Sola fide, also know as Justification by Faith Alone.

[Pray To Jesus]

Great gif BTW. That guy looks so cool as if he's making sweet love to the human kind.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I don't understand why you think there is no evidence when clearly you just need to look for evidence in your daily lives. Also I don't understand why you believe God needs to be supernatural. God is the creator and substance of all that exists. So look at a tree and see God. Look at a cat and see God. God is greater than his creation. But you get my point. Evolution is created by God. God uses evolution as a tool for creation. The earth is not 6000 years old but however many billions. The phrases, "1000 years a day and a day like 1000 years" is to mean that time is meaningless in heaven.

I do believe it is entirely possible that God does exist. I firmly believe that science and religion are totally compatible. Science doesn't pose a threat to religion because maybe all it's doing is discovering the nature of God's creation. We can't hope to ever know why God did things in one way or another.

That said, I don't actually think God exists because there's simply no evidence of it. Everything that happened in the universe could be thanks to God or maybe it's just a coincidence. I certainly think it is possible but it seems unlikely. I'm not anti-religion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

God cannot miss a target if he shoots a gun with the intention of hitting the target. However, he can miss willingly if he intends to. You don't know!

"Miss willingly" makes as much sense as "accidentally on purpose." If God has decided to "miss willingly" his target, then it is no longer his target. He is not targeting it if it is his intention to miss it.

These kinds of absurdities are precisely why people lol heartily at the religious -- but then, that is your intention, isn't it?

 

[SphinxnihpS]

"I am a Christian" is generally an admission that you have no clue about Christianity. See the OP for clarification.

 

[Aikouka]

I wonder how long it will take for this to be locked.

I don't understand why you think there is no evidence when clearly you just need to look for evidence in your daily lives.

When I told a Christian that I couldn't believe without any actual evidence, that's the same sort of horse hockey that he fed to me. I'm sorry, but simply ascribing something as the cause of an event without any actual knowledge that it is the fact is even worse than grabbing at straws. Face the facts, you have to say "God did it" because you can't actually prove his existence, and that's your sophomoric way of coping with the intellectual fallacy of it all. Why do you think someone proposed the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It's to show the lunacy of the notion of God as you can replace God with anything and it's still just as "valid."

 

[Pray To Jesus]

I do believe it is entirely possible that God does exist. I firmly believe that science and religion are totally compatible. Science doesn't pose a threat to religion because maybe all it's doing is discovering the nature of God's creation. We can't hope to ever know why God did things in one way or another.

That said, I don't actually think God exists because there's simply no evidence of it. Everything that happened in the universe could be thanks to God or maybe it's just a coincidence. I certainly think it is possible but it seems unlikely. I'm not anti-religion.

Lets just say for me it would be crazy coincidences indeed. But I read a book that's quite complicated about good solid proof of God's existence. Not for the people that got a C or B in physics. Needs and A to comprehend. It's quite good.

It's called
New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy [Paperback]

Robert J. Spitzer (Author)

Also available on Kindle.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

I wonder how long it will take for this to be locked.



When I told a Christian that I couldn't believe without any actual evidence, that's the same sort of horse hockey that he fed to me. I'm sorry, but simply ascribing something as the cause of an event without any actual knowledge that it is the fact is even worse than grabbing at straws. Face the facts, you have to say "God did it" because you can't actually prove his existence, and that's your sophomoric way of coping with the intellectual fallacy of it all. Why do you think someone proposed the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It's to show the lunacy of the notion of God as you can replace God with anything and it's still just as "valid."

Read that book and come back to discuss with me in a few months.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

"Miss willingly" makes as much sense as "accidentally on purpose." If God has decided to "miss willingly" his target, then it is no longer his target. He is not targeting it if it is his intention to miss it.

These kinds of absurdities are precisely why people lol heartily at the religious -- but then, that is your intention, isn't it?

I'm confused why you are confused.

Lets say that God intend to hit a target 100%, then he cannot miss.

God cannot do things which are in themselves self negating and logically impossible.

Ie. He can't create a rock so heavy he cannot lift because that's impossible logical fallacy.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

And that's why sola fide is true, because without faith you won't get saved. That's why the Bible says it's the one sin that cannot be forgiven, because it's impossible for God to save you without you having faith in Jesus.

Simple!

 

[KeithTalent]

Should I have a green tea or a mint tea? :hmm:

KT

 

[disappoint]

Jesus Christ died and took all the sins of the world at that instance. Don't worry, be happy.

I think he left a few behind don't you?

 

[AstroManLuca]

Lets just say for me it would be crazy coincidences indeed. But I read a book that's quite complicated about good solid proof of God's existence. Not for the people that got a C or B in physics. Needs and A to comprehend. It's quite good.

It's called
New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy [Paperback]

Robert J. Spitzer (Author)

Also available on Kindle.

But I thought the whole point of faith was to believe in something despite there not being concrete proof? I've heard it said that if you have proof you're missing the point of faith, because it's easy to believe in something when it can be proven.

At my core I am skeptical of things for which there is no proof, and I seriously doubt that anyone has found actual physical proof of God. If all that was required to understand that guy's "proof" was an intimate knowledge of physics, then surely all the physics scholars would have picked up on it. I am especially skeptical of claims made on the condition of meeting a certain standard of intelligence; "you can't understand this unless you're really smart!" and so on. Good way to silence potential critics.

Meanwhile I've also seen a few "ontological proofs" of God. Every single one of which is worthless made-up crap.

I guess what I'm saying is I'm agnostic above all else. As in, I believe it is not possible to prove the existence (or non-existence) of God. Because of that, I lean towards not believing in God.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'm confused why you are confused.

I am not confused. You have asserted an incoherent claim. "Miss willingly" is an oxymoron.

Lets say that God intend to hit a target 100%, then he cannot miss.

This is not the dispute.

God cannot do things which are in themselves self negating and logically impossible.

It is logically impossible to "miss willingly." One intends to hit the target or he doesn't. If he intends to hit B rather than A, he hasn't "missed" A. He wasn't targeting A.

 

[AstroManLuca]

And that's why sola fide is true, because without faith you won't get saved. That's why the Bible says it's the one sin that cannot be forgiven, because it's impossible for God to save you without you having faith in Jesus.

Simple!

But there is no proof that it is true. You're using a circular argument - having faith in God saves you, because without having faith in God you won't be saved.

 

[disappoint]

I'm confused why you are confused.

Lets say that God intend to hit a target 100%, then he cannot miss.

God cannot do things which are in themselves self negating and logically impossible.

Ie. He can't create a rock so heavy he cannot lift because that's impossible logical fallacy.

Funny how religious people talk about things they couldn't possibly know for sure with such certainty. Do you know why? Because the human mind abhors not knowing everything. It fools itself into thinking it knows, for sure. The surer it feels the better it feels. Maybe.

What if God was bored one day of being all powerful. He wanted a video game that was challenging. Let's say he plays video games in 4 or maybe even 11 dimensions. Maybe even more. Let's say he's the programmer and gamer. So one day (or femtosecond, whatever) he creates a force even he can't defeat. Let's call that force Satan. Now are you so sure of what you stated in bold up above?

 

[phucheneh]

Faith No More had the potential to be a much better band than they were.

I clicked this thread totally expecting a Mike Patton side project.

(...pretty much everything he did after FNM was called a 'side project', but you know what I mean...)

 

[AstroManLuca]

Funny how religious people talk about things they couldn't possibly know for sure with such certainty. Do you know why? Because the human mind abhors not knowing everything. It fools itself into thinking it knows, for sure. The surer it feels the better it feels. Maybe.

What if God was bored one day of being all powerful. He wanted a video game that was challenging. Let's say he plays video games in 4 or maybe even 11 dimensions. Maybe even more. Let's say he's the programmer and gamer. So one day (or femtosecond, whatever) he creates a force even he can't defeat. Let's call that force Satan. Now are you so sure of what you stated in bold up above?

See, these atheist ontological arguments are just as dumb as ontological arguments in support of God.

You're using verbal gymnastics and nonsensical language to "prove" that God doesn't exist. Asking if God can create a being too strong for him to defeat, or create a rock too heavy for him to lift... it doesn't mean anything. It's like asking a mathematician if it's possible for 2 plus 2 to equal 5.

 

[phucheneh]

Let's avoid religious thread closure...

...this thread is now about Mike Patton and/or Faith No More.

Mike Patton does like to dress like god.

edit: better timestamp for hairnet jesus.

 

[SphinxnihpS]

Let's avoid religious thread closure...

...this thread is now about Mike Patton and/or Faith No More.

Mike Patton does like to dress like god.

Album of the Year, was.

 

[disappoint]

See, these atheist ontological arguments are just as dumb as ontological arguments in support of God.

You're using verbal gymnastics and nonsensical language to "prove" that God doesn't exist. Asking if God can create a being too strong for him to defeat, or create a rock too heavy for him to lift... it doesn't mean anything. It's like asking a mathematician if it's possible for 2 plus 2 to equal 5.

In all seriousness and with all honesty my post was not intended to disprove God, nor anything else for that matter. Please re-read it and take it at face value. Please stop "reading between the lines" to understand what I was trying to say. I meant every word of it, as I wrote it. It's just a thought experiment, but it wasn't sarcasm nor facetiousness.

 

[phucheneh]

Album of the Year, was.

Way underappreciated album. I laugh at people who think The Real Thing or Angel Dust was the height of Faith No More.

They're just helpless.

 

[KeithTalent]

Way underappreciated album. I laugh at people who think The Real Thing or Angel Dust was the height of Faith No More.

They're just helpless.

Meh, I still love both of those albums. I even love the pre-Patton stuff, We Care A Lot and Introduce Yourself. I'm a fan of pretty much everything Faith No More has done and even the stuff extended out from there (Mr. Bungle, Lovage, Tomahawk, Fantomas, Peeping Tom, etc.). Mike Patton can do no wrong as far as I'm concerned. :awe:

KT

 

[phucheneh]

I don't like ALL his projects, but I can respect them. Peeping Tom was my favorite. Most eclectic without just being...nuts. Mr Bungle was a little too 'nuts' for me.

And I like all their albums. Yep, including the first two without Patton. But they're not as utterly great at the later ones. I usually only hear them when I flip on their 'best of' album, where Patton is absent for like the first four tracks.

Sidenote: Falling to Pieces has been my ringtone for a good while. I know mp3 ringtones aren't 'cool' anymore, but it's such a perfect ringer. Hard to mistake the opening bass thwacks for anything but my phone.

 

[Aikouka]

But I thought the whole point of faith was to believe in something despite there not being concrete proof? I've heard it said that if you have proof you're missing the point of faith, because it's easy to believe in something when it can be proven.

That's why I prefer the term "blind faith." I can say that I have faith in Pray to Jesus to respond to this, and if you ask why, I could respond, "I've seen him do it before." I am presenting a (possibly...) logical backing to my belief, but it is still not necessarily going to happen.

When I subscribed to those silly religious notions, they used to have us do the "fall back check" as a way of showing what having faith in god is like. What they would do is stand you in front of someone else, and tell you to fall backward. The idea is that you know the person is behind you, but you trust them to catch you. I think based on that previous sentence, you understand where I'm going to go with this. The problem is that it is nothing like having faith in God. I know that there is someone behind me, because the person told me that there would be, and I know that the person is not duplicitous. A better example would be to nullify all of your sense, walk into a random room, choose a spot and just fall backward. In this case, you have absolutely no idea if anyone is actually there, and guess what? Chances are you're going to be leaving with a sore buttocks.

At my core I am skeptical of things for which there is no proof, and I seriously doubt that anyone has found actual physical proof of God.

A lot of times, people like to try and prove God by simply stating that he (it?) is the answer that fulfills what we cannot understand about our universe. If there's some physics anomaly, it's not that we just don't understand it yet, it must be God!

 

[WHAMPOM]

God bless you. The doctrine proposes that faith in Christ is sufficient for sinners to be accepted by God, to count them among his people, and to equip them with the motive of trust, gratitude and love toward God from which good works are to be done. Trust in Jesus Christ and you will be saved.

So you have seen the movie Catch-22.