Why I raise my children without ? .
Options
Comments
-
@oceanic. Seeing is different from knowing. I can see something and not know what it is. Not that it will happen anytime soon, I can see you and not know who you are. Faith is more is in what is said about who ? is than just one day laying eyes on Him.
-
i'm referring more the fact that you're only just now saying "i guess we won't agree."I didn't ask you to say anything to me. I guess you wanted to know my opinion so I gave it to you.
let us remember that you stated this as proof that most theists believe ? is not knowable. is THAT what Paul is arguing there? the author of John is talking about Jesus Christ explaining ? . is he saying ? is unknowable?Yes; like I said, belief is "faith based".. You would not need faith if you had, in your words "tangible" proof or evidence. That is what Paul said.
-
i'm referring more the fact that you're only just now saying "i guess we won't agree."
I knew that a long time ago. Disagreement is the basis for debate isn't it? I've only been expressing my opinion because I assumed you wanted to know since you've been pressing me about it. Your very first comment told me we wont agree but sometimes it's useful to hear things from another point of view, which is partly the reason I'm here in the first place. That comment was to sum things up and show you specifically where we don't agree. Both sides have already been expressed enough so there is where I'm willing to agree to disagree. I still don't believe you know exactly where I'm coming from but maybe it will sink in later.let us remember that you stated this as proof that most theists believe ? is not knowable. is THAT what Paul is arguing there? the author of John is talking about Jesus Christ explaining ? . is he saying ? is unknowable?
? 's existence is not knowable as in no one has proof of it; no one has direct experience or perception of it; in other words, no one "sees" ? as both authors admit but rather Christians walk by faith. Without proof, you need faith. I'm referring to "knowable" in that sense. Christians claim to "know" ? through Christ but really that is a matter of faith as well. -
Christians don't walk by faith in reguards to ? 's existence, we know he exists that's taken as fact both Paul and John saw and knew Christ. WE walk by faith in reguards to the promises of ? not his existence. The holy spirit is the experiencing of ? .
-
I realized I don't dislike religious people. Many religious people do great things; churches played a crucial role during the civil rights movement.
I hate people that reject science out of fear that it threatens their religious belief though. -
Christians don't walk by faith in reguards to ? 's existence.
1 John 4:12
No one has ever seen ? ; but if we love one another, ? lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
2 Corinthians 5:7
We live by faith, not by sight.
John 5:37
And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.
John 1:18
No one has seen ? at any time; the only begotten ? who is in the ? of the Father, He has explained Him
^^^ The above verses is what Christianity is, in a nutshell. Christians place trust in Christ that he is the son of ? and serves as intermediary between ? and man. As the Bible says, no one has seen or had direct experience with ? . But Christianity is belief in ? through Jesus Christ as the son of ? . -
Christians don't walk by faith in reguards to ? 's existence.
1 John 4:12
No one has ever seen ? ; but if we love one another, ? lives in us and his love is made complete in us.
2 Corinthians 5:7
We live by faith, not by sight.
John 5:37
And the Father who sent Me, He has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time nor seen His form.
John 1:18
No one has seen ? at any time; the only begotten ? who is in the ? of the Father, He has explained Him
^^^ The above verses is what Christianity is, in a nutshell. Christians place trust in Christ that he is the son of ? and serves as intermediary between ? and man. As the Bible says, no one has seen or had direct experience with ? . But Christianity is belief in ? through Jesus Christ as the son of ? .
living by faith not by sight refers to the trust christains are to have in the promises of ? not in the fact of his existence.
read the whole thing: 2 corinthians 5 : 5-7
5 Now it is ? who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.6 Therefore we are always confident and know that as long as we are at home in the body we are away from the Lord. 7 We live by faith, not by sight.
John 5:37 and john 1:18 Not seeing ? is not the same thing as not knowing he exist and at this point in the time line that would make sense because christ had not yet died and came back so the holy spirit did not live within anyone on earth at that time.
According to christian theolgy The holy spirit is ? so if you have it within you you have effectively experienced ? .
You have a deep misunderstand of what you think you are talking about. -
the problem is that you're using "knowable" according to what YOU consider knowable and then claiming Christians (among others) also say ? is unknowable, which is unfair to them since it's likely they don't agree on that point. it's fine for you to say, "well, this is what i mean by unknowable," but it's different to extend it and say "the majority of theists agree."? 's existence is not knowable as in no one has proof of it; no one has direct experience or perception of it; in other words, no one "sees" ? as both authors admit but rather Christians walk by faith. Without proof, you need faith. I'm referring to "knowable" in that sense. Christians claim to "know" ? through Christ but really that is a matter of faith as well.
also, you quote 2 Corinthians, whose author claimed to have literally seen ? /Jesus, so he would probably claim to have had direct experience of it as well. -
-
also, you quote 2 Corinthians, whose author claimed to have literally seen ? /Jesus, so he would probably claim to have had direct experience of it as well.
The author of Corinthians is usually considered to be Paul. Just sayin.
He also wrote Timothy:
1 Timothy 6:16
Who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might foreverthe problem is that you're using "knowable" according to what YOU consider knowable.
I'm using context clues. -
-
Eddie murphy is a christian so he would be on my side and would most likely slap the ? out of
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BU54nF9pCTI -
also, you quote 2 Corinthians, whose author claimed to have literally seen ? /Jesus, so he would probably claim to have had direct experience of it as well.
The author of Corinthians is usually considered to be Paul. Just sayin.
He also wrote Timothy:
1 Timothy 6:16
Who alone is immortal and who lives in unapproachable light, whom no one has seen or can see. To him be honor and might foreverthe problem is that you're using "knowable" according to what YOU consider knowable.
I'm using context clues.
Not visibly seeing ? is not the same thing as not knowing ? so your whole point is meaningless, you are just too ? stubborn to admit that you are wrong and that many of points you have been making through this entire thread are either just flat out wrong or logically non sensible. -
-
Stop trolling. The flaws in your argument you have no answer for. NOT HAVING SIGHT DOES NOT EXACTLY EQUAL NOT HAVING KNOWLEDGE. You quoted from the bible but did not have an understanding of what you quoted. Stop ? changing my quote quote the whole thing stop ? cutting my words up. -
really? why, you would think i would have mentioned-The author of Corinthians is usually considered to be Paul. Just sayin.you think Paul is saying he didn't know there was a ? ?Paul, however, is talking about their knowledge being based on faith and not a more tangible reason. again, really, you're saying PAUL of all people in the Bible is making a "? is unknowable" argument?
oh, right, i repeatedly mentioned this. you'd think i would have remembered!is THAT what Paul is arguing there?
and it's cute to strike out ? as if we're saying "i saw a vision of the resurrected Jesus, who i consider to literally be ? " is not seeing ? , but probably, you know, inaccurate.
as well as writing about the time he saw ? /Jesus and thus converted as a result. one might even suspect he could write about Christians as a whole while simultaneously not being the best example of a Christian who says ? is "unknowable."He also wrote Timothy:
no, what you're doing is disagreeing with a lot of Christians.I'm using context clues.
-
really?
Really. Actually, he didn't see anybody because he was on the ground the whole time with his eyes closed. You would know this if you read the Bible. Nobody knows the true story of what happened that day if it indeed did happen but he believed he heard Jesus who he believed to be divine. He did not claim to see ? directly and this is evident in the verses I mentioned which is why I brought them up.
He says that ? has not been seen and cannot be seen in Timothy and in Corinthians he says he lives by faith and not by sight. So if he saw ? literally at any time and then claims that ? cannot be seen, he's lying somewhere; which if he is, it wouldn't be a surprise or his first time but if we examine John's account along with Paul's writings, we can come to the conclusion that Paul is telling the truth by saying no one has seen ? . We now have two authors who agree.no, what you're doing is disagreeing with a lot of Christians.
it happens
-
oddly enough, i have actually read the Bible. so i guess we should talk about Acts.Really. Actually, he didn't see anybody because he was on the ground the whole time with his eyes closed. You would know this if you read the Bible.
now, perhaps you want to say, "if he doesn't see a specific image of blah blah blah," it doesn't count. and clearly, as the remainder of your post goes into, you don't believe Paul. but i am not arguing that you have to believe, i'm arguing that he's not calling ? "unknowable" for several reasons, one of which is the whole "road to Damascus conversion" thing.And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me.
And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me?
And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest.
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do.
And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus.
your argument that he "believed he heard Jesus who he believed to be divine" is based on you disagreeing with him --and go nuts, that's fine-- but it does not mean you can THEN say, "also, Paul agrees with me."
it's also possible he's sometimes referring to Christians as a group.He says that ? has not been seen and cannot be seen in Timothy and in Corinthians he says he lives by faith and not by sight.
so let me follow: you state it's possible he saw ? and lies/whatever somewhere else, and yet if someone ELSE didn't see ? , it automatically means Paul never did? because i am pretty sure this logic does not work.So if he saw ? literally at any time and then claims that ? cannot be seen, he's lying somewhere; which if he is, it wouldn't be a surprise or his first time but if we examine John's account along with Paul's writings, we can come to the conclusion that Paul is telling the truth by saying no one has seen ? . We now have two authors who agree.
maybe go back and revisit that argument, thenit happens
-
now, perhaps you want to say, "if he doesn't see a specific image of blah blah blah," it doesn't count. and clearly, as the remainder of your post goes into, you don't believe Paul. but i am not arguing that you have to believe, i'm arguing that he's not calling ? "unknowable" for several reasons, one of which is the whole "road to Damascus conversion" thing.
Here's the rest of the story:
Acts 9:7-8
The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing
This account tells us three things:
1. Paul saw nothing (his eyes were closed) but was supposedly blinded by a bright light.
2. The men traveling with Paul heard Jesus speaking.
3. Paul fell to the ground while the travelers stood.
Now if we then skip to Acts 22, we find a contradiction:
Acts 22:9
And they that were with me saw indeed the light, and were afraid; but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me.
Later translations tried to cover up this contradiction by translating heard as understood but if we were to translate Acts 22:9 as "understood", we would also have to translate Acts 9:7-8 as "understood" and the contradiction remains.
Note also how in Acts 9, the travelers stood speechless while Paul fell. As Paul Estella the story in Acts 26, we get a different version:
Acts 26:13-14
About noon, King Agrippa, as I was on the road, I saw a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, blazing around me and my companions. We all fell to the ground
In this account, Paul says they all fell to the ground.
I point these contradictions out to show you how shaky this whole story is to begin with. Paul was a well documented liar; he even admitted to it in 2 Corinthians:
2 Corinthians 12:16
Be that as it may, I have not been a burden to you. Yet, crafty fellow that I am, I caught you by trickery!it does not mean you can THEN say, "also, Paul agrees with me."
My point is that Paul knew he saw no one at Damascus and he was telling the truth in saying no one has seen ? . Not only does he say it but so does the author of John and Jesus himself is quoted as saying the same thing.so let me follow: you state it's possible he saw ?
No, I'm saying he did not see ? . He didn't see anybody. It's right there in the Bible.
The only reason I said this:So if he saw ? literally at any time and then claims that ? cannot be seen, he's lying somewhere
…was to give you your options because you first claimed that Paul saw ? /Jesus when the truth is he didn't see anybody. I know he didn't see anybody and that's the reason I continued by saying this:but if we examine John's account along with Paul's writings, we can come to the conclusion that Paul is telling the truth by saying no one has seen ? .
-
@oceanic. I think you are getting hung up on what is meant by "unknowable" in respect to the Bible.
-
first, if his eyes were closed (which Acts 9 does not seem to imply), it would be hard for him to be blinded by the vision. but look, again, his continuing claim (despite your contradictions) is that he directly experienced ? , which would make him personally unlikely to call ? unknowable. and this still doesn't change the fact that the average Christian wouldn't call ? unknowable.This account tells us three things:
1. Paul saw nothing (his eyes were closed) but was supposedly blinded by a bright light.
2. The men traveling with Paul heard Jesus speaking.
3. Paul fell to the ground while the travelers stood.
unless the issue is in the translation or changes later (something you already alluded to yourself). this is, of course, the issue with books of this nature.I point these contradictions out to show you how shaky this whole story is to begin with.
actually, the way YOU should be writing this is "my point is I BELIEVE that Paul knew he saw no one at Damascus." because you don't KNOW that, right?My point is that Paul knew he saw no one at Damascus and he was telling the truth in saying no one has seen ? . Not only does he say it but so does the author of John and Jesus himself is quoted as saying the same thing.
if you state this, then i don't see why you're even making the argument that ? is unknowable.I know he didn't see anybody- -
first, if his eyes were closed (which Acts 9 does not seem to imply), it would be hard for him to be blinded by the vision.
Well, first, he was blinded by the light:
Acts 9:3-4
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground
We know he closed his eyes after the light flashed because he opened them later:
Acts 9:8
Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes
We also know he had his eyes closed while he was on the ground because he did not know who spoke to him:
Acts 9:5
“Who are you, Lord*?” Saul asked.
*"Lord", in this sense, means something like "sir".but look, again, his continuing claim (despite your contradictions) is that he directly experienced ? , which would make him personally unlikely to call ? unknowable.
First, they're not "my" contradictions. They are the contradictions within Paul's numerous accounts of his conversion.and this still doesn't change the fact that the average Christian wouldn't call ? unknowable.
By "knowable", I mean knowing based on empirical evidence of ? 's existence. Proof of ? is nonexistent, which is why the issue of faith plays such a large role in Christianity. So yes, by claiming to have "faith", you are admitting you do not "know":
Faith
b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faithactually...
Actually, you read that the way it was intended.because you don't KNOW that, right?
I'm going by what the Bible says.if you state this, then i don't see why you're even making the argument that ? is unknowable.
Why not? -
now, you have just said "saw nothing (his eyes were closed) but was supposedly blinded by a bright light" only to switch over to stating he was blinded by the light. and if you accept he was blinded, that could also be the reason (other than keeping your eyes closed) that you don't immediately recognize the person who spoke to you. it might ALSO be because Paul presents himself as a non-believer having a conversion experience.Well, first, he was blinded by the light:
Acts 9:3-4
As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. He fell to the ground
i am calling them "your" contradictions because you're the one calling them contradictions in his account. however, what you did by picking on that is neatly dodge my actual point: "his continuing claim ... is that he directly experienced ? , which would make him personally unlikely to call ? unknowable."First, they're not "my" contradictions. They are the contradictions within Paul's numerous accounts of his conversion.
again, the problem here is that YOU have a standard for knowing that differs from Christians who consider ? knowable. it's fine for you to take that position, but you have gone on to claim that the average Christian considers ? unknowable. your basis for this is your interpretation of their beliefs. can you demonstrate in any way that Christians actually consider ? unknowable?By "knowable", I mean knowing based on empirical evidence of ? 's existence. Proof of ? is nonexistent, which is why the issue of faith plays such a large role in Christianity. So yes, by claiming to have "faith", you are admitting you do not "know":
right, i'm implying that you're being inconsistent with your previously stated beliefs. you know, since you cannot actually prove anything about what Paul did or did not see?Actually, you read that the way it was intended.
the Bible also seems pretty convinced that ? exists and interacts with people in a way that would make him knowable. so you accept this as legitimate all of a sudden?I'm going by what the Bible says.
because you're demanding a standard for evidence that you don't apply to yourself.Why not? -
now, you have just said "saw nothing (his eyes were closed) but was supposedly blinded by a bright light" only to switch over to stating he was blinded by the light. and if you accept he was blinded, that could also be the reason (other than keeping your eyes closed) that you don't immediately recognize the person who spoke to you. it might ALSO be because Paul presents himself as a non-believer having a conversion experience.
I didn't switch over to anything. Both those statements are the same. He was supposedly blinded by the light; he closed his eyes (which is not specifically said but can be inferred since he opened them and in order to open something first it must be closed) and from that point saw nothing. He had his eyes closed while on the ground. He didn't open his eyes until later and it was during that point he realized he had been blinded.and if you accept he was blinded, that could also be the reason (other than keeping your eyes closed) that you don't immediately recognize the person who spoke to you.
Either way, he didn't see anybody which is the reason he asked who was there. He didn't know, because he didn't see him.i am calling them "your" contradictions because you're the one calling them contradictions in his account. however, what you did by picking on that is neatly dodge my actual point: "his continuing claim ... is that he directly experienced ? , which would make him personally unlikely to call ? unknowable."
They're not "my" contradictions. I pointed them out. They are contradictions in the accounts of Paul's conversion. You could have pointed them out if you were paying attention to what you were reading. The reason I pointed them out though was to address your statement that you claim I didn't acknowledge. He's claiming he directly experienced ? yet he didn't see anybody firstly, and secondly, his entire story may be false, evident in the contradictions within it.can you demonstrate in any way that Christians actually consider ? unknowable?
The establishment of faith.right, i'm implying that you're being inconsistent with your previously stated beliefs. you know, since you cannot actually prove anything about what Paul did or did not see?
I'm not being inconsistent as I have yet to go back on anything I've said although you have:
1. First, you stated that Paul saw ? /Jesus at Damascus.
2. I showed you the Bible verses that explicitly state he didn't see anybody.
3. You're now switching up your story to interpret the verses differently.
If I can't prove it, neither can you; all we have to go on is the Bible. The only reason you're not accepting what's there is because your argument doesn't fit around it.the Bible also seems pretty convinced that ? exists and interacts with people in a way that would make him knowable. so you accept this as legitimate all of a sudden?
No it's not legitimate because there are contradictions throughout the Bible i.e. the contradicting crucifixion dates. Simply using your mind will help you determine what's what. Likewise, my reading of Shakespeare will help me to determine whether or not Hamlet was truly insane. Reading the Bible with blind faith will only cause you to believe in all sorts of tales and stories that have no factual basis. For all I know, Paul didn't even exist in real life but going by what the Bible says, I can understand his character in the literary work and point out the contradictions in his conversion accounts and come to the conclusion that his story was most likely false; simple reading will tell you he didn't see anybody that day. -
in the former, you're taking it that he wasn't blinded ("was supposedly blinded by a bright light"), presumably because you don't believe Paul. in the latter, you drop the supposedly. seems like a switch.I didn't switch over to anything.
the thing is, if he's describing it as "a light from heaven," there's probably a little more contained in that phrase that "saw a bright light." how he then addresses this deity/vision is then up to him, i suppose.Either way, he didn't see anybody which is the reason he asked who was there. He didn't know, because he didn't see him.
...and again, it might also be because Paul presents himself as a non-believer having a conversion experience. it seems like a person who does not believe in ? who then experiences ? is going to have some questions.
since we're being pissy now, i will point out that you could have paid attention to MY post and noted why i called them "your" contradictions. but hell, you could also argue your point without getting mad on the internet because i used the phrase "your contradictions."They're not "my" contradictions. ...You could have pointed them out if you were paying attention to what you were reading.
this does not address my claim, because your argument that you don't believe Paul does not tell us why we should presume Paul would think ? is unknowable. remember, you're not arguing that ? is unknowable, you're arguing Christians agree that ? is unknowable. but all you're telling us is why YOU consider ? unknowable.The reason I pointed them out though was to address your statement that you claim I didn't acknowledge. He's claiming he directly experienced ? yet he didn't see anybody firstly, and secondly, his entire story may be false, evident in the contradictions within it.
which, as we've discussed, makes sense for you, but which doesn't seem to lead to any actual Christians calling ? unknowable.The establishment of faith.
nope, as i still consider Paul to be saying he saw ? /Jesus at Damascus. this would presumably be the light from heaven that blinded him, subsequently identified by as ? /Jesus/whatever.I'm not being inconsistent as I have yet to go back on anything I've said although you have:
i am not trying to prove ? exists or that Paul saw ? . i am trying to prove that Paul would not consider ? unknowable. this is the actual point.If I can't prove it, neither can you; all we have to go on is the Bible.
if your argument is that the Bible is not reliable, then perhaps "I'm going by what the Bible says" should be restated?No it's not legitimate because there are contradictions throughout the Bible i.e. the contradicting crucifixion dates. Simply using your mind will help you determine what's what.
also, we're probably entering threefold repetition territory if we're going to keep debating "do Christians call ? unknowable"
This discussion has been closed.