To the one who is willing to see God, both His existence and attributes, can be clearly seen in that which He created.
To those who would rather worship there own ideas or the product of there own hands instead of God, they choose to allow themselves to live in a darkened state of mind and heart (Rom 1.18-23).
To go beyond our ability to see Him clearly in His creation, God has demonstrated His love in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. True it is an idea that seems foolish to the world, but to one who has encountered the living God in a tangible way and been filled with His Spirit it is the wisdom of God (Jn 3.16, 1Co 1.18-30).
As to the poem itself, it speaks about a personal experience of ones process of salvation, not some attribute of God that is to be clearly seen. You would have to get into the Greek of Rom5.3-5 to develop the imagery of the rutted path and God's love being pressed out of the grape. The grape is a person who is being proven fruitful in the Lords vineyard. The love is being squeezed out of the seed, which is Christ in him, a love which is tangibly experienced and displayed over time because of the work of the Holy Spirit within the believer as he endures trials through the eyes of faith. It is not the laws of man or the church that brings about a true salvation, but the work of a living God within and a believers willingness to die to his life that he may truly experience life as given by God.
There are a few ways I generally respond to a claim like this.
I was religious for 18 years of my life. I sincerely believed in the existence of God. However, in retrospect, his existence was never "clear" to me. For this to be true, I require meaningful, tangible evidence. This is why I gave up the belief: there is none.
Not really. This is a form of argument from design. Instead of regurgitating all of the counter-apologetics, here:
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_design
I'm not sure if you were just quoting a bible verse verbatim here, but these are the kinds of accusations that really grind my gears. I don't worship anyone's ideas. I don't, in fact, worship anyone in the place of God. I don't "choose" to not believe in God. I am a type of person who naturally cannot believe in something that has no evidence. It may have taken me 17 years to realize that there is no evidence for the existence of God, but when I finally did, my faith rapidly faded.
You seem to be making yourself into some kind of martyr. Yes, I'm going to criticize your beliefs. I think they're entirely unjustified, and you flaunt them around as if they're obvious facts and that everyone around you is silly for not realizing what you've so clearly convinced yourself of.
Are you suggesting that any atheist has never "really believed in God?" I'm pretty sure this is a beautiful example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.
An aside: what evidence do you have for the existence of God? What arguments have you used to convince yourself God is real? That Shiva, Zeus, or Allah isn't?
I was not interpreting it as an attack on non-believers. However, it does seem to be an attack on yourself.An attack on non-believers...where do you get this stuff? You lashed out at me for a poem which suggested the personal experience of a believer in the Holy Spirit in the trials of life. I in fact see all you have presented as nothing more than a circular argument. I have done nothing but poetically express a personal experience which is backed by the Bible and Spirit in which I draw inspiration.
I am sorry. However I was not attempting an argument from design, rather suggesting that contrary to what you know both my personal experience and the Bible of which has authority in my life says you are wrong. If God has not been willing to reveal Himself to you in the tangible manner that you require then I sure am not going to sit here and prove Him for you. Maybe you will be unsatisfied with this but I am just the carrier of a message. The rest is between you and God. My relationship with God and the evidence He has given me is more than sufficient for a continued walk. You see I am not trying to convince men with cleverly crafted ideas and human wisdom, I am trying to create a context in which one might encounter the living God. If that encounter should prove not to take place then I am going to move on and trust God in His wisdom to remain hidden.
QuoteI'm not sure if you were just quoting a bible verse verbatim here, but these are the kinds of accusations that really grind my gears. I don't worship anyone's ideas. I don't, in fact, worship anyone in the place of God. I don't "choose" to not believe in God. I am a type of person who naturally cannot believe in something that has no evidence. It may have taken me 17 years to realize that there is no evidence for the existence of God, but when I finally did, my faith rapidly faded.
Please take a moment to grease your gears because you completely pulled an accusation out of what I said that was not there... I said individuals who would rather worship there own ideas... To further clarify my meaning, I see my main mode of worshiping God as seeking to know His ways and then walking in them as opposed to walking according to my own ways. Hence the worshiping of ones own ideas as opposed to the worship of God.
Evidence comes as a God given reward for faith. I am fine with your choosing to reject that. You don't choose not to believe...whatever. If that is your philosophy in life you can have it.
Where and in what way did I suggest you or anyone else is silly? Am I not allowed the same confidence as you demonstrate in the flaunting of your beliefs or would it be better for me to look at my feet and stutter? A martyr? Better yet a living martyr? All it took was a poem...so what exactly is your point?
If you are going to continue in the trampling of my garden spend a little more time trying to understand what it is I am saying and a little less time puking all over the place.
An attack on non-believers...where do you get this stuff? You lashed out at me for a poem which suggested the personal experience of a believer in the Holy Spirit in the trials of life. I in fact see all you have presented as nothing more than a circular argument. I have done nothing but poetically express a personal experience which is backed by the Bible and Spirit in which I draw inspiration.
An attack on myself? More and more you demonstrate lack of understanding in the faith I profess. I am not sure what your 18 indoctrinated years accomplished but I truly hope that the years you have left are much more fruitful in your natural path.
After sifting through the logorrhea before me I have found two things worth noting: an assertion that God can not be proven as to exist based upon a criteria which rejects the context in which God has chosen to reveal Himself, and a finely tuned inability to communicate.
I understand that you've had a personal experience with God. How do you know it was the Christian God? How do you know that if you professed your allegiance to Allah, you wouldn't have a similar revelation?This was already said, damn it:
This was already said, damn it:
God is Allah. Allah is God. They are the same god. Islam is based off of Christianity, which is based off of Judaism. They are all founded on the same god.
God is Allah. Allah is God. They are the same god. Islam is based off of Christianity, which is based off of Judaism. They are all founded on the same god.Completely wrong. Muslims stopped believing in profits first, then the Jews, and then the Christians.
Completely wrong. Muslims stopped believing in profits first, then the Jews, and then the Christians.This is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. They are all founded on the same god. The Islams believe Jesus wasn't a prophet, but they still think his teachings have value and worth. But, we aren't talking about prophets. We are talking about the god that is worshiped.
Their origins do not matter. They are distinct religions.They are distinct religions, but they still worship the same god. They may have different theological views about this god, but they still worship the same one.
They are distinct religions, but they still worship the same god. They may have different theological views about this god, but they still worship the same one.
so, back when Islam was relatively new, why did they convert others but leave Christians alone? Christians definitely didn't see it this way, though.They are distinct religions, but they still worship the same god. They may have different theological views about this god, but they still worship the same one.
They worship a God that has "the same" origin. The God described Islam is not the same described in Christianity. Just because they were derived from the same ideas does not mean they are the same God.
Regardless, you missed the point.
so, back when Islam was relatively new, why did they convert others but leave Christians alone? Christians definitely didn't see it this way, though.They are distinct religions, but they still worship the same god. They may have different theological views about this god, but they still worship the same one.
They worship a God that has "the same" origin. The God described Islam is not the same described in Christianity. Just because they were derived from the same ideas does not mean they are the same God.
Regardless, you missed the point.
You're looking at their specific theologies, damn it. Origins DO matter in what I am pointing out.so, back when Islam was relatively new, why did they convert others but leave Christians alone? Christians definitely didn't see it this way, though.They are distinct religions, but they still worship the same god. They may have different theological views about this god, but they still worship the same one.
They worship a God that has "the same" origin. The God described Islam is not the same described in Christianity. Just because they were derived from the same ideas does not mean they are the same God.
Regardless, you missed the point.
Again, the origins don't matter. I don't care if the same person started both religions. It doesn't matter how things were 2,000 years ago.
Presently, both Christians and Muslims think members of the other religion are wrong, and are going to hell or its equivalent.
You pointed out something completely irrelevant (not to mention wrong :p), and it derailed what I was getting at. Thanks. YOU JERK. :(
According to Francis Edwards Peters, "The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews (29:46). The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham".(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah)
That doesn't change the fact that they still believe that everyone else is following false prophets and therefore are going to hell.I wasn't arguing that. All that I was arguing is that saying "What if you worshiped Allah instead of God?" is like saying "Why wouldn't you believe in Jesus instead of Jesus?" (the second one being pronounced hey-zeus ;P). Not that the religions are theologically the same, or believe that both religions are the right one.
Just to give further evidence to this, here is a quote from that verse, translated into english of course:QuoteAccording to Francis Edwards Peters, "The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews (29:46). The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham".(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah)
The fucking Qur'an states that they worship the same god. Need any more proof? :P
And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."source: http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/29.htm
You're looking at their specific theologies, damn it. Origins DO matter in what I am pointing out.QuoteAccording to Francis Edwards Peters, "The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews (29:46). The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham".(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah)
The fucking Qur'an states that they worship the same god. Need any more proof? :P
No, they don't. The gods I'm referring to are entirely distinct descriptions of a being, and it doesn't matter if they started from the same description. Think of evolution. Maybe they started out with identical descriptions of a being, but somewhere along the line, things diverged. Islam says Allah does this and that (for example, drinking camel piss is "cleansing"), and Yahweh says he has a son, which is also himself.Theological view. They think that drinking camel piss is "cleansing". This has nothing to do with the IDENTITY of the god. Christianity says he has a son.... Hey! Another THEOLOGICAL difference! Same identity of a god, different prophets! The god they believe in is the same, they go about worshiping him and practicing the religion in different ways.
You'll have to understand that I'm not coming from a theological perspective. I'm an atheist, and I'm going to treat the deities of religions as if they don't exist. As such, the origins of said deities are completely irrelevant. You apparently missed my point. I don't think it was particularly subtle, but maybe it was, so I'll try to be more clear.You are not, but we aren't talking about your beliefs. It doesn't matter how you treat it, you are describing a god based on the practices of a religion. This is irrelevant to the god's identity.
(1) I posit that if a Christian were to be taken back in time, and raised in an environment where the prominent religion was Islam instead of Christianity, they would be Muslim instead of Christian.I agree with this. But this has nothing to do with whether or not they are the same god, just showing that you would worship this god in a different way.
(2) Worshiping a god referred to as "Allah" signifies Islam.No. Wrong. 100% wrong.
(3) Worshiping a god referred to as "Yahweh" signifies Christianity.
(4) Most people in areas where Islam is the prominent religion worship a god referred to as "Allah".
(5) Therefore, people in areas where the most commonly worshiped god is referred to as "Allah" are Muslims.
(6) Islam is an entirely distinct religion from Christianity, and Christians believe that Muslims are gravely wrong about their religious views and visa-versa.Like I said, they believe they are wrong about their religious views by the way they worship the god, which is a theological approach. Therefore, this has nothing to do with my point.
Theological view. They think that drinking camel piss is "cleansing". This has nothing to do with the IDENTITY of the god. Christianity says he has a son.... Hey! Another THEOLOGICAL difference! Same identity of a god, different prophets! The god they believe in is the same, they go about worshiping him and practicing the religion in different ways.
You are not, but we aren't talking about your beliefs. It doesn't matter how you treat it, you are describing a god based on the practices of a religion. This is irrelevant to the god's identity.
... just showing that you would worship this god in a different way.
Worshiping a god referred to "Allah" does not signify Islam. If you speak Arabic and you are a christian, you refer to your god as "Allah". People who speak English, and practice Islam refer to their god as "Allah", for they believe that Arabic is the language that god speaks (as , and therefore they pray and read scripture in Arabic.
Yahweh is the word for god in Hebrew, found in the Torah, so it would signify Judaism over Christianity. And if you believe it signifies Christianity too, you are proving my point.
God is Allah. Allah is God. They are the same god. Islam is based off ofChristianity, which is based off ofJudaism. They are all founded on the same god.
God is Allah. Allah is God. They are the same god. Islam is based off ofChristianity, which is based off ofJudaism. They are all founded on the same god.
Fixed.
EDIT -
If I remember correctly, the founder of Judaism was the brother of the founder of Islam. They got in a fight about something, and now Israel and Palestine are still fighting about it. But it's irrelevant, Towelie's point stands. The deity referenced in the Koran, Torah, and Bible, and all the names given to him (Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, etc) are all referring to the same being.
Also, Towelie's point is still irrelevant. Did you read any of my responses?Bitch please. My point is 100% relevant! Just not to what you were trying to say initially (which I actually pointed out). lol.
How do you know that what you feel, or what you perceive as being God, isn't just something that your mind created, since the mind is powerful enough to do this, in order to cope with your struggles? You needed someone to love, and to turn to, and since you apparently didn't have any person to go to, isn't it entirely possible that your mind created this sense of God, which, in your situation, you had no problem giving yourself up to?
I think you feel like you're reiterating because you aren't thoughtfully considering the questions you're being asked.
I'll try to relate it to the reasons you believe in Yahweh: do you think that if you grew up in Iran, you'd still have had an experience that lead you to Christianity? How do you explain regional differences in religion? This seems to me to be compelling evidence that these sorts of experiences are dependent on what religion is dominant in the region they're had, and that they're probably not associated with any sort of supernatural entity.
Why does God love people in Iran less than he loves the people in America?
Why does God love people in Iran less than he loves the people in America?Based on... that he isn't compelling people to follow him?
I appreciate your response here. While I'm rather convinced God isn't going to do anything to do something to convince me he exists (probably because he doesn't exist), I appreciate that you recognize you don't have any objective, non-personal reason to believe in God (else, you'd tell me, right? :)).
And this demonstrates an ignorance of supernatural Christian evangelism/conversion taking place in Muslim countries. The underground Christian movement is strongest in Iran, although it is comparable to that of China so to say which is stronger would be hard. Most of these Muslims who are converting over to Christianity testify that the reason was either a dream or a vision of a man in a white robe who claimed to be Jesus Christ the Son of God and that he was calling them into His kingdom or that they experience some sort of creative miracle or healing in there body being prayed for in the name of Jesus Christ. Most of this is taking place independent of western Christianity and some of it separate from any Christian missionary works altogether, i.e. the claimed dreams and visions.
Sidoh a thoughtful reading of the material I have posted would draw ample conclusion of why I believe the vast majority of your arguments are false, as well as the reasoning of why I am not going to go round and round with you or anyone else on the matters. Are you willing to get over yourself? Because I will tell you that I am sprinting in the direction of getting over myself and my need to be right in the eyes of others. Write me of as whatever you like, but these long drawn out arguments are unfruitful and a waste of my time. Like I have said time and time again I am interested in my experience with God, and whatever experience God may grant another.
Why does God love people in Iran less than he loves the people in America?Based on... that he isn't compelling people to follow him?
I'm trying to determine how you're quantifying God's love.
Still along the lines of thoughtfulness, you have made clear your position that God and His existence can not be proven nor as you have stated can it be disproved. It is not my desire hear to argue this claim, rather I ask that you stick with your original arguments for the remainder of our conversations. Now if He cannot be disproved I fail to understand how you can here begin to lean in one direction…is there some sort of faith at work here?
Faith that he probably does not exist and therefore you lean in a direction to which you have stated there cannot be any objective proof? A direction to which you seem to have stated that you will neither agree nor disagree rather that you'd just walk in a way that is natural to you...
This being said, I think unconditional skepticism almost requires atheism. There is no tangible evidence for the existence of God (to my knowledge -- feel free to prove me wrong). I'm familiar with the usual apologetic arguments, and a few of the less common ones. Every single one of them is terrible to the point of it being vaguely pathetic. Because of this, I reject the notion of a God. Unlike many theists (and atheists), I don't claim to know that God doesn't exist, because I don't think anyone has knowledge pertaining to the existence of a god.
This being said, I think unconditional skepticism almost requires atheism. There is no tangible evidence for the existence of God (to my knowledge -- feel free to prove me wrong). I'm familiar with the usual apologetic arguments, and a few of the less common ones. Every single one of them is terrible to the point of it being vaguely pathetic. Because of this, I reject the notion of a God. Unlike many theists (and atheists), I don't claim to know that God doesn't exist, because I don't think anyone has knowledge pertaining to the existence of a god.
Epistemological knowledge is as you put it the only real knowledge there is and this quote states you do not believe anyone can produce any such knowledge concerning the existence of God. So if this is the case how can you make a statement that God probably does not exist with out some kind of faith being put into practice? Please stay focused on what I am saying Sidoh. I believe you are intelligent, and I am not concerned with whether or not this community thinks that I am, so please spend a little less time trying to establish such premises.
Yes I read the post, and I understand the point of shifting the burden of proof. It wasn’t my intention to argue the supposed necessity of faith in atheism although I certainly see how my inability to relate my thoughts has given it that appearance; rather I was making it clear that what you hold to is a joke as far as I am concerned and all of your attempts to discredit me will have absolutely no effect on what I am doing.
You hold to something that is more probable because you lack an encounter with God which I myself and thousands of others claim to have had and continue to have. It is not indoctrination that I am holding to; it is a supernatural revealing of a God who refuses to prove Himself to you according to your definitions but has responded to the genuine faith of many.
I could relay a multitude of experiences in which the Holy Spirit in the form of a voice or a dream or a vision has told me a thing was going to happen, and it did. I am talking times, places and events. I could tell you of miracles I have witnessed with my own eyes. I could go on and on, and odds are you would not believe me or you’d just skirt around them and stick to your box that God must prove Himself within but has refused.
Whether you like it or not according to both the objective faith I hold as well as my subjective experience He is not going to do that, and therefore our arguments are unfruitful in the work God has called me to, and the means by which He is going to fulfill his purposes in this world. Understand that I am not going to follow you down the path that you are trying to lead period, and all your comments to try and make me look inapt mean nothing to me.
Such philosophies are certainly stripping the faith out of a Christian who has had nothing more than some mental agreement with what the Bible claims to be true or have clung to the corrupt traditions of the church, but for those of us who have had dramatic experiences of which the Bible defines as the norm for the true believer your arguments will not strip us of our allegiance to the living God. You assume that because such a high percentage of the western world and in particular America claims to be Christian that they are in fact actually saved and recognized by God as a son or daughter in His kingdom and submitted to Christ. I do not hold to that assumption, and actually believe that the converts to Christ in said Middle Eastern and Asian countries are actually of a higher percentage of true disciples.
Within the boundaries of my profession all of your arguments are irrelevant because it is not how God has chosen to operate according to both experience and that which has been objectively revealed in His word. As far as I am concerned my experience, and the experience of people who I know and don’t know around the world are sufficient. Do you still not get that I do not care about everything you continue to post, and that I am sticking with the argument that God is in fact revealing Himself and granting people encounters in response to there faith?
I do believe that a supernatural being can and often is behind popular mythology and or prominent religions. I also believe revelatory experiences are possible if I had put faith or called out to one of them. Yahweh is however the creator of all, and the supernatural beings who fell from there original place in His kingdom are now responsible for deceiving the world. There is a lot out there that is nothing more than the imagination of the human mind, and there is a lot that could potentially be real, but once again not deterministic to my profession.
If God has defined the context in which you or Muslims or anyone else may enter into an encounter with Him and that is rejected, whether because of some innate tendency or not, it says nothing about the love of God. Man lives according to his own free will and these innate tendencies are sin and God will not accept them. Gods love could be better seen in what He is doing today despite mans choice to continually reject His terms of salvation. Therefore what I am saying about the supernatural evangelism of Jesus Christ in the Muslim world which has fiercely rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ and Gods opened invitation to live for eternity is in fact relevant to my profession. It is relevant because there is widespread claimed encounters with God through Jesus Christ that match the experiences I claim to have. This is the road I am going to continue to walk, and it will not be a work of my own hands but rather a partnering with God as He continues to move in the supernatural in response to genuine faith.
This is the parting of our ways as you will continue to tread your path and I mine. Yes I believe we will all stand before the bema seat of Christ, and while not sure I necessarily hold to traditional doctrines or descriptions of hell I absolutely believe God will be just in sentencing people to an eternity of separation from Himself. It’s His will, not mine and not yours.
rather I was making it clear that what you hold to is a joke as far as I am concernedWith that fragment of a sentence you have lost all credibility and respect I held for you. Sidoh is simply trying to explain what he believes and why, and then you dismiss it as a joke because it's not what you believe. You are, in fact, about 3 hops way from extremism. Yes, you heard me, extremism. I think most people these days call that "terrorism". Just because somebody doesn't believe what you do doesn't mean you can dismiss whatever they are saying and continue saying the same thing over and over as if it were fact.
I will admit that calling said beliefs a joke was immature on my part and for that I apologize. However rabbit your supposedly new found opinion of me is just another excuse for you to lash out and attack me like you have done in the past because this opinion you hold really isn’t new. Your equally immature responses therefore accomplish nothing except maybe to help you release a little steam. I can understand this and as long as you can control yourself I will not moderate your posts here for doing it.On the contrary, I have never outright disliked you before. In fact, you were quite a nice acquaintance, even if I disagreed with your religious standpoint. I will not think highly of anyone who disregards someone's beliefs as a joke, regardless of who they are. My newfound lack of respect for you is, in fact, new. I do not need an an excuse to lash out and attack anyone; if I feel like doing as such, I will, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who will testify to that.