1. Find yourself a bible-based church and attend it regularly. Go to every service and help out where you can. There aren't as many bible-based churches as you think. In fact, there are probably more churches devoted to mocking them. If you actually plan to attempt this, I would be happy to provide more details on this. You can see my website's About page for how to contact me.
2. Simultaneously, pick up a manual. You can find it at any bookstore. You can also find study guides at bookstores in nearly every city in the world. I'd strongly recommend an appropriate study guide. Read Luke 4:18-19 and remember that everything else you read must be filtered through it. Read what you want. If you go into the OT, remember that you are in a different era. There's tons of good stuff in the OT, but a small but significant percentage of it doesn't apply once you're in the new covenant. Read a couple hours a day. I'd suggest the books of John, Luke to get a background, and then Acts.
Acts was what changed my life; I realized that if it were true, it would apply to the current era. And if it applied to the current era, it ought to be testable. And so I set out to test it.
"Oh, that won't work." That's because you haven't actually tried it starting with the belief that it might. You can approach this with skepticism -- indeed, I'd strongly encourage it. God wants to prove himself, he doesn't want you to just think "well, maybe." But you can't approach it with certainty that it will fail.
Send someone through this process, and they will hear God. Like I said elsewhere, it's a lot of work. I'd expect at least 1,000 hours (100 hours in services, and another 900 reading). But it's a big thing to prove to yourself. And it does work.
The "evidence" for God's existence is solely that lots of people think God exists. There's no other evidence.
Again, I do not buy this. There is a 100% successful, step-by-step process to prove God exists. It takes a lot of work, but it works every time. (And no, I don't mean dying. Heh.) People who deny this simply haven't put in the commitment, time and effort needed.
Having been through various science courses, I fully understand the terms. And yes, there is proof for a God. I'm not using my existence or what I believe as an attempted proof as you assert; that would be downright silly.
But that's what you're trying to do when you attempt convince others who have a relationship with God that He doesn't exist. In fact, you're not only trying to assert a negative proof, but you're trying to assert a negative proof that's trivially disproved. Do you see how irrational that is yet?
Actually, that is exactly my point about where we currently are. There is evidence for God everywhere, right up to and including within the human consciousness. And yet scientists who claim they are swayed by proof and evidence don't believe it. This is exactly why I'm saying that science is a belief system.
Most of the book of Galatians deals with this specific point. To summarize, though, in the OT covenant people are judged by works. In the NT covenant, that has not been contradicted, but replaced. Since everyone fell short, people are judged not by their works but by Christ's. If you attempt to judge someone who is standing in the new covenant according to the old law, you're really judging Christ by the old law... and He comes up perfect. But now you yourself must be judged according to the same criteria, under which you... don't come up perfect. And you don't need 50% to pass, but 100%.
(I should clarify here: Even in the NT, people's works can be judged. But not they themselves, if they're holding to the new covenant. I can't think of the reference for this, but it's something to the effect of passing through a fire, and having your works destroyed although you'll still survive.)
This isn't so much a contradiction as the entire point of the new covenant.:)
Yuck. I edited that post to nonsense in an attempt to make it less inflammatory. Hopefully you understand what I was trying to say...
You (or others like you) need to provide proof that God doesn't exist in order to have a reasonable platform from which to convince others that He doesn't exist.
And for you or others need to provide proof that God doesn't exist in order to have a remotely useful platform from which to push that belief to others.
Not true. This might seem blatantly obvious (because it is!) but science definitely has belief attributes: Large claims require larger proof, and the default state for science is that things don't exist.
"God exists" is the biggest claim someone can make. Regardless of how much evidence is available to support this, many scientists would never believe it.
But "God doesn't exist" is an equally large claim, it is just in line with science's initial state that nothing exists that isn't provable. It's taken for granted.
Note: I'm not saying all beliefs are equally valid. That's the same as saying none are. As someone with a personal relationship with God, there's no such thing as sufficient evidence to disprove his existence to me. Just like apparently there is no such thing as sufficient evidence to prove to you that he does exist.
"Do not kill" is actually something of a translation error, although few seem to know this. There are multiple words for kill in the bible, and they're not translated to consistent words in English. To really summarize it, though, God commands all people not to murder, but in some cases He does command the rulers of governments to kill.
Is this a contradiction? Lots of people would say so, and use this as an example of how inconsistent God is. But it isn't inconsistent at all. God allows killing in some circumstances, and at rare times He even commands it. But without that mandate, people shouldn't kill.
So who's mandated, even commanded, to kill? The most common example I can think of in the old testament is war. I don't believe all wars are permitted, but some are. The commandment the Onion is quoting is actually best translated as "do not murder." That particular commandment says nothing about wars. The Onion has it wrong here; there definitely is a time to kill.
Err. Don't think I'm all bloodthirsty here. Killing in a war is a last resort of nations, not of individuals. And I'm not even saying that any particular war is justified.
Meh. Probably more than you ever wanted to know. I like studying out words.:)
Nobody can prove the existence of God to someone else, precisely because people can hold their eyes closed. I, personally, have laid hands on the sick a couple times and seen them recover. Any one of them could have called it a coincidence and ignored it.
My wife shouted "Psalm 91!" (not even the contents, just the reference) while being attacked by a dog in full daylight and the dog vanished (did not run away; actually vanished). She could have believed that a small black hole coincidentally passed by and sucked the dog in.
But that doesn't mean God's existence can't be proven. God wants to prove He exists. He doesn't want people following some vague idea that He exists.
If you are somewhere between hard-core denial and faith, there's a simple solution...
Do a bit of research into how He works. Then ask Him, directly and out loud, and see if He answers somehow.
Feel free to contact me via email or what have you, because I can explain that pretty quickly. You might find it repetitive, but there's a reason for that: There really is one basic truth behind it all.
You're quite right about the majority of Christians not caring about Jesus or God, and totally missing it on the love thing. I don't know if your 80% guess is right, though. I have no idea what the numbers are.
Roughly the same group are going to hell anyway. Not because they don't care, but because they've missed the really important truth of the whole thing and are relying on their actions to save them rather than grace. Actions have consequences, of course. I'm not saying it's good to break God's rules, but the bible says it is the goodness of God that brings men to repentance. Or, like my pastor likes to summarize John 10:10 for some folk that haven't quite got it yet: "God good, devil bad." God doesn't have a big stick that He likes to hit people with.
I better stop. This isn't completely right, but if I keep going this is going to turn into a sermon. If you ever want to discuss this further, feel free to email me.:)
Whatever they're doing now is what takes the minimum amount of work to set up, since it is already in that state. In order for them to open up wikipedia, they'd have to expend some effort. That effort would have to be justified by assuming that wikipedia is in some way beneficial. If they don't share that evaluation -- again, why spend any effort on it?
Which is, for them, a known and understood problem. Better a few known and understood problems that can be worked around than a mass of uncertain code.
In the Windows XP EULA, Microsoft granted themselves permission to feel you up. In the first version of the Vista EULA, Microsoft retained the permission to feel you up, but added a clause that said they would sexually violate you at their discretion while the Bee Gees play in the background.
But it's okay now! They've turned off the Bee Gees.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure.
1. Find yourself a bible-based church and attend it regularly. Go to every service and help out where you can. There aren't as many bible-based churches as you think. In fact, there are probably more churches devoted to mocking them. If you actually plan to attempt this, I would be happy to provide more details on this. You can see my website's About page for how to contact me.
2. Simultaneously, pick up a manual. You can find it at any bookstore. You can also find study guides at bookstores in nearly every city in the world. I'd strongly recommend an appropriate study guide. Read Luke 4:18-19 and remember that everything else you read must be filtered through it. Read what you want. If you go into the OT, remember that you are in a different era. There's tons of good stuff in the OT, but a small but significant percentage of it doesn't apply once you're in the new covenant. Read a couple hours a day. I'd suggest the books of John, Luke to get a background, and then Acts.
Acts was what changed my life; I realized that if it were true, it would apply to the current era. And if it applied to the current era, it ought to be testable. And so I set out to test it.
"Oh, that won't work." That's because you haven't actually tried it starting with the belief that it might. You can approach this with skepticism -- indeed, I'd strongly encourage it. God wants to prove himself, he doesn't want you to just think "well, maybe." But you can't approach it with certainty that it will fail.
Send someone through this process, and they will hear God. Like I said elsewhere, it's a lot of work. I'd expect at least 1,000 hours (100 hours in services, and another 900 reading). But it's a big thing to prove to yourself. And it does work.
The "evidence" for God's existence is solely that lots of people think God exists. There's no other evidence.
Again, I do not buy this. There is a 100% successful, step-by-step process to prove God exists. It takes a lot of work, but it works every time. (And no, I don't mean dying. Heh.) People who deny this simply haven't put in the commitment, time and effort needed.
Having been through various science courses, I fully understand the terms. And yes, there is proof for a God. I'm not using my existence or what I believe as an attempted proof as you assert; that would be downright silly.
What's your evidence?
But that's what you're trying to do when you attempt convince others who have a relationship with God that He doesn't exist. In fact, you're not only trying to assert a negative proof, but you're trying to assert a negative proof that's trivially disproved. Do you see how irrational that is yet?
Actually, that is exactly my point about where we currently are. There is evidence for God everywhere, right up to and including within the human consciousness. And yet scientists who claim they are swayed by proof and evidence don't believe it. This is exactly why I'm saying that science is a belief system.
You should read my post, then! Specifically, the second and third sentences of what you quoted. If you want more details, feel free to read the rest.
:)
Hope that helps.
Interesting thought; I actually hadn't considered that. Whereas to prove He exists, all you need to do is ask Him and be very, very quiet.
Most of the book of Galatians deals with this specific point. To summarize, though, in the OT covenant people are judged by works. In the NT covenant, that has not been contradicted, but replaced. Since everyone fell short, people are judged not by their works but by Christ's. If you attempt to judge someone who is standing in the new covenant according to the old law, you're really judging Christ by the old law... and He comes up perfect. But now you yourself must be judged according to the same criteria, under which you... don't come up perfect. And you don't need 50% to pass, but 100%.
:)
(I should clarify here: Even in the NT, people's works can be judged. But not they themselves, if they're holding to the new covenant. I can't think of the reference for this, but it's something to the effect of passing through a fire, and having your works destroyed although you'll still survive.)
This isn't so much a contradiction as the entire point of the new covenant.
Yuck. I edited that post to nonsense in an attempt to make it less inflammatory. Hopefully you understand what I was trying to say...
You (or others like you) need to provide proof that God doesn't exist in order to have a reasonable platform from which to convince others that He doesn't exist.
And for you or others need to provide proof that God doesn't exist in order to have a remotely useful platform from which to push that belief to others.
Care to give an example of a contradiction in the Christian bible? Don't bother sending me to a site; I want a specific example.
Not true. This might seem blatantly obvious (because it is!) but science definitely has belief attributes: Large claims require larger proof, and the default state for science is that things don't exist.
"God exists" is the biggest claim someone can make. Regardless of how much evidence is available to support this, many scientists would never believe it.
But "God doesn't exist" is an equally large claim, it is just in line with science's initial state that nothing exists that isn't provable. It's taken for granted.
Note: I'm not saying all beliefs are equally valid. That's the same as saying none are. As someone with a personal relationship with God, there's no such thing as sufficient evidence to disprove his existence to me. Just like apparently there is no such thing as sufficient evidence to prove to you that he does exist.
"Do not kill" is actually something of a translation error, although few seem to know this. There are multiple words for kill in the bible, and they're not translated to consistent words in English. To really summarize it, though, God commands all people not to murder, but in some cases He does command the rulers of governments to kill.
:)
Is this a contradiction? Lots of people would say so, and use this as an example of how inconsistent God is. But it isn't inconsistent at all. God allows killing in some circumstances, and at rare times He even commands it. But without that mandate, people shouldn't kill.
So who's mandated, even commanded, to kill? The most common example I can think of in the old testament is war. I don't believe all wars are permitted, but some are. The commandment the Onion is quoting is actually best translated as "do not murder." That particular commandment says nothing about wars. The Onion has it wrong here; there definitely is a time to kill.
Err. Don't think I'm all bloodthirsty here. Killing in a war is a last resort of nations, not of individuals. And I'm not even saying that any particular war is justified.
Meh. Probably more than you ever wanted to know. I like studying out words.
The one point I want to add to this:
Nobody can prove the existence of God to someone else, precisely because people can hold their eyes closed. I, personally, have laid hands on the sick a couple times and seen them recover. Any one of them could have called it a coincidence and ignored it.
My wife shouted "Psalm 91!" (not even the contents, just the reference) while being attacked by a dog in full daylight and the dog vanished (did not run away; actually vanished). She could have believed that a small black hole coincidentally passed by and sucked the dog in.
But that doesn't mean God's existence can't be proven. God wants to prove He exists. He doesn't want people following some vague idea that He exists.
If you are somewhere between hard-core denial and faith, there's a simple solution...
Do a bit of research into how He works. Then ask Him, directly and out loud, and see if He answers somehow.
There's something dinosaur-like in Job, although it's not very detailed.
Holy shades of "Ah, Kids these days. Always generalizing about the older generation"!
Feel free to contact me via email or what have you, because I can explain that pretty quickly. You might find it repetitive, but there's a reason for that: There really is one basic truth behind it all.
You're quite right about the majority of Christians not caring about Jesus or God, and totally missing it on the love thing. I don't know if your 80% guess is right, though. I have no idea what the numbers are.
:)
Roughly the same group are going to hell anyway. Not because they don't care, but because they've missed the really important truth of the whole thing and are relying on their actions to save them rather than grace. Actions have consequences, of course. I'm not saying it's good to break God's rules, but the bible says it is the goodness of God that brings men to repentance. Or, like my pastor likes to summarize John 10:10 for some folk that haven't quite got it yet: "God good, devil bad." God doesn't have a big stick that He likes to hit people with.
I better stop. This isn't completely right, but if I keep going this is going to turn into a sermon. If you ever want to discuss this further, feel free to email me.
And now low sales are a strategic advantage?
Believe me, if there are problems, we'll hear about them regardless of how many people buy in.
Whatever they're doing now is what takes the minimum amount of work to set up, since it is already in that state. In order for them to open up wikipedia, they'd have to expend some effort. That effort would have to be justified by assuming that wikipedia is in some way beneficial. If they don't share that evaluation -- again, why spend any effort on it?
I agree that'd be nice, but -- why would they?
Which is, for them, a known and understood problem. Better a few known and understood problems that can be worked around than a mass of uncertain code.
I don't really get the excitement.
In the Windows XP EULA, Microsoft granted themselves permission to feel you up. In the first version of the Vista EULA, Microsoft retained the permission to feel you up, but added a clause that said they would sexually violate you at their discretion while the Bee Gees play in the background.
But it's okay now! They've turned off the Bee Gees.
Who negotiated with The Coca-Cola Company and Perfetti Van Melle Corporation?