Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So what you are saying is that there is something that exists that while you have no concrete, tangible proof, it is still there.
Moose started off fine with saying she needed proof from her 'eyes and ears' but then added that proof from her 'brain and heart, reason and common sense' would also qualify.
Don't you see what I am getting at?
I can give you proof from my 'brain and heart, reason and common sense' but it wouldn't meet her standards of proof. So what qualities do the evidence from her 'brain and heart, reason and common sense' meet that my 'brain and heart, reason and common sense' aren't equally sufficient?
I used love as an example......maybe it threw us off rather than make the point....
So let me just ask you (or preferably Moose) to just respond to the above post.
No, my point is that we all have our own definitions of what love constitutes. It is a subjective term and that is why I threw out that bit at the end about meeting a girl at a party. It may be love to one person but to some it would be constituted as lust.
In essence, to say that there is such a thing as "true love" is like saying there is some sort of absolute truth or absolute morality. Yet, I can use ration, logic, and evidence to come to the conclusion that I love my wife or my wife loves me just as I can use ration and logic to deduce why I shouldn't murder someone.
Love, like many things, is what each individual makes of it, and that is where the "truth" lies. I'd rather be true to myself in my own deductions, ration, and logic as to what constitutes love for me than have someone tell me what love is. The "truth" behind love is what I make it to be and not what anyone else wants to tell me it is.
Then you are limited to your own ability to define, whereas when we seek God's definition, it is perfect and concise. We can change definitions to fit our perception, but the underlying vibrations of our thoughts and feelings are the only true reality.
You can't really deny anything you have no proof or evidence of IMO.
I don't deny Jesus as my saviour. Denying implies a wilful act in the face of facts and science.
If there was anything for me to accept I would. As there is not even a shred of evidence in favour of a deity, I am faced with having to accept there is no such thing.
It would be childish and churlish to deny the existence of a supreme being if I had empirical evidence of any kind.
Even a tiny little nod in the direction of god as truth would be a start.
My only "choice" is to accept facts and reality, and what my eyes, ears,brain and heart, reason and common sense tells me. Not so much of a choice as a natural and logical thought.
This conversation is reminding me of that conversation in the movie Contact where Jodie Foster is asking Matthew McConaghey how he can believe in his God when there's no "proof" and isn't he just deluding himself.........his response to her is "Did you love your Father?"..to which she replies "Yes, very much"...he replies..."prove it".
People believe in what THEY decide because they feel something in their gut and heart tells them this is right. It's difficult to argue a point when everyone is literally coming from a different place.
Then you are limited to your own ability to define, whereas when we seek God's definition, it is perfect and concise. We can change definitions to fit our perception, but the underlying vibrations of our thoughts and feelings are the only true reality.
godspeed,
freedom
I'm just asking because I'm not sure I understand; but are you implying that my perception of love is flawed? Because, for me, my perception of love is quite real and quite personal although it may not jive with yours.
My god is love, my god is peace, my god is you, and my god is me. I don't believe any of the world's religions currently fit that definition. I feel He is there and I feel that He weeps when He sees our concepts and stories of Him; especially when they are used for hate, violence, and exclusion
My god is love, my god is peace, my god is you, and my god is me. I don't believe any of the world's religions currently fit that definition. I feel He is there and I feel that He weeps when He sees our concepts and stories of Him; especially when they are used for hate, violence, and exclusion
if all of us strive to be with God, what does it matter what we call him and what does it matter which road we take?
you may believe that Jesus is the only way, but not everyone needs to believe that, and not only those who believe that will enter Heaven or understanding.
what you are quoting is a translation is it not?
i wonder what the original called God and Jesus
God (English) = Elohim (Hebrew) "On High" (emphisis with greatness)
Jesus Christ or Messiah(English) = Yeshua Moshia (Hebrew)
The old testament also refers to God as Yahweh (I am that I am) which correlates to Jesus which mean 'Yah saves' or His (God's) Salvation.
It also refers to God as Adonai or Lord. Sometime the words are presented together like Elohim Adonai or "The Lord on High"
Job said: "What is His (God's) name and the name of his Son."
Psalms says: "Kiss the Son lest he be angry with you."
There is no problems with translations. People often try to give this arguement about the Bible yet know little about the Bible. Most modern translations are good (just stick with a standard on and not some obscure one). The dead sea scroll have done little except prove that the translations of the Bible that we have are very good. Little if anything has changed in the last 2100 years.
Try translating a few passages for yourself and you will understand some of the problems with Translations and yet how well the Bible has been preserved. For example Genesis 1:1 Says: Berevshiet (In the Begining) bara (created) Elohim (God). This is the same as what we read today except the Noun comes before the Verb. So we say "In the begining God created..." So, if you get hung up on things like sentance formation there are Bibles that do a direct translation but they are a little read weird to (sorry, I had to do it!).
I'm just asking because I'm not sure I understand; but are you implying that my perception of love is flawed? Because, for me, my perception of love is quite real and quite personal although it may not jive with yours.
No offense, but compared to God, we are all flawed in our definitions, not just the verbal but the vibrational.
godspeed,
freedom
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We are all connected to one another through God.
