This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Can the Christians of this board pick either faith OR fact already?

#11C_MatPosted 7/26/2013 1:18:03 PM
I'd say that it's a provable fact that God exists and that Jesus rose from the dead; anyone who has argued those points with me has an anti-supernatural bias and/or refuses to follow the evidence where it leads.

TC, I think a piece of the puzzle you're missing is that, according to Christianity, you can be totally convinced of God's existence and not be "saved." The saving faith that Christianity talks about is not necessarily faith that God exists, but putting your faith and trust in Jesus' death on the cross for the forgiveness of your sins (as opposed to putting your faith and trust into your own good works).

Here is a verse from the book of James in the Bible:
You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that- and shudder.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#12SirThinkALotPosted 7/26/2013 1:30:18 PM
I dont claim that my beliefs are 100% proven fact. But I do think that there are good reasons and evidence for what I believe. So I tend to argue on this point.

Actually though, its hard for me to think of anything I consider 100% factually true, aside from maybe my own existence. so, yea...
---
Learn real history and economics at liberty Classroom
http://www.libertyclassroom.com/dap/a/?a=1305
#13ThuggernautzPosted 7/26/2013 2:07:25 PM
C_Mat posted...
I'd say that it's a provable fact that God exists and that Jesus rose from the dead; anyone who has argued those points with me has an anti-supernatural bias and/or refuses to follow the evidence where it leads.


I'd say you are completely wrong. And the fact that not everyone can objectively analyse those two claims and come to a consensus really throws a wrench into your assertion. There is no evidence of the supernatural, that's why its supernatural. Furthermore, your own holy doctrine claims that God won't be tested, so I'm not sure why you are making such a claim.
#14theging3rPosted 7/26/2013 2:11:04 PM
I believe in God, but I also love science and believe in science, yeah they might contradict themselves to certain circles, but I don't care, I'm happy with what I believe in, I never said my beliefs were 100% true, but they're based on my experiences, and plus I also put some Buddhist philosophy in mine. I don't think science tries to prove or disprove God or gods, (whatever you believe in) I think science tries to explain how the universe works and why, that's the way I look at it. But then again those are my beliefs.
---
"The greatest action is not conforming with the worlds ways."
~Atisha~
#15Polish_CrusaderPosted 7/26/2013 2:11:37 PM
Moorish_Idol posted...
I wouldn't use PC as an example of "them". Even most Christians on this board think he's full of it.


LOL! Hahahaa... gee thanks. Im honored.
---
Proverbs 14:12
#16De EvolutionPosted 7/26/2013 2:58:31 PM
C_Mat posted...
I'd say that it's a provable fact that God exists and that Jesus rose from the dead; anyone who has argued those points with me has an anti-supernatural bias and/or refuses to follow the evidence where it leads.


Not sure if Poe, or just really really sad
---
To have once been a criminal is no disgrace. To remain a criminal is the disgrace.
#17C_MatPosted 7/26/2013 3:19:33 PM
Thuggernautz posted...
I'd say you are completely wrong. And the fact that not everyone can objectively analyse those two claims and come to a consensus really throws a wrench into your assertion. There is no evidence of the supernatural, that's why its supernatural. Furthermore, your own holy doctrine claims that God won't be tested, so I'm not sure why you are making such a claim.


You are mis-applicating (if that's a word) the verse about testing God.

I'm not sure what the relevance it has whether everyone can objectively analyze the evidence for God's existence and come to the same conclusion. I don't see how that hurts anything I've said.

And your definition of supernatural is totally false. Nobody is making the claim that no evidence = supernatural. My problem is that many atheists think that the supernatural is impossible simply because it's supernatural, which is totally circular logic. That's why it's called anti-supernaturalism bias.

All in all, your post was full of fail.
---
http://youtu.be/gmnSnNC8UJk
#18LinkFanaticPosted 7/26/2013 3:23:03 PM
JonWood007 posted...
The two worldviews, when studied critically, are rather mutually exclusive.


lol, no they're not.
---
SSJ Gotenks is santa clause, because he can fly around the planet in one night. - ShaolinAced
#19DarkContractorPosted 7/26/2013 4:50:47 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#20DarkContractorPosted 7/26/2013 4:50:51 PM
don't forget that debate you had with me, where you completely ignored all the falsified statements Jesus made about his second coming, completely ignored the evidence from the synoptic problem and textual variants that the early Christians were willing to twist things in their favor, didn't even try to eliminate any naturalistic explanations, ignored the fact that the Gospels weren't even written by their claimed authors (something I explained thoroughly with sources cited), and then tried to use 2nd and 3rd century Gnostic texts deemed completely heretical by pretty much any contemporary Christian of their era and deemed Apocrypha by pretty much any scholar of antiquity as evidence that the apostles were willing to martyr themselves for Jesus (FTR, the only ones you can make a decent case for are Peter and the two James, and really it's only James the Lesser that withstands hard scrutiny). You even inserted the unfalsifiable, unevinced ad hoc'd claim that textual variants were guided by God and thus okey dokey (ignoring the question as to why not just inspire the original texts to avoid this problem)

Not once did I resort to "Naturalistic explanations have a higher probability than supernatural" (even though that's completely true). And to clarify on your misinterpretation of Thugz post, he's saying that you can't act like it's an established fact when people can examine the evidence and come to different conclusions. Of course, you try to remedy this by doing a sweeping strawman generalization of all the people who disagree with you, which is cute and pathetic, but that's not going to change a thing.

What actual nonChristian biblical scholarship have you read? Hell, you 'learned' the historical argument from Keller (The Reason For Faith, right?). It's hand-me-down apologetics, just like I recognized and commented on as we debated. You know nothing of historical Biblical scholarship. Nothing.

also, can't bring up people ignoring facts without mentioning that you're a YEC
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.