Yours is infinitely more demanding.

I agree with KBA & the original post but let me put the "burden of proof" argument another way...

I believe energy exists...it can be proven
I believe EM radiation exists...it can be proven
I believe the earth, solar system, galaxy, universe, exists...it can be proven
I believe the comfy chair I sit on exists...it can be proven
I believe [insert anything that you can demonstrate to a fellow being] exists...by virtue of being able to demonstrate, it is proven

Notice, there is no mention of "yaddi yaddi yadda does not exist". In fact, I cannot even say "something" does not exist until someone approaches me and brings that "something" to my attention. So, the act of "spreading the word" brings that "something" and in the case of religions, god/gods, to others' attention. Before this, for a rational mind, there is no "does not exist" there is only EXISTS. For an imaginative/creative mind, there are plenty of "don't exists".

Notice now, by bringing god/gods to my attention, as a first I MUST ask what/when/how/why/where is/are this/these god/gods? It is up to YOU, the claimant of "something" existing to now describe & demonstrate that "something" exists. I did not come to you and claim god/gods don't exist You came to me and claimed that it/they exist.

And this is exactly what KBA is saying, if you didn't come to me and say something exists (that you cannot prove exists) there would be no "prove to me that it does not exist", none of that at all. The claimants are the instigators of THAT statement, the rational mind never came up with that statement because it[the statement] is irrational!

Cheers

Thanks. Yeah, this is what I was meaning to say, although you phrased it better

Kahlil Gibran was an amazing poet who had quite an eye for expressing reality as it is (as far as words would allow him of course). Why are so many people religious or philosophical and turn away from the rational mind to find "higher truths"? For genuine seekers of truth this is because as Kahlil Gibran puts it:

There is a desire deep within the soul which drives man from the seen to the unseen, to philosophy and to the divine.

Call it an inner calling or an inner doubting or whatever but you come to realize that the intellect can raise many questions which it cannot answer because the answer has loop holes or comes in the form of a paradox which the rational cant make logical sense out of.

Anyway we search and search and go through various sciences, philosophies and religions until we get an intuitional flash which cant be explained via words but only indicated through paradox. As Kahlil Gibran explains so eloquently:

When you reach the end of what you should know, you will be at the beginning of what you should sense.

So beautiful How do we rationally explain what we sense? We cant, however we can have faith in it with confidence because of our first hand experience. It is a humbling thing to admit that Truth defies proof, concept, word and thought. And that to have faith in it is a humble act of putting intuition over rationality.

Faith is an oasis in the heart which will never be reached by the caravan of thining. --Kahlil Gibran

It is personal and cant be imposed on others but I myself am led to believe via my own intuition that it is rational to abandom rationality for the mysterious but fulfilling gift of faith. And if this faith is open to both ratonality and intuition it will strengthen one's inner drive to the point where one will be able to experience that which transcends all that is sensed by the mind and five senses. I myself havnt experienced this but I have faith that it will happen. This faith is a pillar of strength better than any scientific theory or religious myth can ever be.

So I know something that cant be rationally proven exists but I cant explain it. If it makes me seem mad so be it. No religion, science or philosophy can convince me otherwise because this intuitive feeling is just too strong.

Even though I am not enlightened I have come to realize that something that exists beyond any form or concept is the very foundation of the universe and our existence. Kahlil Gibran describes in a brilliant context:

We are all prisoners , but some of us are in cells with windows and some without.

Man I am in love with his words

Also it is dangerous to become too attached to organized religion or a science doctrine because:

Many a doctrine is like a window pane. We see truth through it, but it divides us from truth. --Kahlil Gibran

Such simple, vibrant and passionate words backed with genuine wisdom!@! Oh I love them!

So I have a faith which to me is rational because it isnt based purely on rationality. That is just my view of course. I love you all.


I edited because of the various many grammatical errors I commited on this post.

Before someone believed in a god, a burden of proof would be unnecessary. The burden of proof lies with that person who first postulated a god's existence. If those who follow that belief/postulation wish to carry the burden then I'm happy to let them.

However, I would find it difficult to accept any proof. Any being with enough power could pose as a god but there is no reason to suppose it is that god.

What we sense? Did you know when you pray really hard, mediate or whatever you do to focus, the part of your brain that detects that you're self aware shuts down? This is detected in different faiths and not limited to a single one. This sense would make you feel otherwise. An 'expierence' based on brain function.

Then we have personal expierences... Completely based on self fraud. We make ourselves believe. When I was a believer, I believed many things... Sensed god because I wanted to. It felt great knowing there was someone watching my six at all hours. Having someone to talk to no matter what. It's the self delusion that is so potent.

Where you might sense god while mediating; when I mediate I sense my own peace and calm.



Willful ignorance then? You then only believe because you want yourself to believe.



"You cannot love everyone; it is ridiculous to think you can. If you love everyone and everything you lose your natural powers of selection and wind up being a pretty poor judge of character and quality. If anything is used too freely it loses its true meaning. Therefore, the Satanist believes you should love strongly and completely those who deserve your love, but never turn the other cheek to your enemy!" -Anton LaVey


Your "evidence" shown here is only typed not to really show anything but to really convince yourself of your own beliefs. Granted it's a great thing to have an open mind and question your beliefs all the time, I know I do, it's something else to force yourself to believe.

A chinese word for God is Tao or The Way.

Here is an articulate but simply put description of it:

A way that can be walked
is not The Way
Aname that can be named
is not The Name

Tao is both Named and Nameless
As Nameless, it is the origin of all things
As Named, it is the mother of all things

A mind free of thought,
merged within itself,
beholds the essence of Tao
A mind filled with thought,
identified with its own perceptions,
beholds there mere forms of this world

Tao and this world seem different
but in truth they are one and the same
The only difference is in what we call them

How deep and mysterious is this unity
How profound, how great!
It is the truth beyond the truth,
the hidden within the hidden
It is the path to all wonder,
the gate to the essence of everything!

Verse one of the Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu

With Bell's theorem proven in the lab we cant at least say scientifically that everything is interconnected. But again this isnt enough evidence for most. Other than personal experience there is no real way of explaining it. Though Lao Tzu(Allah bless him) makes an attempt nevertheless:


Though formless and intangible
It gives rise to form
Though vague and elusive
It gives rise to shapes
Though dark and obscure
It is the spirit, the essence,
the life-breath of all things
"But is it real?" you ask---
I say its evidence is all of creation!

Part of Verse 21 of the book Tao Te Ching by Lao Tzu (chinese mystic)

See how riddled with paradox it is? Any form of explanation of infinity lands you in PARADOX. Write anything about infinity and I'll be able to put out something that is contradictory to it. Infinitey cannot be explained with finite words or thoughts or concepts. Just the way it is.

Funny how you say everything like physical existence can be scientifically proven but yet science cant prove consciousness the very thing needed to be conscious of a universe and to know that a universe exists. HAHAHAHAHAHA even science falls short to the mysteries of consciousness.

And also I think it quite amusing you quote a satanist to prove that not everyone can love everyone. Hahahaha that is like me quoting the pope to prove that one should follow Christianity. Hehehe

If infinity is such a paradox then perhaps it simply doesn't exist?

Brave, I do not love everyone and I am not a satanist. Proof enough?

Wow, what a a good description! May I use it at some point in the future? Naturally, I'll give you the credit.

If infinity didnt exist then we wouldnt be able to deny it in the first place. Also the argument is that people are capable of loving everyone if they mortify their will not that everyone does.

I agree with you to a degree PA, the burden of proof does not lie with anyone. Folks who have thought about the subject have come to their own conclusions, but when the "evidence" is presented I don't find any of it to be particularly strong. I usually find myself looking at one thing, saying "well that makes sense." and looking at the counter argument and saying "well that makes sense too." But to me none of it is convincing. When it comes to something such as a god/dess, creator, divine principle, is anyone else's word really any good?

Of course you can deny something that doesn't truly exist. That's what imagination is for.

Can you truly claim to love everyone? Do you think this is possible without knowing everyone?

Absolutely not, IMO.

Imagination is existence. And it is just as real as the physical because the physical is imagination within the brain cortexes, however the brain is also a thought or imagination. It is only our imagination or thoughts that tell us that imagination in the form of what we see is real and imagination in the form what we think isnt. They are both infact the same. Therefore you cant say what doesnt exist because to say what it is is to admit it's existence.



Yes because everyone is the oneness which is the foundation of all consciousness. Therefore if you know consciously the oneness i.e Buddha, Ramana Maharshi then you can love everyone. People like me can only have faith.





I agree with you. It comes down to one's personal intuition and faith.

So, eat nothing, drink nothing. It is all imagination, Brave. Imagine you are eating and drinking and gain your sustenance from that.



I say to you again. I am not of this oneness. You slur me by your inference I am. I have not your faith so do not tarnish me with it.

Now, how do you reconcile this?

I think it's very easy to affirm something, but living it is an entirely different matter. So , saying that, I'd be interested in knowing how much of what BNW claims is true, is actually put into effect in their personal life.

One can never claim to love everyone and truly honor love. Does one love the pedophile? Does one love the rapist? Does one love the tyrant that declares ethnic cleansing political policy for the good of the people!? Does one love that one that just killed their child and now faces justice for snuffing out a life, because it had the power to do so?! If one says yes, then one declares pedophiles are lovable, rapists are too. Political tyrants are love, because political tyranny is an example of love. I do not love everyone, because I think love is worth respect for what it is suppose to mean, when someone says, I love you.

If I could reprogram my subconscious I would be able to. People have been able to do so though they are exceedingly rare.



I can only do so with paradoxical explanations just like science has to make do with paradox when it comes to consciousness. But here is a quote from a persian mystic Jalal-uddin Rumi:

All creatures, day and night, make manifestation of God. Some of them know what they are doing and are aware of their manifesting, while others are unaware. However it may be, God's manifestation is confirmed.

and this by the same guy:

It is the destiny of unbelievers not to believe in destiny.

So whether you believe in God or not, God still exists and God has constructed your thought patterns accordingly because it suits It. So you are still a manifestation of God, you are just in denial which is part of your destiny anyway. So whatever you type or say is a reconciliation because everything is god including criticism against God and non-believers.

Anyway what is the difference between thought that we see with the senses and thought we think when they are both thought????

No, brave. These people are rumoured to have existed or to exist. Can you show any actual evidence, apart from word of mouth testimony, of these feats?

The burden of proof is with you, my friend...




So you are saying I have no choice but to be a part of your faith?

How intolerant of you, brave. I am not part of your faith and your assertion I am in denial regarding that is insulting. You are certainly not showing me 'love'.

Be my guest Lilly


All I can say b_n_w, is that you should pay attention to the words of your idols.

Starting with...
I've inserted [The Way/god] above for clarity. And from the above it can be said, the more you know about this world the more you know about Tao/The Way/god.

Before you reach the "mind free of thought" however, once again you will have to concede that you MUST use your thought to travel the journey to the "mind free of thought". In fact, I dare say, you are using your thought more than ever - I could be wrong though, if so, my apologies. W' regards to the second (emphasised) part, IMO, this is what science negates and actually promotes a "mind filled with thought, NOT identified with its own perceptions". Science breaks the barriers of our own perceptions. Example... I see RED, you see GREY, science breaks down the perception barrier of colour - it 'sees' an oscillation of a certain periodicity, period. Yes, we still perceive the readout of the data but we've effectively removed the perception of colour. And so on for all our senses.

So, the more you know about the universe (Tao/The Way/god) the more you know about the 'mind' of god. Once you know the mind of god, it's only a hop, skip and jump away from ....



Are you sure he's describing infinity and not "Emptiness" or something else ?

And from wiki...wiki - Tao
Sounds like Lao Tsu sought a primitive form of science Take some notes and you may just find that which you seek. With regards to the "subduing and controlling" that science does, be aware that science first & foremost learns from nature.

Cheers

Excelllent observation AI. The flowery language of the so-called mystics hides a very pragmatic view.

Yes because unless you love them how can you expect them to reform and take on a compassionate outlook and make amends? As Buddha onced stated: To understand everything is to forgive everything.

Also unless you love something how can you understand something? By loving something you are being open and non-judgemental and so can see things without a preconcieved notion blurring your view. As Aldous Huxley (MAN HE IS SO AWESOME INTELLIGENT AND ARTICULATE)so eloquently put:

We can only love what know, and we can never know completely what we do not love. Love is a mode of knowledge, and when it is sufficiently disinterested and sufficiently intense, the knowledge becomes unitive knowledge and so takes on the quality of infallibility. Where there is no disinterested love (or, more briefly no charity), there is only biased self-love, and consequently only a partial and distorted knowledge both of the self and of the world of things, lives, minds and spirit outside the self.

How can we cure a violent man if we use violence? How can we cure a paedaphile unless we show him love? All the examples you have mentioned are a form of violence or evil. This is what Lao Tzu has to say on how to deal with such evil:

If a person seems wicked do not cast him away--Awaken him with your words, elevate him with your deeds, requite his injury with your kindness. Do not cast him away; cast away his wickedness.

It takes a truly open forgiving mind to comprehend this otherwise it will go way over your head. And here is another example by socrates:

An unjust act always dishonors the perpetrator. We must cause no injury. Neither must we return injury for injury, as many people believe is right. We must injure no one at all. We must not retaliate or return evil for evil whatever the evil we may have suffered ourselves.

To think using violence on violence will end violence is perhaps man's best example of his lack of rationality and stupidity. I dont mean that we should just let rapists and paedaphiles on loose at a kindigarden but what I am saying is that they too are human and deserve a second chance to reform and should still be treated humanly whether in a prison or not because that is what it means to be human. To love no matter what is to be human.

If we dont then we stoop to the same level as the one's we hate:

"He who fights with monsters might take care, lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you."

---Friedrich Nietzsche

One does not conquer a tyrant through violence but only replaces him. One conquers a tyrant by showing him that you are willing to die and not commit violence because then the tyrant doesnt have you submission but only a dead corpse. If enough people do this then it will change the heart of the tyrant and he will see the injustice of his acts. It may take sacrifice but all fights for freedom have heavy costs. It is just a question of who can be brave enough to die with killing.

Neither violence nor submission will aid our plight. We must be greater than either alternative. ---Naid Ishmael

Mahatma Gandhi's non-violence is the key and the greater alternative.

However this leads you to the fact that the more you know the more you realize how much you dont know. Therefore you must transcend relative knowledge (because it is endless) of Tao and experience Tao directly using the methods prescribed by the mystics.



But science still cant study the world as it is for the very reason that it only studies the universe the mind gives them. The physical world is only a translation of the brain and therefore can never actually know whether it is the proper original or not. Therefore the mystics say free the mind of thought or transcend thought.

Like consciousness cant be explained by science because it defies the five senses yet it is required to be aware of the five senses.



Emptiness in order to be emptiness must even be empty of emptiness. This is inconceivable by the imagination and therefore requires faith to believe init;s existence. Just like Infinity cannot be conceived by the mind because the mind is limited to finite forms and thoughts. So emptiness or infinity can suffice because both are empty of all that can be thought. So infinity and emptiness are one and the same in this respect.



Mysticism is the greatest and most effective science ever created.

Pacifist, I ain't. It's simply not my nature. Because in my world, anyone that gets sexually/sensually aroused at the sight of a child, does not deserve my love, when they've raped tiny innocence and blackened with fear and shame, self-hatred and pain, the beauty of a new life that wasn't ready for that evil to rip into them. In my world, one does not re-form, that mind that allowed itself to destroy a child, because they believed love was taking hold of that baby and acting on the compulsion of rape, because somehow they reason that is the right thing to do.

I do not love the rapist, because I do not find violent physical and sexual abuse and human depravity, lovable. My love shall not forgive them their mental condition, that compells the body to act as a weapon against someone else.
I have more respect for what love is, than to give it, without sincere passion, to those that are a plague to peace and true love, that does not effect hate and viciousness, to gain power over the freedom to live unencumbered by that terror.

As for Mr. Gandhi, he certainly said much that is worthy of respect for it's insight into the human condition. However, I do not respect those that would give their throats to the wolves, because they do not love life enough to survive themselves with the effort of staying alive, rather than impaled on hungry teeth.
Mr. Gandhi was wise, and it takes great strength to assume the posture of a coward. But coward he was, when one does not realize if they lay down before a machine that survives itself on flesh and blood, they but feed the beast with their complacence, leaving the legacy of willing demise, in the wake of ravenous gluttony and finite population.

God wants us to return to Him purely by faith at first and receive the hard evidence after that decision. If we had hard evidence served first it would nullify free will in itself. Our survival instincts would kick in and be our motivator rather than reason. Given positive solid proof that we are in danger of returning to the oblivion from whence we came we would chose God only out of fear of personal destruction of our being and not out of simple love and respect.

Irish

We are just gonna have to agree to disagree.

One can only reach pure faith after questioniing though so I disagree.

Here is some writing from the book "Holographic universe" by Michael Talbot:

In her addition to her stigmata, Neutmann also displayed inedia, the supernormal ability to live without food. Her inedia began in 1923 when she "trandsferred" the throat disease of a young priest to her own body and susisted soley on liquids for several years. Then, in 1927, she gave up both food and water entirely.
When local bishop in Regensburg first learned of Neumann's fast, he sent a commission into her home to investigate. From July 14, 1927, to July 29, 1927, and under the supervision of a medical doctor named Seidl, four Franciscan nursing sisters scrutinized her every move. They watched her day and night, and the water she used for washing and rinsing her mouth was carefully measured and weighed. The sisters discovered several unusual things about Neumann. She never went to the bathroom(even after a period of six weeks she only had one bowel movement, and the excretement, examined by a Dr. Reismanns, contained only a small amount of mucus and bile, but no traces of food).

She also showed no signs of dehydration, even though the average human expels about four hundred grams (fourteen ounces) of water daily in the air he or she exhales, and a like amount through the pores. And her weight remained constant; although she lost nearly nine pounds (in blood) during the weekly opening of her stigmata, her weight returned to normal within a day or two later.

At the end of the inquiry Dr. Seidl and the sisters were completely convinced that Neumann had not eaten or drunk a thing for the entire fourteen days. The test seems conclusive, for a while the human body can survive two weeks without food, it can rarely half that time without water. Yet this was nothing for Neumann; she did not eat or drink a thing for the next thirty five years. So it appears she was not only materializing the enormous amount of blood necessary to perpetuate her stigmata, but also regularly materializing the water and nutrients she needed to stay alive and in good health. Inedia is not unique to Neumann.

In the The Physical Phenomena of Mysticism, Thurston gives several examples of stigmatists who went for years without eating or drinking.

Also even quantam physicist David Bohm believes all reality is thought. As the Holographic universe says:

In private conversation Bohm admits to believing that the universe is all "thought" and reality exists only in what we think, but again he prefers not to speculate about miraculous occurences.

Thank God for open minded physicists liek David Bohm






I am saying that whether you take an active role in it or deny it you are free to think and do as you please. But yes you would still be part of my faith. It would only not be love if I forced you to do something against your will. My faith requires that I give everyone the freedom to live and believe as they choose for the very reason that everyone is a manifestation of God.

The hungry wolf will always attack what it thinks it can eat. To offer yourself as a meal in order to protect another is the way of the fool for the wolf may not stop with you. It is best to persuede the wolf to seek it's dinner elsewhere. If reason or sharing of your own food does not work, then one must resort to one's cudgel.

The pedophile can be reformed, but he cannot be convinced to do so through our current system of therapy and punishment. The pedophile must realize the harm he has caused on his own and put forth true effort to resist his urge to harm. That's not to say that if the cat says "I'm sorry. I'll never do it again," we should immediately put him in charge of a day care center. Perhaps prisons should be more like monasteries than hotels.

If we're talking about the Abrahamic god, then if he is all knowing he would know who was following him out of love and respect and who was following out of fear, so following would not matter but the motivation behind it would... and he would be aware of what motivates each of us. So he would still be able to judge us.

I am a Deist of course, so I don't even pretend to know what the Creator wants.

I do believe that it is the responsibility of the one proposing the existence of something who should be called upon to prove it, if that something is being put forward so as to convince the non-believer to believe. For the one who does not believe the thing exists, the thing in question does not exist and would never have entered their mind had it not been suggested first by the one who believes it does exist.

Always a respectful understanding, within civil conversation.

Brave. I am not a manifestation of God. Please do not insult my faith by insisting this.

How is it insulting? What do you have to lose by me telling you that you are a manifestation of God?

It is insulting in that you are denying me my faith by insisting I am a part of yours. Absolutism doesn't allow for tolerance, my friend.

But my faith requires that I dont deny anyone their right to express themselves in whatever way they wish. Im absolute in that people dont have to believe in the absolute. They are still a manifestation of the absolute though. The absolute demands absolute tolerance

Then again...if the wolf insists on feasting where it shouldn't...kill the wolf...problem solved.

So, you are saying anyone can express whatever faith they have but, if it's not your faith, they're wrong?

How is that tolerance?

Because I dont care whether they are right or wrong. I just care that everyone is tolerant towards each other. That means more to my faith than everyone agreeing on the absolute.

Why would I be obliged to prove to anyone else what I know to be true? There is no burden in what I believe, I freely chose as instructed to first come by faith and was then given all the proof I required.
Like birth and death spirituality is a lonely individual journey that we all must make in our lifetime. I can share with you my experiences along my journey but I can never prove to you were I have been I can show you the physical souvenirs I have picked up along the way, but if you chose not to believe me those souvenirs are not evidence that I tell the truth. It still comes down to faith because that is the bridge to truth we all have to cross alone.

Irish

If your belief is entirely personal then you don't have to prove anything to a living soul... but if you seek to convince others to follow the same path then the burden of proof lies with you.

Well said, Shadow. That's what I think often makes for conflicts in discussion forums. People believe others sharing their point of view is a message of conversion, rather than an expression of personal opinion and lifestyle. We tend to defend what we are, in the eyes of others that criticize us for it. Even peripherally. So when someone attempts to say another's way of life is wrong, aside from criminal behaviors of course, they're in effect declaring their practice is not only better, but above the reproach they levy at someone else, for not living it's standards.
And really, what business is it of anyone else, how someone else lives a personal life!? I don't beat my children. So?! I don't believe yelling imparts a solid message, when one's auditory defenses shut out such offensive volume so the message gets lost in the first place. I don't believe christians have a right to come onto my property and ask if I know jesus. Is he any more polite than you are? No!? Because he sent you to give the good news trespassing and presumption is a moral value.

Faith in god is hope there exists such a thing and humans aren't really all alone with themselves, here. It doesn't mean it's true, it means it's believable. And for some, it's not even that. How can there be a problem then, if any religion calls itself tolerant and then says there is a problem with that!? Possession! That's the problem. Religions don't preach to the world because it cares about the world, it preaches to people because there is strength in numbers and with enough numbers one can rule the world. Because if there was a god, it wouldn't be obsessed with changing the minds of every one of it's human creation, to see it in just one way.
It's analogous to a sibling rivalry as to what mom and dad look like and who's the favorite. If one came from mom and dad, how is there ever a separation or a need to find one's way back. Ok, just got a squeezing back into the womb visual there. Time to go.

"Let me in! Let me in!" If I'm born again do I get another innie in me tummy?

If I went on holiday to a far and distant land and returned to share my experience with you, you would only know that I speak the truth by making the same journey yourself. The pictures I show you would serve only as encouragement for you to make the trip yourself.
If one had proof there would be no need for faith in the beginning! And to believe otherwise would negate what is faith.

Romans 17 For in the gospel righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
Hebrews 5; 6And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Irish

I'm sure that this far off distant land would actually be on this planet and I'd be able to find it in an atlas, so I wouldn't have to accept on faith the fact that such a place exists. And your photos would provide proof that you'd actually been to such a place. What I'd be accepting on faith is whether or not you had a good time and liked the place a lot when you tell me you did... nothing more.



You have to believe that you are required to have faith in order to accept that requirement. And you have to have faith to believe that having faith is a requirement.

Irish, what's this supposed nobility or power in faith? All faith is is denying what your senses tell you is true and jumping to conclusions. Having faith in someone doesn't mean believing that they exist. Just believing something exists says nothing of who you are in relationship to that thing. Some people have faith in the existence of demons, yet fear and despise them. And if God proved himself and that caused people to feel like they had no choice between God and themselves, I would postulate that maybe God is the one who removed that choice by threatening them with hellfire?

There's no reason to require faith. If I want to have a relationship with someone I want to be personal and I want to talk with them. I don't want to hide in the shadows as the invisible masters and send them "signs" every once in a while.

The point is, you believe in God. That's fine, you can believe. But if a relationship with God is so personal, then keep it that way. If you want other people to find God too, you have to give them reason to do so. Telling me God loves me is no reason for me to look for a relationship with God, because I don't believe he exists in the first place, it just can't happen.

And what, do you think that people need to spread their faith? Why can't God put it in the minds of people to be more receptive to him? Is he just too lazy? I find it funny how humans get all the labor in God's name when God could do it easily and without limitations... if he exists.

What I'm saying here is that people aren't going to be too savvy to retracing your vacation if they think the photos were doctored and that place doesn't even exist.

As I mention previously with solid undeniable proof our survival instincts would kick in and be our motivator of choice rather than trust and love. Have you ever played the friendship trust game as a child? The game goes like this several of your friends stand behind you as you are blindfolded, on their signal you fall backward and trust that they will catch you before you strike the ground. God wants that kind trust from us.


Again that does come after the initial trust/faith.



And you are entitled to that belief, but if you are here asking me the questions you may have some doubts. I can only give you what I believe to be true and how I know it to be so. What you decide to do with that information is entirely up to you, I can not force you to believe in something you do not want to and there are no extra points in it for me.



I personal find it strange that there is so much evidence around us there are some who still believe it is all life and consciousness is a great cosmic accident.

I would ask the question what it is they gain by deception?


Life is a gift of God you have chosen to accept the finite version of it or you would not still be with us. Live it to the fullest, laugh, play and make friends and leave a lasting legacy of your life toward the pursuit of goodness, not for any eventual rewards but because it is the right thing to do.

I believe If you like the gift of life you have an opportunity to keep it, seek out matters of spirituality, don’t ever stop if you are uncertain of the conclusions you arrive at because that uncertainty is a red flag that you have not found the truth. Seek and you shall find it, knock and the door will be opened.

Remember you are under no obligation to do so if you choose to not pursue a renewal of life. This mortal life may be plenty enough living for some and eternity may not be enough for others.

There is an element of peace in believing in a certainty and I pray that all that read this find that certainty of spirit. Then carry on laughing and loving and living the rest of this life with joy and hope.

Irish

Science falls short in a lot of areas to explain. Doesn't mean just because it can't be explained it goes straight to an act of god.

Gravity is only a theory... So it can't be explained as fact so far so let me guess... Little angels are holding my shoulders down to the ground?

Really? Satanism means adversity. It's also only a philosophy.

But it comes down to an act of faith.



Who knows.



So is Christianity or any other religion. They are philosophies ultimatey.

This to bible verses dont imply that one doesnt question. To earnestly seek God is to question all the way. By doing so you strengthen your faith. And having faith from the first to last doesnt mean you dont question either. Faith is gonna be stronger last if you question while you have faith first.

I think it would be good if we could all love others, even those that may not deserve it. We do not need to accept the way a person behaves (in the case of a pedophile, for example), in order to love them. When it comes right down to it, a pedophile or rapist is a sinner, just as I am. I am in the same boat as them, and it would be hypocritcal of me to not love them because I consider them less than I do myself. There is a similar case in the Bible where a Pharisee is praying in public and he is boasting about how good he is, and next to him is a poor sinner. The Pharisee prays "Thank God that I am not like this man, because I am a Pharisee and so much superior to him in every way" (paraphrased passage, I don't have time to get a reference). If I were to not love others, a pedophile for example, I would basically be saying that I am better than him or her, and thus condemn myself with my own words, as being the same as the Pharisee who thought himself better than the poor man.

Of course, being human I may not always succeed in this task. I may at times fail in my task to love my neighbour (which includes all neighbours, not just those who have not been convicted of heinous crimes), at which I would humbly ask God to help me to love them in the future. It is not easy, and as I have mentioned I may not always succeed at this, but it is part of what it is to be Christian, and my job to try.

Regards, PA