why do non-believers always

[Yamato]

Fire was magical before it wasn't. So were lightning, earthquakes, and the Aurora Borealis. There is no magic but there is the illusion of it, and things we don't understand.

Those who've assigned God to everything that happens in the world have the fastest shrinking God-Do lists.

[Arbenol]

I can't answer for anyone else but everything that was ever magical was magical before it was not.

Maybe superior forms of life and energy are hard for us to believe, but given that many planetary systems are millions of years older than ours, I wouldn't get too smug with the skepticism too fast. We could get visited by things so advanced they might as well be Gods when compared to our concept of what God is. Eternal life and resurrection might only be the tip of the iceberg.

Frank has it right. You're mistaking 'God of the Gaps' arguments for magical thinking.

Magical thinking relates to attributing causal relationships where there are none.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magical_thinking

What you're describing is the attributing of supernatural causes to natural phenomena (or advanced technology), where it simply is a matter of insufficient knowledge or understanding.

This can be rectified by increasing one's understanding of it. As you say:

Fire was magical before it wasn't

But once one can understand the physical and chemical processes that create it, it ceases to be "magical".

Magical thinking is immune to this: eg, "my mother recovered from her illness because I prayed to God that she would. And He heard".

[spacecowboy342]

Fire was magical before it wasn't. So were lightning, earthquakes, and the Aurora Borealis. There is no magic but there is the illusion of it, and things we don't understand.

Those who've assigned God to everything that happens in the world have the fastest shrinking God-Do lists.

No those things were never magical. Ignorance was more profound in the old days. We just haven't gotten rid of all of it yet

[danielost]

Denial is a river in egypt .

Everything is magical until it isn't, in the case of fire they thought it was alive. Mainly, because it danced and moved.

[Ben Masada]

Some of us do.

Probably those who already know how they will behave think they are activated by extinct and not by reason. Tel me, if you found a bag completely full with hundred dollars bills, would you take it for yourself or render it to the authorities? The wise man would answer: I don't know. I have to find it first because I never know what mood I'll be in at the moment. Wise evaluation of himself. Neither just nor wicked, just wise.

Edited March 18, 2014 by Ben Masada

[GoldenWolf]

Denial is a river in egypt .

Everything is magical until it isn't, in the case of fire they thought it was alive. Mainly, because it danced and moved.

No, denial is the human race.

[Mr Walker]

Probably those who already know how they will behave think they are activated by extinct and not by reason. Tel me, if you found a bag completely full with hundred dollars bills, would you take it for yourself or render it to the authorities? The wise man would answer: I don't know. I have to find it first because I never know what mood I'll be in at the moment. Wise evaluation of himself. Neither just nor wicked, just wise.

Actually I do know. I know for two reasons. I make a choice to live by certain ethics and moralities based on established value lines.Those value lines are logically worked out using philosophy statistical effect etc So I have predetermined my behaviour before I act Second, I know how I would react to your scenario because I have encountered it numerous times. I have always taken the money to the authorities. Third money and material things are not important to me and certainly not as important as honor duty and self respect.

[Ben Masada]

Actually I do know. I know for two reasons. I make a choice to live by certain ethics and moralities based on established value lines.Those value lines are logically worked out using philosophy statistical effect etc So I have predetermined my behaviour before I act Second, I know how I would react to your scenario because I have encountered it numerous times. I have always taken the money to the authorities. Third money and material things are not important to me and certainly not as important as honor duty and self respect.

But always keep the following in mind: Honor duty and self respect do not provide a table with bread. Not that I doubt your testimony about yourself but between you and a poor widow of five struggling to feed her kids there is no difference if she takes the bag of money home. The Q'ohelet said, "Don't be too righteous; why would you kill yourself?"

[Mr Walker]

But always keep the following in mind: Honor duty and self respect do not provide a table with bread. Not that I doubt your testimony about yourself but between you and a poor widow of five struggling to feed her kids there is no difference if she takes the bag of money home. The Q'ohelet said, "Don't be too righteous; why would you kill yourself?"

Honour duty and respect would encompass keeping self and children alive, however that doesn't make stealing right or honourable. You were asking how I knew how I would behave and how I know how I would behave. Not all people would take unidentified money and keep it for themselves. I would be even LESS likely to keep a large sum than a dollar note lying on the ground.

I am fortunate in that, given my mind and my circumstances, there are always ways to feed my self without having to steal, even if I have no money.

[H132]

I am not a non-believer nor do I consider myself a typical Christian. However, I find it unnecessary to ask questions about non-believers as if it were our prerogative or assignment to understand and question them. We are not here to seek out those who do not believe nor to seek refuge with those who are like-minded but to simply lead those who ask to be led. The more you question or attack their stances, the more they fortify and sustain their points. Do not cast your pearls before swine nor your seeds by the wayside. I would be more concerned about the questions that you still have and the doubts that linger behind your own faith.

[Ben Masada]

Honour duty and respect would encompass keeping self and children alive, however that doesn't make stealing right or honourable. You were asking how I knew how I would behave and how I know how I would behave. Not all people would take unidentified money and keep it for themselves. I would be even LESS likely to keep a large sum than a dollar note lying on the ground. I am fortunate in that, given my mind and my circumstances, there are always ways to feed my self without having to steal, even if I have no money.

Oh, you think that to find money and to keep it one has become a thief? I absolutely stand against that view because it is not true, unless the finder is somehow made known that the owner has been identified and he or she refuses to refund the money.

[Ben Masada]

I am not a non-believer nor do I consider myself a typical Christian. However, I find it unnecessary to ask questions about non-believers as if it were our prerogative or assignment to understand and question them. We are not here to seek out those who do not believe nor to seek refuge with those who are like-minded but to simply lead those who ask to be led. The more you question or attack their stances, the more they fortify and sustain their points. Do not cast your pearls before swine nor your seeds by the wayside. I would be more concerned about the questions that you still have and the doubts that linger behind your own faith.

Okay, so let me ask you a question about a book instead of a person. The NT since you have mentioned above a text from Matthew 7:6. When Jesus warned not to cast one's pearls before swine, do you have any idea whom was he referring to as "swine"? As you know, I am sure, he was delivering his Sermon of the Mount to a crowd of Jews and all of a sudden, he gave that warning. Whom was he talking about?

Edited March 21, 2014 by Ben Masada

[H132]

Okay, so let me ask you a question about a book instead of a person. The NT since you have mentioned above a text from Matthew 7:6. When Jesus warned not to cast one's pearls before swine, do you have any idea whom was he referring to as "swine"? As you know, I am sure, he was delivering his Sermon of the Mount to a crowd of Jews and all of a sudden, he gave that warning. Whom was he talking about?

He referred to both dogs and swine in this case. As they both demonstrate a type of people. Dogs in those days are not like they are today. They were not domesticated nor referred to as man's best friend. They ran in packs and thought of nothing but themselves and survival. They hoarded and killed in packs and moved on to do more damage elsewhere. They were referred to when describing those who trample down the words you speak and turn them into every which direction in order to mislead others and attempt to destroy you. Basically "Internet Trolls" that come along and talk a bunch of garbage with no real knowledge of which you speak". He referred to pigs as they represent the "dumb" and "stupid" of the world. Under the dietary laws given by God for Israel, the pig was a forbidden, unclean animal. It was common for first-century Jews to refer to gentiles as swine because they considered them unclean.

Don't try to give the gospel to people who have already rejected it. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into the ditch

[Mr Walker]

Oh, you think that to find money and to keep it one has become a thief? I absolutely stand against that view because it is not true, unless the finder is somehow made known that the owner has been identified and he or she refuses to refund the money.

Yes of course one is then a thief. You are taking something that does not belong to you. Not knowing who it belongs to makes no moral, legal, or logical difference at all. Your obligation is to take the money to the police or other appropriate authority, and their job is to identify the owner. In Australia if they cannot identify the owner, and it is not the proceeds of a crime, then you will get it eventually.

This has been the case and law for millennia in our society. Imagine taking a sheep from the side of the road or a horse wandering the country side and keeping it. Not only are you a thief, even if you didn't know who owned them, but you would be hanged as a thief.

Edited March 21, 2014 by Mr Walker

[Ben Masada]

He referred to both dogs and swine in this case. As they both demonstrate a type of people. Dogs in those days are not like they are today. They were not domesticated nor referred to as man's best friend. They ran in packs and thought of nothing but themselves and survival. They hoarded and killed in packs and moved on to do more damage elsewhere. They were referred to when describing those who trample down the words you speak and turn them into every which direction in order to mislead others and attempt to destroy you. Basically "Internet Trolls" that come along and talk a bunch of garbage with no real knowledge of which you speak". He referred to pigs as they represent the "dumb" and "stupid" of the world. Under the dietary laws given by God for Israel, the pig was a forbidden, unclean animal. It was common for first-century Jews to refer to gentiles as swine because they considered them unclean.

Don't try to give the gospel to people who have already rejected it. Let them alone. They are blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind leads the blind, both will fall into the ditch

Believe it or not, You have not answered my question. I did not ask for a description of dogs or swine but whom Jesus was referring to in his Sermon of the Mount to a crowd of Jews. Okay, I'll make it easier for you: As Jesus climbed up the mountain, hundreds of Jews readied themselves all down the mountainside to prepare themselves to listen to Jesus. (Mat. 5:1) At the end of the sermon, they were all left spellbound at how Jesus spoke with authority and charisma. (Mat.7:28,29) Then, in the middle of his sermon, Jesus started with the dogs and swine. Now, think, Jesus was talking to the Jews and told them not to give what is holy to the dogs or toss their pearls before swine. There! Now, I think I have made it much easier for you to answer my question. Whom was Jesus making reference to as dogs and swine? It is only obvious that he would not be referring to the Jews because hundreds of Jews right there before him would probably stone him to death. Although I have made it too clear by now, I still want to hear your opinion. Whom was he referring to?

[Ben Masada]

Yes of course one is then a thief. You are taking something that does not belong to you. Not knowing who it belongs to makes no moral, legal, or logical difference at all. Your obligation is to take the money to the police or other appropriate authority, and their job is to identify the owner. In Australia if they cannot identify the owner, and it is not the proceeds of a crime, then you will get it eventually.

This has been the case and law for millennia in our society. Imagine taking a sheep from the side of the road or a horse wandering the country side and keeping it. Not only are you a thief, even if you didn't know who owned them, but you would be hanged as a thief.

Well, I guess you are right. Something new I have learned today. I hope it does not include very small amounts because once I found 14 dollars and found ridiculous to go looking for a police station to return the money. Then I became a little more generous with homeless people in the street.

[Patient Zero]

Be it believers or nonbelievers, some people feel the need to ridicule or belittle others and their beliefs.

Maybe it reinforces the doubts that they have with their own belief system.

It's sad, we're supposed to be intelligent beings but we argue over such trivial and inane things.

Such silly little human monkeys we can be at times.

Just remember kids, you can't force an idiot to not be stupid.

[Patient Zero]

Denial is a river in egypt .

Zing! (Nice burn).

[Ben Masada]

Be it believers or nonbelievers, some people feel the need to ridicule or belittle others and their beliefs.

Maybe it reinforces the doubts that they have with their own belief system.

It's sad, we're supposed to be intelligent beings but we argue over such trivial and inane things.

Such silly little human monkeys we can be at times.

Just remember kids, you can't force an idiot to not be stupid.

The only reason for my "petty" discussions is to fight the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology which by definition is vandalism of Judaism by Christianity. That's what the NT is all about.

[Patient Zero]

The only reason for my "petty" discussions is to fight the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology which by definition is vandalism of Judaism by Christianity. That's what the NT is all about.

Deep breathly for a minute there killer.

My previous post was in no way referring to your cause.

Nor did i use the word petty, silly maybe, not petty.

God love symantecs.

Anyway, i was stating a general POV and wasn't referring

to any particular post, hence the absence of a quote.

And... Done.

[Ben Masada]

Deep breathly for a minute there killer.

My previous post was in no way referring to your cause.

Nor did i use the word petty, silly maybe, not petty.

God love symantecs.

Anyway, i was stating a general POV and wasn't referring

to any particular post, hence the absence of a quote.

And... Done.

Well, let's assume I did that to pull you in. What do you think about the origin of the universe? Did the Primal Cause cause it to begin or did it cause itself to exist?

[H132]

Believe it or not, You have not answered my question. I did not ask for a description of dogs or swine but whom Jesus was referring to in his Sermon of the Mount to a crowd of Jews. Okay, I'll make it easier for you: As Jesus climbed up the mountain, hundreds of Jews readied themselves all down the mountainside to prepare themselves to listen to Jesus. (Mat. 5:1) At the end of the sermon, they were all left spellbound at how Jesus spoke with authority and charisma. (Mat.7:28,29) Then, in the middle of his sermon, Jesus started with the dogs and swine. Now, think, Jesus was talking to the Jews and told them not to give what is holy to the dogs or toss their pearls before swine. There! Now, I think I have made it much easier for you to answer my question. Whom was Jesus making reference to as dogs and swine? It is only obvious that he would not be referring to the Jews because hundreds of Jews right there before him would probably stone him to death. Although I have made it too clear by now, I still want to hear your opinion. Whom was he referring to?

I'm sorry... but I have no idea why you are trying to preach to me. Could you elaberate? Is this an attempt to make yourself appear intelligent or is there some other purpose for making vague assumptions that you are somehow more privy to the mysteries of the bible than other people that you don't know anything about? If you have something to say then just say it. This is a forum, not an online school... and I'm not your student. I merely answered the question assuming that you were referring to dog's or swine in particular. However, I do not feel the need to go on from there. I have nothing to learn from you. However, if you think other's here have something to learn from your speaking, then by all means, simply let it out. Otherwise, please move on because I'm confused as to whether you are simply trying to be informative, trying to debate me.or openly attempting to belittle me. I will not entertain two of those. I hope I've made this easier for you. Thanks.

[Ben Masada]

I'm sorry... but I have no idea why you are trying to preach to me. Could you elaberate? Is this an attempt to make yourself appear intelligent or is there some other purpose for making vague assumptions that you are somehow more privy to the mysteries of the bible than other people that you don't know anything about? If you have something to say then just say it. This is a forum, not an online school... and I'm not your student. I merely answered the question assuming that you were referring to dog's or swine in particular. However, I do not feel the need to go on from there. I have nothing to learn from you. However, if you think other's here have something to learn from your speaking, then by all means, simply let it out. Otherwise, please move on because I'm confused as to whether you are simply trying to be informative, trying to debate me.or openly attempting to belittle me. I will not entertain two of those. I hope I've made this easier for you. Thanks.

We are discussing the truth, I hope. There is no intention in me to make of you a student of mine or to spread before your eyes how wise I am. Not at all. I have put this question about Matthew 7:6 to other Christians and the general answer is that Jesus was delivering his sermon to his disciples and referring to the Jews as the dogs and swine. Assuming that you somehow have realized where I am heading to and are only holding back the same answer, I would like to share with you that Jesus was talking to the Jews in general and referring to the Gentiles whom he was not too fun of. Evidence? If you read Matthew 10:5,6 whenever he sent his disciples in a mission to spread the gospel of salvation, he would forbid them to go to the Gentiles or even enter a Samaritan town. I hope you did not need this extra quote because Matthew 5:1 and 7:28 are enough about whom Jesus was addressing to in the Sermon of the Mount.

[Anton25]

God I way more advanced than us on earth and probably most of other life's out ther

[H132]

We are discussing the truth, I hope. There is no intention in me to make of you a student of mine or to spread before your eyes how wise I am. Not at all. I have put this question about Matthew 7:6 to other Christians and the general answer is that Jesus was delivering his sermon to his disciples and referring to the Jews as the dogs and swine. Assuming that you somehow have realized where I am heading to and are only holding back the same answer, I would like to share with you that Jesus was talking to the Jews in general and referring to the Gentiles whom he was not too fun of. Evidence? If you read Matthew 10:5,6 whenever he sent his disciples in a mission to spread the gospel of salvation, he would forbid them to go to the Gentiles or even enter a Samaritan town. I hope you did not need this extra quote because Matthew 5:1 and 7:28 are enough about whom Jesus was addressing to in the Sermon of the Mount.

That's not what I meant. Of course we all know who he was talking to and who he was talking about. My question is, How does this change what it means? Why are you pointing this out as if these details change any definitions?