the imagination can trigger emotional reactions, yes. for that matter the brain can be electronically stimulated to feel a presence that isn't there.
apparently you don't understand that PapaG just said your belief is just as likely to be wrong as right.
Let me give you something to chew on. This was a lecture by William James, whom believes that Faith does exist. You may want to read through this lecture; since this is from a "well respected" American psychologist and philosopher. It seems you aren't understanding why people believe, and are driven by their Faith, just like one that has faith in confidence to complete a task. What you are "trying to argue" is that because you can't see God, he doesn't exist, but you can't see love, yet you believe in that. Now in your opinion, you maybe right, but I maybe right as well. That's the difference in this debate. We are debating our Faith, while you are debating there is no faith. It's a lose lose situation for you, because you don't understand our "faith" therefor you will not believe it exists. I don't care if your father was a pastor, preacher, priest or whatever... If you don't believe, then you don't know. Just like love... When you are madly in love with someone, you just can't explain it, yet you know deep down you are truly in love. Then there are those that never experienced that "Love" so they don't understand it. Those people can't tell someone else how to love, if they've never loved in the first place. Those "chemical reactions" "heart rate increases" and other phenomenon you tried to explain about the scientific "reality" of "Love"; are the same things people with "Faith" feel, experience, take part in. I'm sorry you don't have that same blessing in your life. That is your choice. But to think you understand our "Faith" is just plain ignorant. Nothing you post, wrote or tried to explain supports you have any idea what true faith is.
OMG PapaG... I have been saying this over and over and over again... I have been explaining that man is with sin, therefor they aren't able to judge. I said I am probably just as wrong as anyone else on this planet. I think crowTrobot isn't reading a damn thing I'm saying. Is he refusing to see that I said I may be just as wrong as anyone else, and that's between me and God? Not getting emotional, but this is like debating to my 5 year old. He is refusing to listen and is tossing me in a group that he's probably had to debate before. Like I've said before... I'm a rare breed type Christian. I am hardly one to group with the normal "Stereotypical Christians" that he feels give this "Faith" a bad name.
Amazing. A discussion about whether one believes in heaven or hell eventually becomes a discussion about homosexuality. Why are so many Christians so hung up on gays? Don't they have more important issues to worry about? Don't answer that.
To be fair, it wasn't the Christians that brought up homosexuality. Anyway, I guess I'll add my point of view on this since this conversation has drastically changed since I last posted. I'm curious why some believe being apart of an organized church is not important or even detrimental to someone obtaining exaltation? Why would Christ have called apostles and why would there have been churches established that were governed by a leadership hierarchy if Christ didn't intend for those things to matter? I understand that man is fallible and that placing too much weight on a man can lead you down the wrong path, but that's exactly why there's a need for a prophet who acts as God's mouth piece to lead. Does that mean the prophet is perfect as a person? Of course not. Moses wasn't, neither were any of the other prophets or any of Christ's apostles. What it does mean though is that we can have communication from God free from personal biases/beliefs and misinterpretations, or at least as cleanly and clearly as it can be conveyed from God to us mere mortals. To put it bluntly, "to each their own" is a cop-out for not wanting to adhere to what God has explicitly said is right and wrong. God doesn't send mixed signals. Sure we're all individuals and learn and understand things differently, but that doesn't mean truth for one person is different for another. It wouldn't be truth if it did! Relative truth is counter to a God who is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Does saying I'm right and someone else is wrong mean I'm judging someone? Sure, but there's nothing wrong with that. We all make judgments about people every day. How could we possibly go through life without making any kind of judgments? I guess in some peoples' minds we should never worry ourselves with what others do. What a great society we would have if we allowed everyone to do what they felt was right! When it comes to what I view as sin, I don't judge the person I judge the sin. God will judge the person when the time comes. I love that person and help them to be and do better, but I don't shun them because they've done something I don't think they should have done. There's a distinction there that many critics of Christians and many Christians themselves fail to make. I suppose you could say that I'm just splitting hairs but I'd obviously disagree. Heaven forbid there comes a time when my parents get a divorce, but if they did, I would still very much love both of them, but I certainly wouldn't like or approve of their divorce from a religious standpoint unless there was a pretty compelling reason. God will sort out whether they were justified in cancelling the covenant made between them and Him.
no you've been saying over and over that you are a sinner, not that your belief in the bible as god's word effectively has (at least) a 50% chance of being incorrect. if you were agreeing to that we wouldn't have much to debate.
for most sane people confidence you will complete a task comes from science, not faith, based on experiential knowledge of your abilities. not even close. i'm actually not even arguing that god doesn't exist. yes i can no i'm positive faith exists. i'm debating whether it's useful. yes i can. i already did. as i said thoughts of god as a friend, someone who loves you when you don't think you deserve it (etc) can trigger emotional reactions in the body similar to those associated with love. that is not evidence that faith is telling you god is objectively real. lots of people have similar emotional reactions to thoughts of different invisible friends. actually it's not my choice. i'm incapable of believing something without a good reason external to how it makes me feel, or at least i have been since age 16 or so. whatever you think it is it's obviously not a reliable means to actually knowing anything about reality. many people hold belief that is mutually incompatable with yours based on faith no different than yours. faith is clearly not a means to knowledge of any kind. that's all i'm saying. if you are fine believing something that is likely to be factually incorrect, good for you, we don't have much to debate.
That was just one of many topics. We were also discussing the ramifications of oxen an asses plowing together.
So let me see if I understand you correctly. You believe in God, but not his laws. You believe in Faith, but judge those that have faith. You believe a parent doesn't know how to raise their children, because they don't know the difference between right and wrong. Then you think if you can't be logical, then it's not sound thinking? So who are you to judge someone's faith? It seems like you are the true contridiction. Because those with Faith in God, especially in this topic; look to not be wishy washy with what they hold true to their heart. So wouldn't that make you a biggot?
The atheist in this thread brought up homosexuality. He seems stuck on that issue. Perhaps you should read for comprehension, and not jump to conclusions that are incorrect?
