I dont think this line of thinking only applies to myself. Something either exists or it doesnt....you cant have something that half-exists, can you? I'm asking this in all seriousness. I'm having a hard time understanding why there is room for a "grey area" when it comes to whether or not something exists? The thing that bothers me the most about the word "god" is that its meaning has become so skewed around here that its hard to understand what anyone really means when they use the term "god". God is a tree, god is the sun, god is that little voice in my head, god is everything it would appear. When I use the word "god", im referring to "the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe." Now (facts, truths, and beliefs aside) this one supreme being, this creator and ruler of the universe either exists or it doesnt. The only "grey area" is in your perception or opinion of its existence. If a god exists, it exists regardless of your belief or my disbelief.....there is no grey area when it comes to the actual existence of god.
Have you seen the Matrix? I'm going to say this again because you missed it- false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be one thing or the other unless it has been proven one thing or the other. Existance could be an illusion- is that existance? Or an illusion? Or both?
1. Yes I have seen The Matrix...it was a movie. 2. I didnt miss your idea that my statment is a form of false dichotomy...I ignored it. I dont think that term really applies here. This is more of a black and white issue, at least in my opinion. 3. Sure, existence could be an illusion...but if youre going that far off of the tracks we should probably end this debate now. That line of thinking wont get us anywhere. If this existence is an illusion, its still my reality until something tells me otherwise. So for everything that I believe, I base that belief on what I experience in this existence and in this reality. Whether or not its an illusion really doesnt matter at this point. The question of whether or not "god" (the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe) exists is a question that only applies to THIS reality....illusion or not. However, if you can stay away from movie references and the notion that existence iteself could be an illusion, I would be more than happy to hear in detail why you think this is a case of false dichotomy. Remember false dichotomy only applies to some things, not all.
False dichotomy can apply to any premature reduction in the possible set of explanations for a phenomenon – not necessarily down to only two possibilities. ^not my own words Possibilities for God 1. Exists in a form different for every individual, even not existing for some (both existance and non-existance) 2. Doesn't exist but will exist through evolution (both existance and non-existance) 3. Doesn't exist in a form we can comprehend right now (both existance and non-existance) It's why you weren't able to say fact and had to say it was your opinion it was black and white.
they both mean the same thing, just worded differently. my passage is probably from a different bible than yours. "do not tempt the Lord thy God" is essentially the same thing as "do not put thy Lord God to the test." and in response to your question, Jesus didnt jump because that would be putting "thy Lord God to the test." ill be honest here, im not really sure what Jesus was implying when He said that; im sure there is much more to it (as seems to be the case with all of Jesus' passages). i will have to ask my pastor when i get the chance as this is a very good question. though, im still skeptical cottons. im not trying to be rude or anything, but if you were truly a genuine christian who believed in God with all of your heart, then something so menial such as this should not sway your faith one bit. maybe you werent christian to begin with?
I have to agree with JesusC on this, man... In RE: #1: This is a contradictory statement. If one thing exists to some in a form that is different for every individual, that would mean that "it" does exist, no? And that this existance is experienced differently by each individual person based on their experiences/thought process, no? This is existance, not non-existance. In RE: #2: This would imply that it does not exist, but can potentially exist in the future. This is non-existance, not existance. In RE: #3: Just because something exists in a form we cannot understand doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It means it exists, but we can't understand it as of yet. For example: Bacteria have always existed, but up until fairly recently people had no clue this was the case. They'd blame their illnesses on "God" or something of the sort... So just because they didn't know bacteria were the cause of their illnesses means that the bacteria didn't exist? This is existance without being known (which is still existance), not non-existance. Basically when it comes down to a belief in God, he either exists, or he doesn't. If he does exist, he exists whether people believe he's there or not (and likewise if he doesn't exist). There's no gray area in those regards.
Nothing is menial when it comes to beliefs, the slightest change can be the one domino that caused them all to fall. Honestly I think a belief that is ever changing is a good one, because it usually means the person is learning or being aware of himself/herself. Not to single you out Chevelle, but could you tell me what a genuine christian is? I'd have to disagree. I think the gray area is the prominent area of the idea of God. One can never prove or disprove God, therefore the gray area is the unknown in which people can only speculate, and that is all we can ever "know" about such a mystical being. Such an existance could be outside of our perception, so as far as we could see we would say God does not exist. But based off what we cannot see, we could easily say God exists because of _____(insert people's reasons here). I believe if such a God exists than our imagination as we know it is unable to comprehend such an existence, since we have not a clue what it means to be omniscient, omnipotent and the like. Until we can disprove or prove God, there is nothing but shades of gray.
But he DOES believe in God! He's saying he doesn't believe Jesus was the son of God anymore, because of something Jesus said. It is not minor or little to make a claim like "I am God" and then not know something God does. Jesus doesn't have to be real for you to believe in his ways, the church would tell you differently but the principles can be applied without Jesus even being real. The main problem I have with the way the church puts it, is if you believe in Jesus as your savior you are saved. So all the bad people who believe in Jesus are saved and all the good people who don't go to hell? Sorry, I refuse to believe that God made a club for salvation that you could just say the password and be in. They may claim works aren't the answer but I don't buy it for a second. All we are is our works, all we can do to follow Christ involves works. Unselfishness, that's part of our works. It's just the club aspect I do not like about the organized religion. I believe it takes more than just acknowledgement of Jesus as the savoir to reach heaven. I don't think Jesus would have wasted his time preaching morality when all you had to do was acknowledge him. They can stand by the Bible and what it says but it doesn't make any sense in places and for that I cannot agree with pastors. Jesus is my savoir because he showed me how to live and treat others. Not because he died on a cross for me. I refuse to buy that, I'm sorry. I will not be seeing sick motherfuckers in the promised land because they acknowledged Jesus, I just don't buy it.
It's not the same meaning. Sorry. Not trying to be rude, but it's not (and I take all my scripture from the KJV as it's the most accurate of the translations)... Jesus said not to temp the lord thy god in response to satan telling him that if he really is the son of God to jump and prove it. Jesus was making the point that faith is what's needed, and that he doesn't have to prove anything. The Bible makes it very clear (as does Jesus, many times) that we ARE to test ANYthing of a spiritual nature (also known as discernment, I'm sure you know the term). We're told to reprove and rebuke, to test, to study, to use discernment in dealing with things of a spiritual nature -- so for me to test a verse having to do with an extremely important spiritual doctrine is actually commanded by Scripture. We are to use discernment, and to test said doctrine lest we become fools (this is according to the BIBLE). I can quote scripture backing that up all day if you like... You'll likely get a similar response to the one I did when I asked my Bible Doctrines teacher at college (incredibly intelligent man -- he's almost mind-blowing at times)... The passage is in reference to a certain Jewish feast in which the groom would have to go fetch his bride at the command of his father (it was completely random and only the father knew the exact time)... Apparantly, Jesus (the groom) is going to be sent by God the Father (the grooms father) to collect his bride (the church) at an hour at which only the father knows. This seems to make sense, right? Wrong... Regardless of how you try to make it fit, it still doesn't. It is the belief of almost every christian that Jesus is God in the flesh. This is the pillar of Christianity and what the entire religion is based on. But if Jesus is God in the flesh, how can he possibly NOT know something? God is onmiscient, no? God is the only entity (according to Scripture) to have this attribute... So if God IS omniscient, and Jesus IS God, then Jesus HAS to be omniscient. If there's even 1 thing he doesn't know, he's not omniscient, and thus, not God. Period. There's no way around this, really. Not trying to be disrespectful, but it's true. I was a true Christian, and this was something I've battled with for a number of years, now. It's not something "menial" -- it's the very pillar of Christianity. The belief that Christ was the Messiah (God in the flesh, the atonement for man-kind). If Jesus wasn't the Messiah, there's no need to call myself a Christian anymore; wouldn't you agree?
Could you tell me what "all his heart" means? Does that mean unquestionable faith because it was written so? And does that mean you think Cottons is naive because he tried to figure things out for himself? I'm just very curious. And does believing in Jesus really make you a genuine christian? Wouldn't it be better not to just believe, but to act on Jesus' perspective on life. I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ - Gandhi
You are talking about the God of Abraham, OK now I get it... So was Jesus C but I want to argue my version of God which doesn't have to do anything or be anything. It does what it wants and is what it is. It doesn't have to exist for everyone. That is all-power to me. An all-powerful God could both exist and not exist if He felt like it, even at the same time. Even implying there was a situation He couldn't cover says all-power doesn't hold true. If He has to be one thing or another, He doesn't have all-power.
I can agree with that, just for the fact that you were able to imagine and convey those thoughts it could very well be possible. With God anything is possible, If "It" exists.
I just have a problem making only two possibilities for an all-powerful God. Existance or non-existance is not a choice an all-powerful God has to make. He can have it all. Total contradiction and irrationality is something all-power is capable of.
Have you read much of the Jewish texts...this is basically what Judaism is. They believe that Jesus was not the messiah, and that the messiah has yet to come. You should look into Judaism, I think you'd find it very enlightening, it really put the bible into context for me. As you know, Jesus Christ was a jew, and Christianity is a branch off of Judaism.
I'm not a Jew , and yeah, I've read the texts (The OT is the Jewish Bible + a few xtra passages)... According to the Jewish Texts, though, Jesus was the Messiah - so those who don't believe he's come yet are wrong (if they're going by the prophetic passages regarding the messiah, anyway)... For clarification, I don't believe that "God" is the god portrayed in the Bible (The God of Abraham). I think it's so much more than that, and that scripture only got it some-what right.
The Old Testment is not the Jewish bible, that's like a fraction of Judaism. Jewish text is a lot bigger than the bible I think. The talmud. It's also in Hebrew, a much older languange than English. The jews don't think Jesus is the Messiah at all. But yeah, not jewish either, atheist here, I just think it makes more sense than Christianity.
First of all, let me say that I dont mean this as an insult so I hope you dont take it that way... but... I've made an honest effort to understand where you're coming from and to understand your point of view, but this idea makes no sense whatsoever. You're idea of "god" and his capabilities are so far "out there" that even the far out thinkers would have to question your ability to think reasonably and rationally. The idea that something can completely exist and not exist at the exact same time is just too far out there for me to accept, even as a remote possibility.