"Finding" "God"

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:09 pm

lets say "faith" is the "pursuit of the Unknown" in relation to the clues or observations of the known. "having faith" that the chair will not break is quite different, I agree.

Post by **ur-bane** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:14 pm

The Esmer wrote:lets say "faith" is the "pursuit of the Unknown" in relation to the clues or observations of the known. "having faith" that the chair will not break is quite different, I agree.

Emphasis mine.
I cannot agree with that, Esmer. "Faith" in no way requires the "pursuit of the unknown." It requires the "acceptance" of the unknown[god] as truth without any material evidence or "proof."

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:19 pm

"Faith is in general the persuasion of the mind that a certain statement is true (Phil. 1:27; 2 Thess. 2:13). Its primary idea is trust. A thing is true, and therefore worthy of trust. It admits of many degrees up to full assurance of faith, in accordance with the evidence on which it rests."

Faith is the fourth album by British alternative rock band The Cure, released in 1981.

it all depends on how you l

k at it.....

Post by **ur-bane** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:24 pm

Yeah, it's also the first name af a damn hot Hill.

Post by **Prebe** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:55 pm

(Hmmm.... Now where can he be? Dum, dum, dum... I'm, pretty sure I looked under the bed, and in the dresser)

Post by **ur-bane** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:57 pm

Pursuing something, Prebe?

Post by **Prebe** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:49 pm

That's the point of the thread isn't it ur-bane?

www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/009/32.106.html

Post by **ur-bane** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:56 pm

Absolutely!

(My comment was in recognition)

From your article:

It wasn't until I understood that the dynamic of our faith is relational rather than logical that I started maturing in my faith.

See? Faith does not require proof. Finding god does not require logic.
This article furthers my point that faith is a personal choice.

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:04 pm

yes, but my "faith" does require "proof". Can my faith prove God, or does science have that ability? How do I best proceed to "verify" God?

Post by **Prebe** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:04 pm

True, and those who seek to prove God's existence through science and logic have a long, dry and unfulfilling road ahead of them.

T. Lovejoy wrote:Is a little blind faith to much to ask?

This belongs in the oxymoron thread Esmer!

The Esmer wrote:yes, but my "faith" does require "proof".

Post by **ur-bane** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:09 pm

The Esmer wrote:yes, but my "faith" does require "proof". Can my faith prove God, or does science have that ability? How do I best proceed to "verify" God?

If your faith requires [external] [concrete] [show-me] "proof," then your faith is not about god anyway, right?
And if it is, perhaps you would share your faith with us so we may make better reply in the future?

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:13 pm

(It's ALL about God for me, all the time)...there is no "better reply", dude, I just wanted to pose a riddle and hear people's thoughts on it. Whats the best way? ...thats all, no trap, no wrong answers, no wrong way to go, just ideas.....ok?

Post by **ur-bane** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:27 pm

Hey, that's fine. Then perhaps you would share some of your ideas about finding god. It's ALL about god to you. Share the experience.

I apologise if I take your posts the wrong way Esmer, but lately their purpose seems more to incite an argument than to discuss the topic. Maybe that's the "conflict" your name suggests.

You pose a lot of questions, to which you wish to elicit responses, but at the same time you are unwilling to divulge anything, or explain anything that would clearly indicate your motive and position.
When confronted with a direct question you "switcheroo" by asking another question in response, or skirting the issue by making a generalized statement that in fact has no substantial information.

So, again, forgive me for taking most of your posts the wrong way. But please, start stating your objectives clearly, and participate in the discussion(s) in a constructive instead of flippant manner.

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:31 pm

The Esmer wrote:
Finding

God
If we believe that everything "comes from", or "esmerates"
from a "single source", shouldn't we "logically" be able to trace it's
"emanations" back to their "source"?
And can religion, or science, best accomplish this?

I wasn't sure if this topic was better suited here, or in The Loresraat, (Big Bang), but I will let the discussion decide....

are you blind? and yes you are "inserting the negativity". A simple question with the hope of some interesting answers is all that I see there. What you see you put there yourself.

(which, I might add, seems to be happening on another topic of mine....)

Post by **Cail** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:37 pm

Is this starting to sound like a blast from the past to anyone else?

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:42 pm

anything "constructive" you would care to add to "the topic", cail? No-one is forcing you, or anyone, to participate.

Syl wrote:....The way I see it, there are two types of posts: those that want to share ideas and those that want to challenge ideas. I wouldn't say either is better, and sometimes the line between is non-existant, but when the two clash...

Post by **ur-bane** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:48 pm

I have given my answers to your original question.

And to all your subsequent questions.

The Esmer wrote:Whats the best way? ...thats all, no trap, no wrong answers, no wrong way to go, just ideas.....ok?

What I am asking you for is your take on it, which you are unwilling to give.
I have already stated, and Jem Cheeta clarified (to which you agreed) that if an answer is found, it would fall under the scope of science.
I have already stated that faith does not require pursuit of "proof."
The title of your post is finding god. I responded that many people believe that you can find god by looking in a mirror: that god comes from within oneself.
I have shared my ideas. Why don't you do the same?
You see, if two people share ideas, they may be able to find common ground, and progress from there. That's all, OK?

Post by **The Laughing Man** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:50 pm

I think it requires both science and religion.

(this is a discussion, not a test)

Post by **ur-bane** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:53 pm

I think it is the science that may eventually enable us to find our origins.
I think the part religion will play has already been played: the idea that god created us has been planted. Now it is up to science to prove one way or another what religion doesn't want proven.

That's the way I see it. And, as Jem said earlier, as soon as there is "proof" one way or the other, that will fall into the scope of "science."

Edit--Cail, was that a Zeph reference?

Post by **Cail** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:54 pm

Fine Ze...I mean Esmer.

If you feel that your faith requires some sort of proof, then I'd say that your faith isn't very strong. I'd say the story of Thomas the Disciple sums up my feelings on that number.

But I'm curious, if you're all about God, as you said, then why do you need any sort of proof? Isn't that contradictory?

Kevin's Watch

Kevin's Watch

"Finding" "God"