What if your Wrong

[Mike.357]

gravity and heaven/hell are not good comparisons.

I can see gravity at work, simply drop something. heaven and hell are theory at best right now, no telling if it is fact until it is too late.

[Guest Jamie]

(TRUTH is the highest authority. Truth is always the same, it never changes. Truth can cause facts to change.

The truth does not cause fact to change. It only causes the perceptions of the fact(s) to be altered.

You don't have to believe the Truth for it to exist, it will go on without you. It doesn't need you to still be the Truth.

That is correct. The truth is just that. However, that doesn't mean one knows what it is, or that it's always easy to identify.

Gravity exists whether one believes it or not, whether one understands it or not.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with what you're trying to get at.

Gravity can be felt, tested, and show to exist. Some other things can not, at least not at this point in time.

It has been stated that there is a Heaven to strive for and a Hell to avoid.

Yes, but simply stating a thing doesn't make it true, any more than denying a thing automatically makes it false.

There may very well be a heaven and a hell, or there may very well not. The truth is, no one here knows. And denying that is simply foolish.

You may want to believe that such places exist, but simply wanting it to be so won't cause it. Nor will having a bunch of other people believe with you cause it to be true.

The Truth has been put out there.

Again, maybe. Or maybe it hasn't.

It is the individual's choice to either accept or reject. Woe to he who chooses wrong, rejecting the Truth.)

Do you believe everything you're told is the truth? Or that everything you read is? If not, how do you decide which is which, truth or falsehood?

And what if you're wrong?

The truth is a double-edged sword. It can prove a person right, or it can just as quickly prove them wrong. And neither you nor I... or anyone else living, can know what you want to claim to know, for certain. We all have to make our best guess, and take our chances that we guessed right.

And that's all there is to it.

J.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Jamie
Caught a typing error

[Smith]

Do you believe everything you're told is the truth? Or that everything you read is? If not, how do you decide which is which, truth or falsehood?

And what if you're wrong?

The truth is a double-edged sword. It can prove a person right, or it can just as quickly prove them wrong. And neither you nor I... or anyone else living, can know what you want to claim to know, for certain. We all have to make our best guess, and take our chances that we guessed right.

And that's all there is to it.

J.

is that a known truth?

[Guest Jamie]

is that a known truth?

It is what it is, and nothing more.

J.

[Oh Shoot]

...One thing that is certain is that none of us will know for sure until the day we wink out and go for the dirt nap...

What makes you think you'll know then?

That presumes you at least believe your consciousness will carry on.

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

...

If we who believe are right, all's well for us. For those who don't believe ... ... ... as the thread title asks, what if you're wrong?....

An honest intellect can only believe what it believes.

It's not a bet that can be hedged.

If the buck actually stops somewhere, The Big Guy's intellect also surely comprehends that.

- OS

[safeandsecure]

OhShoot, like I said, your choice to believe --- or not. I won't, and can't, change your mind.

The Bill of Rights guarantees that choice (at least for now ... not sure how many of our rights we'll have left in the future).

... ... and the "Big Guy" also gives us that same choice (according to the Bible, that is our God-given right, and that predates our Bill of Rights by several hundred years).

But it seems to me that some of us have "hedged" our bets. That was my take on the purpose of the thread. And I can only believe what I believe. That said, we have a difference of opinion. You and I are both entitled to believe what we believe, even if our beliefs are completely opposite. So no arguments on my part.

[Oh Shoot]

OhShoot, like I said, your choice to believe --- or not. I won't, and can't, change your mind. ...

No. My point is, its NOT a choice.

One can only believe what one believes, if one is honest with oneself.

I believe I don't know, and that there's currently no way to know.

I'm always open for new information, however.

Faith is belief. So I don't have faith.

I believe in hope, though.

- OS

[safeandsecure]

.

Faith is belief. So I don't have faith.

I believe in hope, though.

- OS

You are closer to having faith than you think ...

According to the Apostle Paul, in Hebrews 11:1, here's the definition of faith:

"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (emphasis mine)

Faith is all I've got. I have no tangible, concrete proof to offer (other than the change in myself, and what's written in the Bible). I have seen what I could call "miracles" in my line of work --- but others might just call that same thing "luck" or "chance."

But again, we're good, bro. I ain't trying to beat you up over this. (Have to maintain that it's a choice, though. My belief/faith requires that.)

[Chucktshoes]

But again, we're good, bro. I ain't trying to beat you up over this. (Have to maintain that it's a choice, though. My belief/faith requires that.)

I gather you aren't into Reformed theology then, eh?

[Guest Letereat!]

Gotta love the release of seratonin & endorphins. It'll make you believe anything. robtatoo

Its all in your head

[Guest Letereat!]

What if your wrong about thinking that unbelievers are wrong and your the one that has been wrong all along....ITs gonna be mighty dissapointin when all the people you think oughta be burinin in hellfire forever are on the beach havin another beer

Edited August 25, 2010 by Letereat!

[JPS]

Believe me, I would very much like to see indisputable proof, one way or the other. But I also know there's none to be had, and even if there was it would cause chaos on a scale that can't be imagined.

J.

If anyone wants to read a great, (short) thought-provoking book on this subject - try to find a copy of A Corner of the Veil by Laurence Crosse (ISBN-13: 978-0684846675) about what might happen if we suddenly had absolutely irrefutable proof of God's existence. Doesn't matter which side of the debate you're on - this guy's take on what might happen is fascinating.

[Guest trigem]

The Miracle of the Human Eye

Charles Darwin described the eye as one of the greatest challenges to his theory. How could he explain it? The eye, after all, is simply incompatible with evolution. "To suppose," he admitted, "that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances ... could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree" (On the Origin of Species, 1909, p. 190).

Jesus Christ said that "the eye is the lamp of the body" (Matthew 6:22). Jacob Bronowski wrote that, "if you compare a human being with even the most sharp-eyed of the great apes, say with a chimpanzee, our vision is incredibly more delicate ... Their ability to discriminate fine detail (which can be tested in a very simple way) is not comparable with that of human beings" (The Origins of Knowledge and Imagination, 1978, pp. 12-13).

The human eye possesses 130 million light-sensitive rods and cones that convert light into chemical impulses. These signals travel at a rate of a billion per second to the brain.

The essential problem for Darwinists is how so many intricate components could have independently evolved to work together perfectly when, if a single component didn't function perfectly, nothing would work at all.

"Now it is quite evident," says scientist Francis Hitching, "that if the slightest thing goes wrong en route—if the cornea is fuzzy, or the pupil fails to dilate, or the lens becomes opaque, or the focusing goes wrong—then a recognizable image is not formed. The eye either functions as a whole, or not at all.

"So how did it come to evolve by slow, steady, infinitesimally small Darwinian improvements? Is it really possible that thousands upon thousands of lucky chance mutations happened coincidentally so that the lens and the retina, which cannot work without each other, evolved in synchrony? What survival value can there be in an eye that doesn't see?

"Small wonder that it troubled Darwin. 'To this day the eye makes me shudder,' [Darwin] wrote to his botanist friend Asa Gray in February, 1860" (The Neck of the Giraffe, 1982, p. 86).

Charles Darwin should have considered two passages in the Bible. "The hearing ear and the seeing eye, the Lord has made them both," wrote King Solomon (Proverbs 20:12). Psalm 94:9 asks: "He who planted the ear, shall he not hear? He who formed the eye, shall he not see?"

The same can be said of the brain, nose, palate and dozens of other complex and highly developed organs in any human or animal. It would take a quantum leap of faith to think all this just evolved. Yet that is commonly taught and accepted.

After reviewing the improbability of such organs arising in nature from an evolutionary process, Professor H.S. Lipson, a member of the British Institute of Physics, wrote in 1980: "We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable alternative is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it" (Physics Bulletin, Vol. 30, p. 140). GN

-- Mario Seiglie

[Guest Jamie]

Trigem, you really need to quit preaching.

You're not going to convince anybody that isn't already convinced, and citing old, outdated or biased material isn't going to help your case.

I'm not going to waste my time countering your "eye argument". I will tell you that as someone who's sister was born blind due to Rubella ( her eyes didn't develop fully before she was born ), I probably know a helluva lot more about the human eye than you ever hope to.

For what it's worth though, I have 4 pet lizards here that, as most lizards, technically have 3 eyes... the 2 normal ones, in the usual positions, plus the 3rd, primitive eye, the Parietal eye, in the middle of their skulls, connected almost directly to their brains. ( That one feature is pretty much an example of evolution in action. )

I could also point you to any number of studies on the evolution and development of eyes in the animal kingdom as well.

But we both know it would be a waste of time, since you're not interested in eyes, only in trying to "prove" your argument.

Unfortunately, as is typical with religious zealots and fanatics, you claim to "speak the truth", but in fact are only interested in your own "truth".

Which in the end, makes any real attempt at conversation with you a futile effort. It also makes it very unlikely that you'll ever have much luck in bringing anyone who isn't already there over to your side of the "argument".

J.

[Guest Jamie]

If anyone wants to read a great, (short) thought-provoking book on this subject - try to find a copy of A Corner of the Veil by Laurence Crosse (ISBN-13: 978-0684846675) about what might happen if we suddenly had absolutely irrefutable proof of God's existence. Doesn't matter which side of the debate you're on - this guy's take on what might happen is fascinating.

Even if you prove god exists, there'll still be wars for centuries, and arguments for eternity over just exactly who's god he/she is. ( The Christian one, the Muslim one, etc., or an entirely different one. )

BTW, my first comment to god, if I ever meet him, is going to be the suggestion that he really should have chosen better spokespeople, as well as needing to choose the people who do his transcription and editing a bit better.

J.

Edited August 25, 2010 by Jamie

[daddyo]

Why do non-believers get so upset whenever they hear the gospel and want to silence the one who cares enough to share it with them? What's so threatening about it?

[Guest Jamie]

Why do you think anybody's upset?

J.

[mikegideon]

And, what makes you think that they haven't already heard it a million times before?

EDIT: Whether it's the Gov'ment trying to save me from McDonalds, or you trying to save me from the fiery pits of hell, I kinda take it the same way.

Edited August 25, 2010 by mikegideon

[Guest Jamie]

And, what makes you think that they haven't already heard it a million times before?

EDIT: Whether it's the Gov'ment trying to save me from McDonalds, or you trying to save me from the fiery pits of hell, I kinda take it the same way.

Y'know, I guess that's the thing that gets me the most... It's not like they're passing along secret information, or that churches are scarce or hard to find... Or that anybody that wants to know what's said in those churches can't just walk right in, have a seat and listen.

Personally, I was raised in a southern baptist household... and have been exposed to a fairly large number of different religions. Even used to have copies of both the Koran and the Talmud here, along with the Bible.

So it's not like I'm unfamiliar with the source material most people quote. As a matter fact, I generally prove to be more familiar with it than the people that try use it in some argument or the other.

I also wonder why, on a public discussion board, folks wanna claim someone is getting upset, when all they're doing is having a discussion? Is it because the other side won't concede defeat, that folks assume they must be getting bent out of shape?

Anyway, I'm all for an honest, open-minded conversation on anything, even religion or politics. But no, I don't have much patience for preaching, or one-sided, close-minded lectures. Especially not on a subject that has no set right or wrong, or any possible way of verifying a particular side of the argument.

But even for that, I leave the getting upset for someone else to do.

J.

[mikegideon]

Yep. Southern Baptist here too. Dad was music director, mom was Sunday school teacher, and little sister is still pianist (since I was in high school). It would be difficult to tell me anything I haven't already heard five different ways.

[mcurrier]

What if your wrong about thinking that unbelievers are wrong and your the one that has been wrong all along....ITs gonna be mighty dissapointin when all the people you think oughta be burinin in hellfire forever are on the beach havin another beer

My last statement here, but seriously consider this...

Which side has more to lose by being wrong?

Edited August 25, 2010 by Daniel

[mikegideon]

My last statement here, but seriously consider this...

Which side has more to lose by being wrong?

That's easy... the side that's wrong. Life is short.

[Guest Jamie]

Which side has more to lose by being wrong?

Turn the question around: Which side has more to gain if they're right?

If god is as strict and severe as some would have you believe, then a lot of people are maybe gonna be in deep , and star in their very own BBQ, for all eternity, even if they think they won't.

By the same token, if he/she's more forgiving than that, and willing to give someone a break for basically being a good person even if they're beliefs aren't what others think they should be... where's the loss?

In the end, what an Atheist gains by being right is oblivion, and not having their life judged by anyone or anything when it's over.

What a religious person gains if they're right is to be judged by a set of rules that they may not understand, or that they may not have right.

Either one sounds like as much of a crap shoot as the other to me, with no real advantage over the other.

And never mind that an eternal existence seems like it would turn into it's own special kind of hell, after a while, no matter what the circumstances or surroundings, at least to me.

J.

[Guest Caveman]

You know, the fact that you brought politics - and Liberals - into the conversation only serves to illustrate how closely politics and religion are related, and how both really come down to controlling a large number of people by a small group, or even one individual. Little wonder then that the Roman Catholic Church was one of the most powerful political organizations on the face of this earth for so long, huh?

As for faith... I'll leave that alone for now. People are going to believe what they like, and make every excuse they can for doing so.

And that's perfectly alright by me. At least as long as they don't expect me to believe that way as well.

BTW, evidence is just that, evidence. It's not really proof of anything until you have enough of it to either see the whole picture, or at least rule out another picture altogether.

J.

I agree with everything you have said in this thread.