steveorino

I think Thomas who saw the risen Christ and put his fingers in his nail prints would say he had proof. The fact that it does not satisfy you or others does not make it any less a proof. Think about it. Who would write about those experiences besides thos who saw them? Why would Josephus write about what he heard happened in a room to a bunch of people he would conceive as being heretics? steveOrino

That is the problem you have with proof. You said it would be proof enough if God would allow you to skydive sans a parachute and live. That might convince you, but who else? Your desire is to treat God like a scientific experiment. IF there wasa God ... any God ... that could create the universe, why would he have to cowtail to your burden of proof? steveOrino

Until proof is presented, it is just a myth. There is not one shred of objective proof of your beliefs. That's why they are beliefs. That's why it's called faith. If it were provable, faith would not be needed. Yes, but at times God does give proof. Of course, those apart from it can explain it away by saying you made that up to make you feel all warm and fuzzy. Example: Proof was given to Thomas and 500 hundred other witnesses, but it fails your standard for proof. God could appear directly to you, and unless CNN was there peple would not believe. Thus the effort spent trying to "prove" God is wasted. I believe there is enough proof already. steveOrino

Once begun, half done. I was 35+ when I finally finished my BS, now I'm close to having my second Mssters and maybe before I die, I will also have a PhD. steveOrino

From a bracelet made popular by those who love to make a buck off Christianity. What Would Jesus Do? steveOrino

No, what I'm saying is God and spirituality are not scientific hypothosis. Your point is moot. steveOrino

Theology 101 for the professor ... Being created in God's image does not refer to a physical body, but that men have a spirit unlike lower creations. God is spirit and not flesh and bone. Not according to the Vatican. You are simply distorting the meaning of words, again. No, you are. A painting in the Vatican does not equal theology. I am not a catholic, so as to be sure of their theology I went to one of their websites. This is what they said in regard to God is like a man. Pretty well worded I think. Yet sometimes men are led by a natural tendency to think and speak of God as if He were a magnified creature -- more especially a magnified man -- and this is known as anthropomorphism. Thus God is said to see or hear, as if He had physical organs, or to be angry or sorry, as if subject to human passions: and this perfectly legitimate and more or less unavoidable use of metaphor is often quite unfairly alleged to prove that the strictly Infinite is unthinkable and unknowable, and that it is really a finite anthropomorphic God that men worship. But whatever truth there may be in this charge as applied to Polytheistic religions, or even to the Theistic beliefs of rude and uncultured minds, it is untrue and unjust when directed against philosophical Theism. The same reasons that justify and recommend the use of metaphorical language in other connections justify and recommended it here, but no Theist of average intelligence ever thinks of understanding literally the metaphors he applies, or hears applied by others, to God, any more than he means to speak literally when he calls a brave man a lion, or a cunning one a fox. steveOrino

my sentiments exactly. Plus I'm not afraid of anyone, including stalkers steveOrino

Yep, one of the many reasons I'm not fundy. steveOrino

But spirituality (and God is spirit) is not a scientific equation steveOrino

Given the highly provincial nature of most Gods (including Jehovah) does that not strike you as evidence that blood sacrifice is a human preference, rather than a divine one? Or it is hard wired into our thinking. steveOrino

Not Jesus. Matthew 7 is a great chapter about this and more steveOrino

Why do you impose scientific reason for the proof of God? Why not use the same judment of music, art? literature? Why science? That really makes no sense at all! It makes no sense to me that God must be judged as a scientific hypothesis steveOrino

I'm fairly confident that I didn't make my story the reason for you to believe, but rather I presented it as a confirmation for me. At least that was my intent. Again, I think spirituality is VERY personal. While community is part of Christianity it is still an individual decision. Based on your requirement for proof, it seems you have put God into a very narrow corner if he exists. The nature of God as studied from scripture, implies he doesn't respond well to such demands. But hey, you never know. Maybe he will make an exception for you. But of course you implied He's have to do it repeatedly. Again maybe you are in luck, as He is long suffering. Seriously. I hope you find peace in your life. I wish the "christians" in your life would be a blessing not a pain in the ... steveOrino

Why do you impose scientific reason for the proof of God? Why not use the same judment of music, art? literature? Why science? steveOrino

Than that would make you God as you are the one calling the shots. Imagine everyone creating their own personal scenario for the proof of God. I'm sorry your family doesn't respect your decision to reject the idea of God. I'm sure they believe they are doing it out of love. I bet the JWs in your family just love you skydiving to boot! I think if one honestly seeks God they will find Him, but I'm also convinced you can write off just about every spiritual experience you may have as coincidence. While it may not seem fair to some, to experience God "almost" always requires active seeking, and "finding" God seldom comes from God proving to someone seeking to disprove Him. steveOrino

So for you to believe God must take you personally for a skydive w/o a parachute and survive. Would God have to do that every day or is once enough? Would your experience be enough for your family or would they all need to take a ride? I can only speak for myself. Once would be enough. How about your family? Would each of them need it? EDITED TO ADD: I see you answered that sorry for the repeat. Would you believe if that happened to someone else or must it be personal? steveOrino

I think so. From a scriptural standpoint there is a necessisty for a shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sin. It seems almost every culture requires something similar (sacriface) for atonement. steveOrino

So for you to believe God must take you personally for a skydive w/o a parachute and survive. Would God have to do that every day or is once enough? Would your experience be enough for your family or would they all need to take a ride? steveOrino

You are avoiding the question. What would it take for God to prove himself to you? steveOrino

Why do you guys always answer a question with a question? I asked a legit question because the poster said God has not proven himself to him. I never made any claims about you "friend" steveOrino

Of course! To do any less would make me a fool. Why would I believe in something with out any proof at all? Then what SPECIFICALLY would God have to do to prove to you he is God? steveOrino

The market is not free. Read my first statement again ... I'll bold it for you. steveOrino

been there, done that ... bought the tee shirt and the mug. steveOrino

Theology 101 for the professor ... Being created in God's image does not refer to a physical body, but that men have a spirit unlike lower creations. God is spirit and not flesh and bone. steveOrino