|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/30/2010 6:42:00 PM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 3009
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanM2010
I've seen those same (dramatic) changes when someone embraces Buddhism.
And Imams all over the world testify to the same changes when one submits to Allah.
And I have many Humanist friends who display these qualities as a matter of course.
And others who have changed after a life altering event.
Ah I took you to mean you had never seen that for yourself or didn't believe it happened.
quote:
I was not joking with the list. See above.
quote:
These are not Christian qualities.
They are human.
And how individuals find their way to these qualities is just that. Individual.
Some people find that particular path through a belief in the Trinity.
Many more do so by other means.
Yes I know. Normally people don't change their personality once mature. Personality or extreme changes in mannerisms usually result from some dramatic event in a person's life.
quote:
It fails as a proof that Jesus is Lord or that God exists (which may still be true) every bit as much as it fails as proof that Allah is Lord or, in fact, that there is no God at all. Jesus' proof is found in the testimony of not only the witnesses but His adversaries. That He performed deeds that defied understanding was acknowledged. The source of His abilities was the question His adversaries debated. Proof is also in the deaths of His apostles. Even under torture they repeated the same things. They all saw Him alive afterwards. If you know or spoken to anyone who has been tortured you know we all break. The only question is when. The Romans used tortures far more painful and effective than than most countries have used in the last 100 years. Yet the Apostles didn't break or they did and they repeated what actually happened. You also have the testimony of one of the centurions guarding the tomb. Of the Apostles captured, tortured, and executed by the Romans not one changed they're testimony. Most unusual, esp. from an entire group years later and alone.
Who would die for what they knew to be a lie? They could have easily gotten out by renouncing it if it were a lie and worshipped the Roman gods.
_____________________________
"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." --French Algerian author Albert Camus (1913-1960)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/30/2010 8:21:21 PM
|
|
|
DanM2010
Posts: 369
Joined: 7/21/2010
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
quote:
These are not Christian qualities.
They are human.
And how individuals find their way to these qualities is just that. Individual.
Some people find that particular path through a belief in the Trinity.
Many more do so by other means.
Yes I know. Normally people don't change their personality once mature. Personality or extreme changes in mannerisms usually result from some dramatic event in a person's life.
But my point is, it does not take a belief in God to embrace these qualities.
You can't say it proves the existence of God.
quote:
quote:
It fails as a proof that Jesus is Lord or that God exists (which may still be true) every bit as much as it fails as proof that Allah is Lord or, in fact, that there is no God at all. Jesus' proof is found in the testimony of not only the witnesses but His adversaries. That He performed deeds that defied understanding was acknowledged. The source of His abilities was the question His adversaries debated. Proof is also in the deaths of His apostles. Even under torture they repeated the same things. They all saw Him alive afterwards. If you know or spoken to anyone who has been tortured you know we all break. The only question is when. The Romans used tortures far more painful and effective than than most countries have used in the last 100 years. Yet the Apostles didn't break or they did and they repeated what actually happened. You also have the testimony of one of the centurions guarding the tomb. Of the Apostles captured, tortured, and executed by the Romans not one changed they're testimony. Most unusual, esp. from an entire group years later and alone.
Who would die for what they knew to be a lie? They could have easily gotten out by renouncing it if it were a lie and worshipped the Roman gods.
But the same can be said for the countless martyrs of Islam or those tortured and killed for not renouncing the Way of the Buddha or Judaism.
These are not proof of the Truth of Islam or Buddhism or Judaism any more than Christian martyrs prove the existence of God.
_____________________________
Those who live in glass houses should probably change clothes in the basement.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/30/2010 8:29:15 PM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 3009
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: DanM2010
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
quote:
These are not Christian qualities.
They are human.
And how individuals find their way to these qualities is just that. Individual.
Some people find that particular path through a belief in the Trinity.
Many more do so by other means.
Yes I know. Normally people don't change their personality once mature. Personality or extreme changes in mannerisms usually result from some dramatic event in a person's life.
But my point is, it does not take a belief in God to embrace these qualities.
You can't say it proves the existence of God.
I thought I agreed. Scratches head. It does prove the individual believes they underwent some transformative event.
quote:
quote:
quote:
It fails as a proof that Jesus is Lord or that God exists (which may still be true) every bit as much as it fails as proof that Allah is Lord or, in fact, that there is no God at all. Jesus' proof is found in the testimony of not only the witnesses but His adversaries. That He performed deeds that defied understanding was acknowledged. The source of His abilities was the question His adversaries debated. Proof is also in the deaths of His apostles. Even under torture they repeated the same things. They all saw Him alive afterwards. If you know or spoken to anyone who has been tortured you know we all break. The only question is when. The Romans used tortures far more painful and effective than than most countries have used in the last 100 years. Yet the Apostles didn't break or they did and they repeated what actually happened. You also have the testimony of one of the centurions guarding the tomb. Of the Apostles captured, tortured, and executed by the Romans not one changed they're testimony. Most unusual, esp. from an entire group years later and alone.
Who would die for what they knew to be a lie? They could have easily gotten out by renouncing it if it were a lie and worshipped the Roman gods.
But the same can be said for the countless martyrs of Islam or those tortured and killed for not renouncing the Way of the Buddha or Judaism.
These are not proof of the Truth of Islam or Buddhism or Judaism any more than Christian martyrs prove the existence of God.
The difference is the Apostles would have known if it was a lie. They would have known they were lying and were going to die because of their lie. Subsequent people only have their word that they saw what they saw. Would you die for a fiction you created if you were being tortured or were going to be executed because of the fiction? I wouldn't. Or would you end the charade and fess up if you were promised to be released?
_____________________________
"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." --French Algerian author Albert Camus (1913-1960)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/30/2010 8:34:04 PM
|
|
|
DanM2010
Posts: 369
Joined: 7/21/2010
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
The difference is the Apostles would have known if it was a lie. They would have known they were lying and were going to die because of their lie. Subsequent people only have their word that they saw what they saw. Would you die for a fiction you created if you were being tortured or were going to be executed because of the fiction? I wouldn't. Or would you end the charade and fess up if you were promised to be released?
I have no doubt that the apostles believed in Jesus.
And I have no doubt that many of the followers of Jim Jones or David Koresh (among others) also believed to the point of death.
Don't necessarily make it so.
_____________________________
Those who live in glass houses should probably change clothes in the basement.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/30/2010 10:23:35 PM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 3009
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: online
|
Not believed in. This is a whole different type of believe. The apostles believed they saw Him after the resurrection. Just like they believed they saw Him cure the sick and dead. Even His adversaries admitted that the tomb was empty. The Roman soldiers would have been executed for falling asleep or not stopping a group coming to take the body.
You would have to be saying that all of them were lying or deceived. Including his adversaries. Is that what you are slowly getting to?
Edited for grammar
< Message edited by Marcus. -- 7/31/2010 4:14:55 AM >
_____________________________
"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." --French Algerian author Albert Camus (1913-1960)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/31/2010 1:16:45 AM
|
|
|
DanM2010
Posts: 369
Joined: 7/21/2010
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
Not believed in. This is a whole different type of believe. The apostles believed they saw Him after the resurrection. just like they believed they saw Him cure the sick and dead. Even His adversaries admitted that the tomb was empty. The Roman soldiers would have been executed for falling asleep or not stopping a group coming to take the body.
You would have to be saying that all of them were lying or deceived. Including his adversaries. Is that what you are slowly getting to?
The guards in Matthew?
They'd have been executed?
Strange how none of the other evangelists mention any guards....
Mind you, they were probably distracted by getting most of the other stuff completely inconsistent.
I said I had no doubt the apostles believed.
No doubt at all.
It might all really have happened like one of the evangelists described.
Which one is anyone's guess.
But I'm really not slowly getting to anything.
I just think it's a rather spurious "proof of God."
_____________________________
Those who live in glass houses should probably change clothes in the basement.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/31/2010 1:46:50 AM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 3009
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: online
|
OK No problem. I believe the gospels cover different testimonies because that is what they experienced. Eye witness testimony rarely ever is a 100% match even when you stage an event for the group. You will get slightly to very different recounts of what went on. I do not believe the Gospels are exclusive or contradictory. Back then telling someone a story about what happened wasn't necessarily linear and chronology didn't matter. Some of the facts would have been told out of order which was a common thing then.
If you call the accounts spurious then by definition you are saying they lied. Personally I see nothing false or fake in the accounts.
_____________________________
"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." --French Algerian author Albert Camus (1913-1960)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/31/2010 2:35:17 AM
|
|
|
DanM2010
Posts: 369
Joined: 7/21/2010
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
OK No problem. I believe the gospels cover different testimonies because that is what they experienced. Eye witness testimony rarely ever is a 100% match even when you stage an event for the group. You will get slightly to very different recounts of what went on. I do not believe the Gospels are exclusive or contradictory. Back then telling someone a story about what happened wasn't necessarily linear and chronology didn't matter. Some of the facts would have been told out of order which was a common thing then.
If you call the accounts spurious then by definition you are saying they lied. Personally I see nothing false or fake in the accounts.
I didn't say the accounts were spurious.
I didn't say the writers were liars.
I said it was a spurious proof of God.
None of the writers of the Gospels were eyewitnesses anyway.
So four different writers writing decades after the event from the accounts of various witnesses necessarily leads to the four different accounts we have of the Resurrection.
I agree with that.
I just don't think it can be used as a proof of God.
And, as a side note, I've never quite understood how it can be the literal word for word Truth of God either.
I'm sure there's an explanation, but it's beyond my tiny brain.
_____________________________
Those who live in glass houses should probably change clothes in the basement.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/31/2010 3:21:59 AM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 3009
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: online
|
I believe the traditional teachings of who wrote the Gospels. Very recent research places the dates of the Gospel accounts in the lifetime of the people who did witness the events. One papyrologist I listened to said the research points to date of around 60 AD for the last of the gospel accounts to be written based on the writing style used on the papyrus. The research into the language indicates the oral tradition was an Aramaic one that went back even further based on the grammar.
I don't buy the Q document theory because the people pushing that refuse to believe the 3 synoptic gospels are the result of eye witness testimony. Their minds seem to be closed to that explanation.
_____________________________
"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." --French Algerian author Albert Camus (1913-1960)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/31/2010 3:27:01 AM
|
|
|
DanM2010
Posts: 369
Joined: 7/21/2010
Status: online
|
Have you got a source for that recent research?
I'd thought the research showed the Gospels were written well after Paul's letters and probably toward the very end of the first century.
As to Q, I'm yet to be shown there is the agenda you suggest.
I thought the data pointed to a common source due to the construction of the language.
_____________________________
Those who live in glass houses should probably change clothes in the basement.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/31/2010 3:43:26 AM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 3009
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: online
|
The papyrologist was on a TV special a couple of years ago on TLC. German scholar Carsten Thiede. I notice on the video cover it says 70 AD not 60 AD. My mistake.
Just found out Thiede died a few years ago.
< Message edited by Marcus. -- 7/31/2010 4:16:54 AM >
_____________________________
"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." --French Algerian author Albert Camus (1913-1960)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/31/2010 3:53:52 AM
|
|
|
DanM2010
Posts: 369
Joined: 7/21/2010
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
I don't buy the Q document theory because the people pushing that refuse to believe the 3 synoptic gospels are the result of eye witness testimony. Their minds seem to be closed to that explanation.
Do you not also have room to imagine that the opposite may also be true?
That those refuting the Q document do so because their minds may be closed to the explanation that that the 3 synoptic gospels were not written by eyewitnesses?
_____________________________
Those who live in glass houses should probably change clothes in the basement.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/31/2010 3:57:22 AM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 3009
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: online
|
It could be possible. But after listening to some of the Q document researchers on a live talk radio show I have little doubt they are researching to find support for their theory instead of letting the historical evidence speak for itself.
_____________________________
"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." --French Algerian author Albert Camus (1913-1960)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/31/2010 9:40:46 AM
|
|
|
WormHeart
Posts: 404
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Denmark - pride of Scandinavia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
Eck - I'd advice against using arguments that have already been proven to be bunk, in a debate with a lot at stake. It would hurt to have a argument torn to shreds that way, and since the examples include Pascals Wager, they at least include one bunk argument. Sorry, WH, but all of these arguments have reasonable responses to their respective counter-arguments. The atheist may not wish to accede that point, but that's not the fault of the argument!
No, but it will certainly hurt the debate the OP is having.
Look, remember that I *do* believe in gods and even that God is real (but not who He claims), and as a man of faith myself, I can see these arguments are bunk. Embarrising even - at least some of them.
Take Pascals Wager.
A fine example of a very intelligent man makin a very stupid statement. His wager is basically: "If Christianity is true and you dont believe, you loose everything. If you believe and it is not true, you loose nothing. The logical choice is to belive."
But that only makes sense in a world where the choice is between Christianity and Atheism. If you are Christian, and the Shintoist are right, you go to Hell. If you are Christian and the Mormons are right, you go to Mormon hell (which is a pretty decent place). If Judaism is rigth, you are not among the chosen people. If Islam is right, you are also in trouble. If I am right, you will still go to God, so no problem.
It is bunk!
quote:
ORIGINAL: drmark
quote:
The very first word coming out of the atheist mouth after hearing this, would be "Proof?". Since you cannot come up with any proof of a miracle, it seems to be a repeat of his first challenge. Nonsense! I am proof of a miracle. Every Christian is proof of miraculous intervention. The simple counter to the atheist's skepticism is precisely what benelchi described: prove there is no God!
Please. Dont lessen the word miracle to mean all sort of everyday things. You will only get laughed at.
How is any Christian proof of a miraculous intervention?
When Jesus performed miracles, he didn't use that rethoric. He actually healed the sick, feeded the masses, raised the dead, casted the deamons, walked on water. Real miracles.
Those are not documented today. We dont see the healed amputees. The risen dead. The levitations. Every incident is shown to be either a hoax or terrible undocumented.
It like pointing at the Iraqi war and saying: "But wasnt Saddam a WMD in himself?"
And I still believe in miracles. I just think they are very, very rare.
WormHeart
_____________________________
WormHeart got married
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/31/2010 10:23:43 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3277
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
I believe the traditional teachings of who wrote the Gospels. Very recent research places the dates of the Gospel accounts in the lifetime of the people who did witness the events. One papyrologist I listened to said the research points to date of around 60 AD for the last of the gospel accounts to be written based on the writing style used on the papyrus. The research into the language indicates the oral tradition was an Aramaic one that went back even further based on the grammar.
While I believe that internal evidence strongly supports a date for all (except the Johanian literature) that is prior to 70 AD, the idea that the writing style and papyrus used on any COPY we have in our possession supports a date earlier than 70 AD is simply ludicrous. If we accept Thiede's redating of the Magdalen papyrus (several very small fragments that contain less than 10 words between them), we still have a date that is after the fall of the temple in 70 AD) and most conservative biblical scholars have rejected Thiede's arguments for an early date and place these fragments in the middle of the 2nd century. These three small fragments are the only manuscripts for which there is even a debate of a first century origination (i.e. fragments where a debate over writing style and type of papyrus would even come into play) and they are so fragmentary that many liberal scholars even debate whether they are part of the Gospel's at all. There are a number of good arguments for an early date for the composition of the Gospels (like the wide geographic distribution of 2nd century manuscripts, context, etc...) but writing style and type of papyrus used is not one of them.
ETA: Just saw your post with the corrected date, and identification of Thiede. 
quote:
I don't buy the Q document theory because the people pushing that refuse to believe the 3 synoptic gospels are the result of eye witness testimony. Their minds seem to be closed to that explanation.
Many conservative scholars support the Q theory (in several different forms) and still believe that the synoptic were written by eye witnesses. The idea that one must support one theory or the other is a false dichotomy.
< Message edited by benelchi -- 7/31/2010 10:40:16 AM >
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/31/2010 10:37:22 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3277
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
Have you got a source for that recent research?
I'd thought the research showed the Gospels were written well after Paul's letters and probably toward the very end of the first century.
Most conservative biblical scholars reject a date for the Synoptic Gospels, the Pauline literature, the books of Peter and Jude that is after 70 AD because internal evidence does not reflect the theology and thought of the Jewish society after the destruction of the Temple and the dispersion of the people of Judea. Although there is some debate many also place the book of Hebrews in the list of literature that is prior to the temples destruction. 'The Johanian literature is generally accepted to by written by John in the last decade of the first century by conservative biblical scholars.
One of the strongest arguments for an early date is the very wide geographic distribution of biblical manuscripts (especially the Gospels) by the 2nd and early 3rd century. To achieve such a wide geographic distribution typically took many, many decades which virtually eliminates the possibility that these early fragments originated contemporaneously with their composition.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/31/2010 10:47:42 AM
|
|
|
benelchi
Posts: 3277
Joined: 9/14/2007
From: California
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marcus.
It could be possible. But after listening to some of the Q document researchers on a live talk radio show I have little doubt they are researching to find support for their theory instead of letting the historical evidence speak for itself.
Note: There are many different theories proposed for the possibility of "Q" each supported by different biblical scholars and a great many of them suppose a "Q" document that was written by an eye witnesses and that was used by other eye witnesses as a resource when they wrote their Gospel account. One popular theory is that "Q" was an original Aramaic (or possibly Hebrew) Gospel written by Matthew. Many believe that our Greek copy of Matthew may be a translation from an original Semitic source.
_____________________________
אשת־חיל מי ימצא ורחק מפנינים מכרה
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/31/2010 11:35:16 AM
|
|
|
Marcus.
Posts: 3009
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Minnesota
Status: online
|
I have heard that when the Gospels are translated from Greek to Aramaic, they display a poetic composition. The sentence structure and grammar reflects the Aramaic even in the Greek I've been told as well.
_____________________________
"The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience." --French Algerian author Albert Camus (1913-1960)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 7/31/2010 11:50:40 AM
|
|
|
alwaysinjoy2000
Posts: 428
Joined: 1/25/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ilovegod12345
Hey guys,
I've been arguing a lot with my atheist friend, and he is always asking me, "Prove god's existence! Then I will believe in God"
He is making me lose my faith, please help me regain my faith.
It is not up to you or I to prove to someone else who doesn't believe there is a God that He is real. No amount of evidence you provide a person like this will believe it is truth. Any miracle will be explained away. Any amount of evidence you provide will not satisfy them. He has it in his minds already that God isn't real, we don't need God because we flawed human beings can seek the knowledge to explain the mysteries of the universe, and our own role in it. To understand why we are, and where we will be. But such thinking is arrogance IMO, we will never know it all because I think we are never meant to have knowledge of every thing. We call ourself wise or more advanced now, than our ancestors, but we still have the same human failings that have been there since Adam and Eve. What we call wise, God calls foolish.  I think it's humbling.
Anyways, it has to be up to your friend to find God. You are not responsible for why he must believe..in fact, he doesn't have to believe God is real, God allows that. However, he will have to take that up with God eventually in the end, why they refuse when IMO (and every other believer) can see the evidence of God's Hand everywhere.
I can tell you from my own testimony and experience, NO amount of people I encountered when I was a non-believer convinced me God is real. Although, now that I look back, I can see that God used these Christians to plant little seeds that eventually became the faith I have today. However, I came to God myself, but I seeked Him, and discovered the truth for myself. No one person convinced me and made me think, 'Wow, they have a point!'. I was blind to understanding God's word and His truth (I remember one instance I tried reading the Bible to see what they were talking about, but it didn't speak to my heart because my heart was hardened against knowing God in truth...).
The day I became a believer, was the day I realized God was real and I couldn't deny God was NOT real any longer. Now I know that God had probably been trying to get my attention for years, but I refused to believe in Him because of course I am a sinful, rebellious human being. It was not for any lack of evidence, because I think that the evidence is clear, I know that deep down inside I knew God was real but I was stubborn and wanted to go my own way.
So I would say continue to pray for your friend, and don't doubt. No one can make you lose your faith, only you can do that. Read God's word and stay strong in Him!! God is my source of strength because I know that I am weak, so I rely on Him.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 8/24/2010 11:45:37 PM
|
|
|
Timcp
Posts: 507
Joined: 3/10/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ilovegod12345
Hey guys,
I've been arguing a lot with my atheist friend, and he is always asking me, "Prove god's existence! Then I will believe in God"
He is making me lose my faith, please help me regain my faith.
Hebrews 11:6
But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that comes to God must believe that he is, and that he rewards them that diligently seek him.
_____________________________
http://askdrbrown.org/
http://www.levitt.com
http://www.harvest.org/
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 8/25/2010 1:33:17 PM
|
|
|
DanM2010
Posts: 369
Joined: 7/21/2010
Status: online
|
Touche.
Poor choice of words, Ohioman.
I apologise for my bumblings.
_____________________________
Those who live in glass houses should probably change clothes in the basement.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Actual evidence of God? - 9/10/2010 5:05:10 AM
|
|
|
HIS_mindy
Posts: 71
Joined: 8/30/2010
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: ilovegod12345
Hey guys,
I've been arguing a lot with my atheist friend, and he is always asking me, "Prove god's existence! Then I will believe in God"
He is making me lose my faith, please help me regain my faith.
First of all, your handle is ilovegod...then love Him with all your soul, all your strength, all heart and all your mind.
Your friend probably knows you can't prove God's existence. Remember, we have free will...we are free to choose what we want to think, how we live our lives, etc. He has chosen to be an atheist. You have chosen to become God's child!
No one can make you lose your faith. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you. Ask Him for wisdom and guidance in knowing how to respond to your friend.
Correct me if I am wrong but IMO, debating with an atheist regarding God's existence is futile. Atheists, for the most part, have already made up their minds that God does not exist.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
