Welcome to Gaia! ::

True, religion does explain the unexplainable, and that is one facet of Christianity. Christianity's main purpose is to give Man a way back to God.
There's God's promises in the Bible, and what is seen and felt. It's kinda how you tell a kid to put a plate of shallow water to demonstrate evaporation. You go by faith, and you always get an answer. Sure there are prayers where He doesn't us give what we want, but that just means the answer is no, or it's not the right time.
That's making God human. I think He has a sense of humor (He made the platypus, didn't He? There's a lot of animals with strange features, that must have seen pretty hilarious in the making) but I doubt He plays with people.
And I would go from a neutral perspective if I could (I actually want to), but I can't. I'm too used to seeing things through the Christian POV. Sorry. sweatdrop

I wasn't trying to debate a point with that statement, just state that Christianity does say that there isn't another true religion. It's more like stating a fact about the religion then making a point.

Why assume it's not when no other reason presents itself? You could wonder about it, but when the evidence points one way, and that's then shouldn't you assume it's that unless or until another option presents itself? You refer to the child who survived the accident. There's a lot of miracles that don't make sense that way, like a person has a brain tumor, it's confirmed more then once, and that person goes to the church and gets prayer. Should said tumor be found to be gone, then it makes sense that it'd be God, because science doesn't work that way, but God does.

I am biased, I freely admit that. It's one of the results of being raised Christian. But most people have biased opinions. We absorb them from our society and our home, and they follow us no matter what we do. Besides that, as long as I'm not biased to think Christians are better then non-Christians (and I'm not) then who better to discuss from a Christian perspective then a biased Christian?
If He's the Creator, He can do whatever He likes. An artist can destroy his paintings, and a musician can burn his music. As it is, He hasn't gone that far, and He's actually been rather good to us. He gave us a planet (which we gave to Satan) and He made us like Him. And then when we walked away from Him by eating the fruit, He sent His Son to die for us. Yes, He's killed people, but who could judge man but man's Creator? He kicked us out so we wouldn't live forever in a fallen state, and because by eating that fruit we chose to leave His Presence. We still had the entire planet! It's not like He doomed us to Mars or the moon or even Hell. And as for Hell: Good comes from God. Evil is what results from leaving Him. God can use evil for good (that's probrably why bad things happen to good people) but in the end good and evil must be seperated. Jesus had to die so the price could be paid, and sin nature could be washed away from those who wanted it. Then those people could go on to Heaven after death because they aren't evil anymore; they can be in His Presence. He wants us back and He's made it simple, all we have to do is choose Him.

That's really cool. I mean, there's a lot of people who don't even think about this stuff, so the fact you do is admirable. And as for making sure you're right, that's great too. If you want any help with that, you might read CS Lewis's Mere Christianity. He's great with the logic of Christianity, and He explains things far better then I'm able to.
It does. I have Asperger's Syndrome, so I read a lot to understand people, because I don't have the natural understanding most do. It's also why I sometimes have a hard time going from another perspective.

I really respect that. If I didn't come from a place that said people need Jesus, that's exactly where I'd want to come from, and you aren't condescending or insulting in the least. You're actually are really good at presenting your view without being offensive.

No, it doesn't, but if millions feel, see and/or experience something that seems to point at something, then wouldn't that make it at least a possibility?

You always get an answer, whether or not it's correct.
I'd rather have no answers than to have to blindly believe something.
You should try questioning things some of the time or trying to see the world through a not-necessarily-Christian perspective once in a while. You don't have to believe those thoughts, but it's a lot of fun and it lets you see the world through someone else's eyes.
Maybe I'm playing the part of the serpent in Eden, and maybe you're not comfortable with it.
But when I was agnostic, before I ruled out Christianity in my mind, I believed that even if Christianity was the one true religion, then that would mean that we were given free will and this amazing ability to use logic and reason and to question by God. Why would He punish me for using it?
If you really truly believe that Christianity is the one way to heaven than you'll keep returning to that.
At least that's my opinion.

And other religions do present themselves. You just refuse to see them. How else can you explain other people being just as sure of their religion as yours?
Christianity doesn't even present itsself at all in a lot of parts of the world until people come marching in with bibles.

And do you remember the thread made in the Islamic subforum in this guild a while back? I use this as an example because, whether you acknowledge it or not, you both make very similar points, just for different religions.

And for the man with the brain tumor, it doesn't make sense to assume that he was saved through prayer. Like I said before, statistically things like this are bound to happen every once in a while.
But to say that he had a tumor, went to church, and was better and therefore was saved by prayer, by that logic anything that happened in between his sick test and his cured test could have fixed him.
Like, if he ate a salad for lunch, he must have been cured by ranch dressing.
Even if it is a possibility, there's much too many possibilities.
Or what is the same man had prayed with his family, but they weren't Christian, and weren't even praying to your god?
Is it logical to assume that that God/s saved him?
And again, what of the millions of people who pray and don't get better?
How do they not outweigh the one person who got better?

Is it alright for a mother to kill her child when she tires of it?
According to Christianity, He had no problem killing everyone (well, almost everyone) in a flood.
I wouldn't be too cool with it if someone wanted to drown me in a flood...
How can God say that human life is important when he's killed more than any one person ever could?
And then claim that those were the actions of a loving god?

And I don't think I could ever agree that Hell, or at least Christian Hell, is justifyable.
If someone goes out and murders five people, but then says he is truly sorry and prays before he dies, he goes to Heaven.
But one of his victims happened to be Jewish and did not believe in Jesus, he doesn't get in, and gets to spend eternity, eternity in Hell?
I'm not sure if you believe that people who don't accept Jesus go to Hell, but that idea is so messed up to me.
Most of the nicest, most selfless people I know are not Christian.
I would not want to be part of heaven if they were not welcome.

And thank you! (: I really love studying people and the way they think. We're pretty fascinating creatures. XD
Actually I only got really interested in religion since becoming stronger in my atheism, I think because it allows me to look into religions without feeling like I'm doing something wrong. XD
And I might look into that book too. I love having my own perception of the world shaken.

And I don't know too much about Asperger's, but I do know what's it's like to not know how to act the way people expect you to, so I know how frustrating that can be sometimes.
I got better by watching my peers and how they interacted with eachother and building from that.
That probably doesn't help much though. :/ Sorry.

And thanks! That means a lot.
I try really hard to find a ballance between being respectful of religion without tiptoeing around it.

And it's possible.
But it's just as possible for the people of countless other religions all feeling the same thing to be correct too. (:

Again, I'm not sure if I understand.
But there's no way you would get objective proof.
In such places only believers will tell you that it's the work of God.
Unless you want to be more specific.
Because any places/things I've heard of that are tied to God require quite a bit of blind faith and assumptions.

No, I think if God does exist then He/She/It/They does not want to be identified.
He's certainly made it difficult enough.

I apologise.
As objective as proof of any phenomenon can be.
What speak you of work- I speak of the Lord made manifest.
Indeed.
To see Heaven surely is to believe.

That would, appear at least, to be tantamount to the problem.
It may well be that He only wills to be known to those as will to know Him, never to measure the immeasurable.

Still unclear and Please speak in Normal English I can't tell if ur using olden English or modern so In Laymen terms explain to me wtf your attempting to say. I got that to prove gods exists is to find him and since we don't know if we can find him he must exist which makes no sense by the way. But from what I got your saying because we cant prove if he does or doesn't exist u say he exists so My gods exist as well as yours going by your logic correct?

Yes, it is true that you cannot objectively prove or disprove the existence of any god.

However, if we want to examine the truth that is in religions, we might want to look at religions in a way which doesn't talk exclusively about their beliefs. Emile Durkheim, one of the earliest sociologists and anthropologists discusses the social phenomenon of religion in a society. While I won't go as far as my professor in interpreting Durkeim as calling religion "a society's symbolic worship of itself", I will mention that his definition of religion involved a group of people who followed it, and a set of applicable Symbols (including deities) which frame much of the context for people's experiences.

Why call them "symbols"? These stories, myths, gods, and other characters hold a lot of meaning in them. Since we can't talk about literal truth, we can talk about their effect on the society.

If you know what old English sounded like then I am sure you are using a gross exaggeration, if not then I shall correct you- I am most certainly and clearly communicating in modern English.

You're very close and yet so far. It is indeed my argument that to prove the existence of GOD we must simply locate Him and proof will be forthcoming. Whilst this is admittedly hard to impossible according to various unknown factors it is all we can do but to bicker.
Also it is true that a negative cannot be proven so we lack an exit from that route.
I do not argue that GOD or indeed any God should exist or not but rather we be pragmatic in the use of the tools we have- both that we respect the reality and value of fictions and that we conduct ourselves properly as though there was a GOD even if the contrary seems more likely.