^ but why would you want to learn new things even tho you know it may be completely flawed? no one in this forum knows the answer to the afterlife... NO one.... so why learn things that might not be true?
you really hope to learn something new, do you think this is possible considering your demands of proof?
learning something new means learning TRUE information. without proofs to provide as evidence (to show it is TRUE), you might as well learn information from a fish for all its worth..
not really... considering im in a research major opinions = claims. claims + evidence = more likely consistent. opinions - proof = garbage.. its like saying OMGWTF CHICKENS AND OSTRICHES CAN FLY! proof to this statement would be a video of a chicken flying like an eagle or something... OR proof that chicken wings have the surfaces needed to generate lifts for the chicken to fly (more scientific)
but these are all mostly testimonies and one time cases.... there isnt any scientific experimentation done to recreate the environment to prove its desired effect... im not saying science can solve everything, but we as human beings are accustomed to having proofs to show that it is plausible, as demonstrated throughout history...
yeah and that's our downfall. people want proof before seeking God instead of seeking God and seeing all the proof they want. (from Christian perspective) i advise you make use of that website, but its up to you ofcourse,
ill make use of it alright. but i will just not have any answers to it. tell me master g. i have a question. you seem like you believe in God greatly.. which i totally respect, because i too do believe in A God. but how are you sure that a God really exist? i dont doubt the fact that a God may or may not exist, but how are YOU sure that God is real? im curious to find YOUR answer to it, and not anyone elses.. because, as others said, God may be an invention to help humans have values to follow, to guide humans. Im not saying i believe that, but im curious HOW people are certain God (whether they be God, Alah, Buddhist God, or any other Gods) exists
see what artic_fire said partially supports the claim that God may be a creation. it may not be true, but it is still evidence nonetheless. many others may be like Artic_fire, and are willing to accept a God, because they were told to.. perhaps, during the past, people just accept God because they were told he is true.. and to prove that claim, people in the past have no privileges to education, they believe in what they are told.. im not saying i dont believe in God, im just trying to show the importance of claim and evidence, so this debate can actually go somewhere... @wind2000: no one does when it comes to religion lol @ sugacutie0: why?
It is very interesting that you think asking for proof equates not ready to learn something new. Of course it is where religion differs from science. One thing is pulled out from sheer faith and the other is a world view of causes and consequences. I am not saying something is not real because it cannot be explained, it is just that the "requirement" of believing in something for the sake of believing is out of my league. And yeah, the fact that a narrative text is held as holy? I just wonder where THAT come from. Again, anecdotal pseudo-evidence does not mean zip. Somehow it is so easy to convince others of fictions when it has the "religion visions" tag.
proof equates not ready to learn something new? i uhhhhh dont understand im gonna try and not implicate myself any further in this religious debate not really my cup of tea BBUTTTTTT it gets me good post counts -lol
@dann: I don't, because I don't believe in "Hell" as being a "fiery place of torment" for evildoers. I believe that the original term translated into "Hell" from the Hebrew: She'ohl / Greek Septuagint: Hai'des ultimately means "the abode of the dead" or "mankind's common grave". If you are an actually Bible student and have on hand multiple Bible translations, King James to be more precise, in the book of Acts (2:25-27), there is a reference to a prophecy of Jesus, originally recorded in Psalms. There, Jesus is termed as the "Holy One" and actually goes on to bring out that Jesus himself was in "Hell", momentarily. (For 3 days, of course, then after wards he was risen.) So, to me, using only the example of Jesus' death, it's truly unreasonable to think that God would have his only-begotten son, the first born of all creation, the one that was always faultless and upright, to be suffering in "Hell". Furthermore, a God that is the personification of love (1John 4:8) would never torment people for all eternity, that is a bold contradiction of the type of person God is and I think these teachings is exactly why many have a distorted view of God and do not love HIM. Why and how could anyone love a person that would punish people by mercilessly tormenting them by searing their flesh repeatedly for all eternity?? I know I wouldn't, but then I firmly believe from the scriptures that such teaching is not true, but is a man-made doctrine.
