Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[funkshen]

No, it's the nontrinitarian sects who have changed the bible to suit themselves. What's ur point?
Do you need more bibke evidence that Jesus is God?

i know jehovah's witnesses may have 'rewrote' the bible, but they are not the only non-Trinitarians. this is a moot point anyways considering first that there are many translations of the bible, so following this argument simply leads to a regression to the koine greek translation which means that we cannot argue in english. the bible's creation was a political process involving the selection and exclusion of certain gospels. but the non-Trinitarian belief precedes the bible anyways, and only lost out because those such as Arius were on the losing end of a power struggle and were wiped out (or turned to Islam later).

your bible is not so clear cut on this issue, although i understand why in a contemporary context one wouldn't grasp this

 

[qawe]

i know jehovah's witnesses may have 'rewrote' the bible, but they are not the only non-Trinitarians. this is a moot point anyways considering first that there are many translations of the bible, so following this argument simply leads to a regression to the koine greek translation which means that we cannot argue in english. the bible's creation was a political process involving the selection and exclusion of certain gospels. but the non-Trinitarian belief precedes the bible anyways, and only lost out because those such as Arius were on the losing end of a power struggle and were wiped out (or turned to Islam later).

your bible is not so clear cut on this issue, although i understand why in a contemporary context one wouldn't grasp this

We can argue about the Trinity in English but we can't argue about "changing" the Bible in English (is this what u were trying to say?).
No the Bible's creation was a ecclesiastical not a political process (although unfortunately churches from time to time do become embroiled in politics. However, there were no immediate breakaway groups resulting from the formation of the Bible, so it can't have been highly divisive)
No, Arius lost in the council of Nicea, not a power struggle. (the idea of church councils is established in the bible btw)
Just because a belief precedes the bible, doesn't mean it's any more valid. Trinitarianism, nontrinitarianism, judaizers, hinduism... all precede the Bible
Nontrinitarianism is not compatible with the Bible... and therefore can't form part of church tradition.
Father: obviously God
Son: already proven that He's God
Holy Spirit: “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit... You have not lied to men but to God." Acts 5: 3, 4
Tying them together in a trinitarian fashion: baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit Matthew 28:19

 

[funkshen]

you fail to grasp what i'm saying so i'll keep it simple

jesus never said he was god. the bible is also not quite clear on this issue, nor was the first council at nicea which WAS a political struggle (ending up with Arius' exile and eventual death, which Nicean participants may have believed was a miracle). ergo the theological dispute over "the Father is greater than I". athanasius and augustine's interpretation of this prevailed as the most satisfying explanation (jesus' human flesh is subordinate). but this was an explanation, not a revelation, that was resolved 300 odd years after jesus the bloke was dead. you have to be accept and be comfortable with your belief as a historically constituted interpretation, instead of prosetylizing and browbeating anyone who suggests otherwise

edit: this schism can be seen to be the first instance of the struggle over who is a true christian, or who is the most christian. protip: there is no answer, it is and will always be an absurd, self-serving contest

 

[qawe]

you fail to grasp what i'm saying so i'll keep it simple

jesus never said he was god. the bible is also not quite clear on this issue, nor was the first council at nicea which WAS a political struggle (ending up with Arius' exile and eventual death, which Nicean participants may have believed was a miracle). ergo the theological dispute over "the Father is greater than I". athanasius and augustine's interpretation of this prevailed as the most satisfying explanation (jesus' human flesh is subordinate). but this was an explanation, not a revelation, that was resolved 300 odd years after jesus the bloke was dead. you have to be accept and be comfortable with your belief as a historically constituted interpretation, instead of prosetylizing and browbeating anyone who suggests otherwise

edit: this schism can be seen to be the first instance of the struggle over who is a true christian, or who is the most christian. protip: there is no answer, it is and will always be an absurd, self-serving contest

I'm not browbeating you, I'm responding to ur claims. "the word was god" - the bible is clear. There are not counter explanations - only mistranslations.
Obviously an atheist would see the ecumenical councils different to a Christian (cf Council of Jerusalem recorded in Acts; "the gates of Hades will not prevail against it (the church)" Mathew x:y; "the helper the holy spirit whom the father will send in my name, he will teach u all things and bring to ur remembrance all things that I said to u" John x:y) - so I'm not going to pursue down that line. (take note of these points though, I can explain anything unclear)
When you say Arius death, do u mean how he excreted his Intestines in a public toilet? Because that's a sign (although I myself wouldn't base my faith on it).
Note I have omitted capitalisation where I cbb

 

[IamBread]

 

[acousticbeats7]

For any sceptics I recommend reading The Case for Christ
Cause I don't believe too much in debating and arguing with people over religion and faiths because everyone in the end just wants to win the debate and prove that they are right. So instead I recommend looking into it and to find out about it for yourselves, and whether you believe or don't believe at the end you'll have a better understanding as to why.

 

[Courtyen]

I'm afraid I don't have enough time to read through 1072 pages of thread posts, so forgive me if I repeat something already stated.

We are in the age of information. Technology have become very important in the modern lifestyle, and it's hard to have a successful career not knowing how to use computer systems. Science has had many breakthroughs in recent times, and many occurences in life have been explained. We know why animals eat what they eat. We know why the tides rise and fall. People no longer die of "natural causes" or "old age" - they die of an illness, or a masadventure. Everything around us now has an explaination.

So it is becoming a lot more difficult to have faith. It is, by definition, something that has no explaination. Logic is slowly becoming the new faith.

This is especially true in the younger generations - those who don't know of a world without Internet have more trouble accepting that there is a big invisible man called God hovering over us. It's hard to explain using logic - in fact, it's impossible.

I have always been a lover of Mathematics and Science - but I was still Christian. My love of numbers and logic never separated me from Jesus, and by extension God. But it's much harder for "Generation I" children to believe in something they cannot see. I feel that Christianity may be dying. It's being euthanized by the modern world.

 

[RANK 1]

Yeah we'll just fuck up some other way. Or worship other "gods".

you can start off by worshiping me

 

[IamBread]

you can start off by worshiping me

I alrdy hav bby

 

[Chemical Ali]

Man will never be free until he stops using disgusting sexist gendered language

 

[Garygaz]

to be honest it's almost selfish to believe in a god, to place your own self worth above everything else that exists.

 

[qawe]

to be honest it's almost selfish to believe in a god, to place your own self worth above everything else that exists.

no. since you've spelt it out so bluntly, it's pride and selfishness to have no god and thus make yourself god.

 

[RANK 1]

no. since you've spelt it out so bluntly, it's pride and selfishness to have no god and thus make yourself god.

im cool with that, you can worship me as your god whilst being happy that you're not a selfish person.

 

[abbeyroad]

that's very....selfless of you1!!!1!

 

[Garygaz]

no. since you've spelt it out so bluntly, it's pride and selfishness to have no god and thus make yourself god.

ad hominem...

please explain to me how it is selfish to believe we are just but an equal part of a much bigger picture? is it not more selfish to believe that the whole universe is intended for us, when there is almost no reason to think so?

i am talking about the belief in a personal god, in case there was any confusion.

 

[soloooooo]

Yes. Nature alone is not powerful enough to have created the world and life within in that exists in its current state today.

 

[Garygaz]

Yes. Nature alone is not powerful enough to have created the world and life within in that exists in its current state today.

well yes, your emotional response to a complex question, is unsurprisingly, the one which is easy to believe and brings comfort to ones self.

 

[soloooooo]

I'm not saying there is any one god or anything, I am just saying I think there is more at work (or at one point) than just natural forces. Looks at the mathematics we find in nature, even in a fuzzy logic system it is too perfect.

 

[Annihilist]

Majority say "Yes"? In Australia? On a site dedicated to academia and education?

...seriously, guys?

 

[Lolsmith]

people are dumb

what kind of fairy land have you been living in