Do you believe in God and why

[mikebike]

5 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

it's pretty obvious to anyone of good heart what is true and what is false.

Obvious to whom? A quick review of history makes it clear that Christians themselves have had a hard time determining this.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 minutes ago, mikebike said:

The point of the quote is NOT to determine whether AE believed in God or not (it seems fairly clear he did). The quote was only meant as a counter-point to the AE quote I was responding to.

Seems to me that you are not seeing the wood for the trees, or something like that.

Whether AE believed or not is completely irrelevant to whether other people believe or not. It's always an individual belief, and often brought about by an individual experience. I could tell you about my Damascus moment, but as you seem unwilling to accept that belief is real, I don't see the point. Whatever I say, you will just come up with a counter argument, which won't make any difference to me. Faith by definition is belief in something un provable, so whatever argument you come up with it really isn't going to convince me.

Seems to me that some need God to come to earth in a flaming chariot and cure every illness before they will believe, but that would not be faith, would it?

[mauGR1]

21 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Huh?

 

History remembers at least as many monsters as it does the "ones who can manage to give their best efforts for positive values..."

Sorry mate, we are talking a different language, i don't hear what you say, and i guess it's the same for you. All the best.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 minutes ago, mikebike said:

Obvious to whom? A quick review of history makes it clear that Christians themselves have had a hard time determining this.

Oh, back to the religious thing, I see. What you say is true and it's why I rejected religion long ago. I have faith, and it's nothing at all to do with religion.

[Skeptic7]

27 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If God can create the universe, I'm pretty certain that a big stone would be no problem.

Totally missed the paradoxical point. 

[thaibeachlovers]

1 hour ago, malthebluff said:

People need something to believe in. Somebody to blame or somebody to thank.  Unfortunately we are all conditioned from the second we are born. Babies dont know if they white black yellow or green with pink spots they are labelled by the peers ie white baby black baby and its the same with religion. 80 or so years ago mothers and babies where not allowed out until the church had blessed them. Then came the christenings for the babies names and then first day at school saying prayers so brainwashed from very early age.

No argument about that from me, but it's not about faith though, is it?

Faith does not require religion, though the religious can have faith. I used to be religious but I didn't have faith till I gave up believing in religion.

To simplify, religion is about form, and faith is about substance. Anyone can go to Church on Sundays and sing hymns, but that doesn't mean they have faith.

[Skeptic7]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Oh, back to the religious thing, I see. What you say is true and it's why I rejected religion long ago. I have faith, and it's nothing at all to do with religion.

Faith in WHAT? What is this thing you have faith in? Not sunsets or night sky...the deity-thingy. What is it and what does it do...and how do you know?

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No argument about that from me, but it's not about faith though, is it?

Faith does not require religion, though the religious can have faith. I used to be religious but I didn't have faith till I gave up believing in religion.

To simplify, religion is about form, and faith is about substance. Anyone can go to Church on Sundays and sing hymns, but that doesn't mean they have faith.

It's tiring, isn't it, when you make every effort to understand people who have no intention to understand what you say..

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, mauGR1 said:

It's tiring, isn't it, when you make every effort to understand people who have no intention to understand what you say..

Never mind, every post makes me think more about what I believe.

I've noticed  a certain poster quoting me more than usual. He might be a bit lonely now that sunmaster isn't around to respond to him any more.

[malthebluff]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

A quote from the Bible is in order if you are going to start introducing extra family members, and why is he significant?

Because he older that makes Mary a non virgin 

[malthebluff]

20 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

No argument about that from me, but it's not about faith though, is it?

Faith does not require religion, though the religious can have faith. I used to be religious but I didn't have faith till I gave up believing in religion.

To simplify, religion is about form, and faith is about substance. Anyone can go to Church on Sundays and sing hymns, but that doesn't mean they have faith.

Explain please what is faith 

[mauGR1]

12 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Never mind, every post makes me think more about what I believe.

I've noticed  a certain poster quoting me more than usual. He might be a bit lonely now that sunmaster isn't around to respond to him any more.

Mr. death,  I guess,  I'd rather spend my time trying to straighten bananas, than trying to wake him up ????

[Fat is a type of crazy]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If God can create the universe, I'm pretty certain that a big stone would be no problem.

In case it seemed like I said a whole lot of nothing, if someone said to god, ' Make a stone heavier than you can carry' God called say

' You dont understand my nature since by definition the initial premise has to be I can lift any stone.  If you said "Fly faster than you can fly" I can reject the premise since I can fly as fast as I wish so it doesn't make sense. Your question has a limit that does not exist therefore the proposition is not sound'. 

 

 

[ColeBOzbourne]

5 hours ago, mauGR1 said:

Perhaps you're overthinking?

You're probably right. When it comes to God thinking is not allowed. Just have faith.

[Skeptic7]

1 minute ago, ColeBOzbourne said:

You're probably right. When it comes to God thinking is not allowed. Just have faith.

Spot on...every single one of the thousands presented throughout history. Including all the old and new "woo-doo". No valid descriptions, definitions or shreds of evidence. Just have faith and run with them. Pantheism, panpsychism, consciousness, spiritual, natural brain states brought on by meditation,  psychedelics or even sleep(!)...blah blah puke. ????

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, malthebluff said:

Because he older that makes Mary a non virgin 

You missed the Bible quote. Without that I don't believe it.

[thaibeachlovers]

15 hours ago, malthebluff said:

Explain please what is faith 

Why don't you google it? They have a good definition.

[mauGR1]

1 hour ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why don't you google it? They have a good definition.

I am not Google, but faith must be not necessarily involve God or religion, or even spirituality. 

One can have faith in himself, ideals, even some investment..

The mystery of the whole thing, is that "faith " could increase, if not even determine the outcome of an action. 

In medicine,  placebo is a typical example of the power of " faith".

Faith is one of those concepts one could spend years debating, as it can have extremely different forms for every individual. 

[canthai55]

Put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry!

William Blacker 1834

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, canthai55 said:

Put your trust in God, my boys, and keep your powder dry!

William Blacker 1834

Help yourself, and the sky will help you.

(Italian proverb)

[mauGR1]

17 hours ago, Skeptic7 said:

Spot on...every single one of the thousands presented throughout history. Including all the old and new "woo-doo". No valid descriptions, definitions or shreds of evidence. Just have faith and run with them. Pantheism, panpsychism, consciousness, spiritual, natural brain states brought on by meditation,  psychedelics or even sleep(!)...blah blah puke. ????

One has to admire your determination in letting the world know how you can make your imagination as stable as a chunk of granite. 

A miracle of faith !

Perhaps, just to save time, you could do a copy and paste on every Sunday ????

[malthebluff]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

You missed the Bible quote. Without that I don't believe it.

Jesus' brothers – James as well as Jude, Simon and Joses – are named in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 and mentioned elsewhere. James's name always appears first in lists, which suggests he was the eldest among them.

take it you have never read the bible 

[malthebluff]

8 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Why don't you google it? They have a good definition.

noun

1. 1.

   complete trust or confidence in someone or something 

    
2. 2.

   strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, malthebluff said:

Jesus' brothers – James as well as Jude, Simon and Joses – are named in Matthew 13:55 and Mark 6:3 and mentioned elsewhere. James's name always appears first in lists, which suggests he was the eldest among them.

take it you have never read the bible 

quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus

Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, as well as some Anglicans and Lutherans, teach that James, along with others named in the New Testament as "brothers"^{[note 2]} of Jesus, were not the biological children of Mary, but were possibly cousins of Jesus,^[6] or step-brothers from a previous marriage of Joseph (as related in the Gospel of James).^{[7][note 3]}

On the other hand, the Episcopal Church,^{[11][failed verification]} the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints^[12] and the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God believe that Jesus had biological siblings, including James.^[13]

end quote

Not exactly definite proof, and no birth certificates, so one can believe it or not, but no one can say which is correct.

 

quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus

Apart from a handful of references in the synoptic Gospels, the main sources for the life of James the Just are the Pauline epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, Josephus, Eusebius and Jerome, who also quote the early Christian chronicler Hegesippus and Epiphanius.^[26] There is no mention of James in the Gospel of John or the early portions of the Acts of the Apostles. The Synoptics mention his name, but provide no further information.

end quote

 

So, in reality, no proof that Jesus had biological brother(s).

 

I only checked that out from interest, but as I'm not religious it doesn't matter to me if Jesus did or did not have a biological brother.

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, malthebluff said:

take it you have never read the bible 

LOL, LOL, LOL.

 

I have, but how many books do you remember off by heart? None for me.

[mauGR1]

11 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL, LOL, LOL.

 

I have, but how many books do you remember off by heart? None for me.

I never read the entire bible too, I just remember a few passages that are significant in my opinion. 

I think that Mary being a virgin or not is quite an insignificant detail, and most probably a metaphor anyway.

Btw, tales as the great flood, for example, although with different names, are also present in Sumer tradition,  which predates the bible a few 1000s years, not to mention the legends of other civilizations. 

[canthai55]

The Bible - right up there with Grimms fairy tales for believably.

 

If the Roman Catholic church would release all the parts they removed, all the revisions they made,  additions they have inserted ...

Publish so the public can read and decide for themselves if it is a load of DooDoo, or an allegory of early beliefs told in a way that the illiterate could understand it.

Or the giant theft of earlier traditions and beliefs, massaged into a control mechanism.

Holding my breath - along with waiting for the second coming, global peace and brotherhood, and an end to war

555

[ThaiFighterGoWuuur]

21 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus

Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, as well as some Anglicans and Lutherans, teach that James, along with others named in the New Testament as "brothers"^{[note 2]} of Jesus, were not the biological children of Mary, but were possibly cousins of Jesus,^[6] or step-brothers from a previous marriage of Joseph (as related in the Gospel of James).^{[7][note 3]}

On the other hand, the Episcopal Church,^{[11][failed verification]} the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints^[12] and the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God believe that Jesus had biological siblings, including James.^[13]

end quote

Not exactly definite proof, and no birth certificates, so one can believe it or not, but no one can say which is correct.

 

quote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James,_brother_of_Jesus

Apart from a handful of references in the synoptic Gospels, the main sources for the life of James the Just are the Pauline epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, Josephus, Eusebius and Jerome, who also quote the early Christian chronicler Hegesippus and Epiphanius.^[26] There is no mention of James in the Gospel of John or the early portions of the Acts of the Apostles. The Synoptics mention his name, but provide no further information.

end quote

 

So, in reality, no proof that Jesus had biological brother(s).

 

I only checked that out from interest, but as I'm not religious it doesn't matter to me if Jesus did or did not have a biological brother.

According to ancient Jewish law if the head of the household dies then the mother of the household, who survives must be entrusted to another sibling. The fact that Jesus, at the time of his death on the cross, entrusted Mary to his Apostle proves he had no siblings. If St. Joseph was alive (which he wasn’t then Mary would go to him). If Jesus had a sibling (which he didn’t) then Mary would go to that sibling. 

[mauGR1]

27 minutes ago, ThaiFighterGoWuuur said:

Pretty sure the Protestants did that. They removed books and edited a whole bunch of quotes to fit their narrative. 

If so, the protestant, the catholic, and the orthodox versions of the bible would have some major differences, while,  afaik they have minor differences. 

Imho, the corruption of the bible began much earlier, when the Roman emperor Constantine chose christianity as the official religion of the empire, around 300 AD.

[ThaiFighterGoWuuur]

7 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

If so, the protestant, the catholic, and the orthodox versions of the bible would have some major differences, while,  afaik they have minor differences. 

Imho, the corruption of the bible began much earlier, when the Roman emperor Constantine chose christianity as the official religion of the empire, around 300 AD.

No Constantine did not make Christianity the official religion. He only legalized all religions to be practiced without persecution. 
 

It was Emperor Theodosius who favored Christianity over pagan religions. And is the one credited to making Christianity a state religion