How can we get rid of our sinfulness?

[look3467]

You come up with any evidence that the heart is anything other than a pump and I'll quit being an atheist.

Lets see. A person consists of 3 parts. Spirit: flesh, and a soul. Can you agree with that?

The spirit being the life in you, the flesh, is the body and the soul is who you are.

You are a distinct individual with a personality and character. Could there be a clone of you somewhere?

If we took away the spirit, your body would die. But your soul would continue on in spirit.
The soul is what God saves: not the body, the spirit the heart of the body: the soul.

The soul not being flesh but spirit has a spiritual heart. Pumps: no blood.

A distinction here is made between the flesh and that which is spirit, the soul. Read:
:read2:
1Pe 2:11 Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul;

Gen 6:5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

The heart pumps imaginations and thoughts, of evil or good. ( A premeditated murder, first purposed it in the heart to kill)

In the next verse the heart is said to speak: “Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old?”

Gen 17:17 Then Abraham fell upon his face, and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, bear?

Exo 25:2 Speak unto the children of Israel, that they bring me an offering: of every man that giveth it willingly with his heart ye shall take my offering.

*Here we have every man that giveth willingly his heart for and offering, commits himself to death, by the removing of his heart?

Heart:

Character = He’s an abrupt-sounding cuss, but he’s got a very good heart.

Compassion = the ability to feel humane and altruistic feelings

Affection = affection, love, or warm admiration

Spirit = the capacity for courage and determination
Gilbert’s character, or his heart is one who likes the openness of the country, likes to drink a few beers, enjoy life and rib AJ on religious issues.

Yep! That is Gilbert, but I do know that in his heart he is a fair man and loves his neighbors.

That is heart my friend of which pumps no blood, but can bleed as if it had blood when someone is hurting and needs your help.

*Purposely written that way.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

 

[mapleleafgirl]

Lets see. A person consists of 3 parts. Spirit: flesh, and a soul. Can you agree with that?

The spirit being the life in you, the flesh, is the body and the soul is who you are.

You are a distinct individual with a personality and character. Could there be a clone of you somewhere?
R]

what is the difference between spirit and soul? i thought they were the same????

maybe you answered this, i dont know, at this point i only read the first couple lines of your little novels

 

[mapleleafgirl]

I meant when Christianity, not the rest of the worlds religions, come to the point of maturity in Christ, then, they will see the worlds religions as brothers and sisters and drop the condemnations.

Peace>>>AJ:love9:

and which version is gonna be the one they all take on? i dont think the real church is gonna give in to the protestants!the protestants left the church, not the other way around.

 

[Niflmir]

Not that I can see. Looks to me, in fact, like the wisdom of this world has rendered the notion of god foolish.

"God is Dead." Nietzsche

Once you realize that the notion of God is nothing more than a human creation, prone to all of our own failings, you find it impossible to believe.

 

[mapleleafgirl]

"God is Dead." Nietzsche

Once you realize that the notion of God is nothing more than a human creation, prone to all of our own failings, you find it impossible to believe.

i doubt it. thats just your opinion, one it seems 99% of people dont agree to. just because you dont think that god exists dosent mean he dosent.

 

[Niflmir]

i doubt it. thats just your opinion, one it seems 99% of people dont agree to. just because you dont think that god exists dosent mean he dosent.

I guess that came out wrong...

It is a fact that a humanly created God cannot exist, I know that 100% of people agree to that. Nietzsche in his statement was pointing that out, but he was also formulating the opinion that the Christian God was such an entity. I was merely stating that the precendence for Dexter's statement has been around a long time.

 

[mapleleafgirl]

I guess that came out wrong...

It is a fact that a humanly created God cannot exist, I know that 100% of people agree to that. Nietzsche in his statement was pointing that out, but he was also formulating the opinion that the Christian God was such an entity. I was merely stating that the precendence for Dexter's statement has been around a long time.

oh, sorry, i did take what you wrote wrong. in my opinion, most people, even the ones who say they dont believe in god, spend a heck of allot of time looking for him!

 

[Niflmir]

oh, sorry, i did take what you wrote wrong. in my opinion, most people, even the ones who say they dont believe in god, spend a heck of allot of time looking for him!

Agreed.

 

[mapleleafgirl]

Agreed.

thanks, the reason i think that is because everyone i know who says they are atheists spends allot of time talking about god and church. kinda like that shakespeare thing, thou protests too much, or something lke that. i think we need to connect to the creator, for some reason.

 

[Niflmir]

thanks, the reason i think that is because everyone i know who says they are atheists spends allot of time talking about god and church. kinda like that shakespeare thing, thou protests too much, or something lke that. i think we need to connect to the creator, for some reason.

Heh heh, my job is to understand the workings and origins of the universe. Go figure. Er, Go physics!

 

[Dexter Sinister]

i doubt it. thats just your opinion, one it seems 99% of people dont agree to. just because you dont think that god exists dosent mean he dosent.

The figure's actually in the 70-80% range according to polls and surveys I've seen. Not that it affects your point significantly. The converse is also true though: just because you think god exists doesn't mean he does. However, as I've remarked before, the number of people who believe something to be true has nothing to do with whether it's really true or not. To establish truth you need evidence and understanding, and on this particular issue of god's existence there's no evidence or analysis that definitively proves the case either way. The presumed nature of god is such that no proof is possible. Any test designed to prove it could be subtley altered by the deity so that uncertainty remains and faith is still required.

The weight of evidence and reason, however, is very much against god's existence. Any act or circumstance attributed to his intervention will always, on careful inspection, admit of much simpler explanations, usually rooted in widely understood human perceptual errors and incorrect thinking. There is no properly documented instance of anything for which divine intervention is the only possible explanation, and again, the presumed nature of god is such that he could always arrange things that way for his own inscrutable purposes. There's no settling this question.

 

[jimmoyer]

The Placebo Effect

Speaking of atheists, again...

One thing they don't got that believers got. As in the Cowardly Lion exclaiming, What do they
got that I ain't got ???

The Placebo effect.

So even when the drug is imagined, the results can be very real. “Over and over we find that when people believe in stuff, it works!” laughs Barrett, a doctor studying a double blind program.

(source for quote:
http://health.msn.com/guides/coldandflu/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100153480


So let's use logic, for a moment (wink wink), in order to get rid of logic as the most exalted
matter in the universe.

What do they non-atheists got that atheists ain't got ?

Belief.

What do atheists believe ?

I'm sure they do have some very wise and enlightening beliefs ? Or is it all logic, Dr Spak ??

Sin, God, original guilt, origin of the universe...what among these is provable or unprovable ?

And do Atheists avoid the whole area of the unprovable to live in the more anal world of
finite bounded limited PROVABLE universe ?

And then what of all this Reduction to the Ridiculous arguments, the ad absurdem rebuttals to
the fierce mis-interpretations of Separation of Church and State ?

Thou shalt not have the generic 10 Commandments sitting in a local Courthouse as it has for 80 odd years?

Reduction to the Ridiculous, the slippery slope of logic inevitably concludes we must
change our calendar year, for every minute and month and year in our daily planners and pocket calendars
is based on the birth of Christ, sitting in every government office.

We should change this year of 2007 to year 1 to commemorate the clear demarcating of Church and State.

Whew.

Logic appears to suffer by both sides of the divide.

Bring on the Placebo Effect.

 

[missile]

I believe it is impossible these days to do any original sins...it's all been done before. Rather sad,isn't it?

 

[Niflmir]

The figure's actually in the 70-80% range according to polls and surveys I've seen. Not that it affects your point significantly. The converse is also true though: just because you think god exists doesn't mean he does. However, as I've remarked before, the number of people who believe something to be true has nothing to do with whether it's really true or not. To establish truth you need evidence and understanding, and on this particular issue of god's existence there's no evidence or analysis that definitively proves the case either way. The presumed nature of god is such that no proof is possible. Any test designed to prove it could be subtley altered by the deity so that uncertainty remains and faith is still required.

The weight of evidence and reason, however, is very much against god's existence. Any act or circumstance attributed to his intervention will always, on careful inspection, admit of much simpler explanations, usually rooted in widely understood human perceptual errors and incorrect thinking. There is no properly documented instance of anything for which divine intervention is the only possible explanation, and again, the presumed nature of god is such that he could always arrange things that way for his own inscrutable purposes. There's no settling this question.

I agree that the presumed nature of God is such that his existence is unphysical, putting him beyond evidence. However, some people's spoken nature of God is such that logic can be used to refute its existence (due to various contradictions).

Having said that, I am currently considering trying to cook up a space such that a square circle could exist.

 

[jimmoyer]

I agree that the presumed nature of God is such that his existence is unphysical, putting him beyond evidence.
-------------Niflmir----------------------

You Dr Spak Guys !!!

Did you learn nothing from Captain Kirk about logic ???

Put that above quote upside down on it's ear !!

If you were to stay within the finite realms of logic, would not the correct conclusion be that
this issue of God is AS OF NOW (anything can change, n'est pas? ) is neither provable or
uprovable ??

Laugh at both the believer and the unbeliever as they wave PROOF of their thesis !!!

 

[Niflmir]

I agree that the presumed nature of God is such that his existence is unphysical, putting him beyond evidence.
-------------Niflmir----------------------

You Dr Spak Guys !!!

Did you learn nothing from Captain Kirk about logic ???

Put that above quote upside down on it's ear !!

If you were to stay within the finite realms of logic, would not the correct conclusion be that
this issue of God is AS OF NOW (anything can change, n'est pas? ) is neither provable or
uprovable ??

Laugh at both the believer and the unbeliever as they wave PROOF of their thesis !!!

But no two people necessarily agree on what the issue of God is. There are certainly vacuously true definitions, like: "God is that force/being which caused the universe to exist." "God is the sum of all things."

But to go from such a statement to: "God begat a son of a virgin mother and that son died on the cross to free us from original sin, then was resurrected and ascended to heaven." Such a statement is amenable to evidence. If somehow, Roman records of the crucifiction were uncovered and the location of the tomb found and excavated and a body therein located. That would certainly be evidence. Still a long way from conclusive, but I can trump up ways to make it conclusive. The point is that such a statement is amenable to proof/disproof.

 

[jimmoyer]

"God begat a son of a virgin mother and that son died on the cross to free us from original sin, then was resurrected and ascended to heaven." Such a statement is amenable to evidence. If somehow, Roman records of the crucifiction were uncovered and ...
----------------------------------Niflmir-----------------------------------------------------------

That only means you can prove or disprove that statement.

It does not mean you've proven or disproven the existence of God.

Just because outlandish (depending how you look at it )
statements are made by believers doesn't mean you have
the evidence to disprove the existence of God.

Lack of proof is no disproof. It only means lack of proof. At this moment in time, I might add.


I've seen the logic fallacy of the atheist match the logic fallacy of believers.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

You Dr Spak Guys !!!

Who is this Dr. Spak you're associating us with? Do you mean Mr. Spock of Star Trek fame?

I think Niflmir's point was only that some religious claims are in fact empirical claims about the nature of reality, and are thus testable, at least in principle. And, I might add, every time they *have* been tested, they've proven to be false. Much of the history of the last 500 years, at least in the West, can be seen as religion retreating from making empirical claims about the universe in the face of the scientific revolution.

You're right that lack of proof is not disproof, or as it's usually put, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but in the absence of evidence in support of some extraordinary claim, and in fact in the face of a good deal of contrary evidence, what sense does it make to believe it's true?

 

[Niflmir]

Who is this Dr. Spak you're associating us with? Do you mean Mr. Spock of Star Trek fame?

I think Niflmir's point was only that some religious claims are in fact empirical claims about the nature of reality, and are thus testable, at least in principle. And, I might add, every time they *have* been tested, they've proven to be false. Much of the history of the last 500 years, at least in the West, can be seen as religion retreating from making empirical claims about the universe in the face of the scientific revolution.

You're right that lack of proof is not disproof, or as it's usually put, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but in the absence of evidence in support of some extraordinary claim, and in fact in the face of a good deal of contrary evidence, what sense does it make to believe it's true?

Thank you, Dex.

I will merely add that lack of proof does not mean unprovable.

 

[jimmoyer]

but in the absence of evidence in support of some extraordinary claim, and in fact in the face of a good deal of contrary evidence, what sense does it make to believe it's true?
----------------------------------------Dexter Sinister--------------------------------------------------------

You are making the same blur of distinctions, Niflmir has.

In the face of a good deal of contrary evidence ???

What accumulation of evidence ???

The outlandish statements of believers ???

Go ahead and knock down the strawman of outlandish statements of believers.

But is there any accumulated evidence against the existence of God ?

Nope.

Believers and Non-believers look at this wondrous awesome universe and come out
with different conclusions, neither of which constitutes evidence for or against (the
existence of God.)

Disprovable statements by believers is no preponderance of evidence against a God.

But if all the believers make disprovable statements why should we believe in God ?

Poor question, presumptuous of the answer, isn't it ?

First off, most church goers are not as ideologically fierce as the average forum poster
and so MOST believers don't make such disprovable statements nowadays. So historcially
you are correct. But extrapolating if they will be wrong in the future butts up against the
fact that proof or disproof of God still might not be available.