they urgently insist - until we get to their god, for whom the rules change. He just is.

Then again when the MATHEMATICAL arguments are brought out to tell us how unlikely a cell self-organizing is - isn't it Hoyle who sets the figure at less than 1 in 10^50000?- but then gives the infinitely more complex god a pass ans just assumes that it could exist uncreated.

This is what you are doing with your treatment of history.

Special pleading is the child of faith and its confirmation bias. You are certain of something in advance, and receive the ideas that support that choice while rejecting the others with arguments that you don't apply to the favored ideas.

“~ Prince of Peace~”

Since: Apr 08

~ And the greatest is LOVE~

#542828 Jun 3, 2013
Morning People (You are "people" right?

“Someday we’ll find it, the rainbow connection,
The lovers, the dreamers and me.”

~Kermit the Frog (The Rainbow Connection)

Thought for the Day

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 1 min Gabriel 988,482
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min Dennis Hastert Repub 36,964
Does anyone else hate being around white women? 6 min hmmmm 28
The American Dream is DEAD DEAD DEAD. 14 min Johnny 6
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 26 min kent 688,720
TRUMP OBAMA BUSH - Next Stage in a Big Con Game 47 min Johnny 6
God is REAL - Miracles Happen! (Jun '11) 1 hr Tony 6,547
More from around the web