Are you a true Christian Believer?

[YOUTUBE]8cfX5Sm2er0[/YOUTUBE]

 

So, this is the best response you can muster in the name of Christianity? A Whitney Houston video? Isn't she still on drugs anyway? You'll have to excuse me for not taking you seriously.

 

This verse does not apply to all believers but only the apostles.

 

That's your interpretation. The text does not say that the signs are exclusive to the apostles. In Matthew 17:18-20 Jesus tells his apostles that they weren't able to drive the demon out of the boy because they have so little faith and he told them that they need only have faith the size of a mustard seed and they'd be able to make a mountain move from one place to another. That is really some very inclusive criteria. I guess your faith is smaller than the size of a mustard seed.

 

Step back, buddy. You don't even know me and you don't know anything about my faith. The text does not guarantee that any Christian will be able to drive out devils or be immune to poisons.

 

I'm a non-believer so of course I agree that biblical texts do not guarantee anything. That's the whole point: it contains claims that it can't live up to.

 

Without reading any posts in this thread, I do often wonder how many people are believers out of some form of divine visitation -versus- choice under uncertainty -versus- parental or societal conditioning / training.

 

The thread starter looks like a fucking goober.

I believe there to be an unconscious (or even conscious) threat on both sides of the divide with regard to religious belief. Believers and non-believers alike carry a concern that the other side may be right, which ultimately takes the debate beyond merely whether or not Christianity is true.

Kierkegaard rejected the idea that Christian belief could ever be grounded on a logical foundation, hence making a "leap to faith" the critical aspect of belief.

I also find that non-believers, particularly younger ones, also misuse rationality as a weapon against religious belief when the same truth holds. It isn't reason that will provide the strongest bulwark against faith, but faith itself. The faith of the non-believer.

 

Looks can be deceiving.

I can assure you that I have no such concern. Christianity is demonstrably disprovable. I wouldn't rule out the possibility of a higher being though, but that still wouldn't make me a non-atheist because I don't believe in gods as defined by religious literature.

Another ad hominem trap.

 

If you understood the Kierkegaard reference, then you'd also know that the ineffectuality of reason claim is something other an ad hominem or trap.

 

You're undermining that religious believers often feels fact = truth, when in actuality they are two different terms. As someone said, "Everyone is entitled to their own truths, but not to their own facts." As for Kierkegaard, he's just one of the many philosophers of that time with a perceived idea. While relevant in today's time, it's often more a cop-out answer than anything.

 

What are the factual underpinnings for asserting that gods exist or do not? There are none. Both claims emanate from a faith in what is ultimately an unknowable proposition.

Oh really? Please share with us who else among Kierkegaard's contemporaries articulated the argument that religious belief rests on an absurd foundation? While you're at it, also tell us who was the principal thinker that Kierkegaard reacted against and why?

 

It's ironic because only one who holds an agnostic position would make such a claim, yet you identify yourself as an atheist. Perhaps you are more of an agnostic atheist to be more specific hence why you grip yourself on philosophical claims or ideas based on concepts. By your claims, it would be equally as plausible to believe that an orbiting rainbow created our existence. In other words, why rely on the idea of the supernatural at all when other concepts could be as plausible?

Perhaps it's too hard for you to understand this or grip this bit of knowledge since you're incredibly deep into the idea of the supernatural, which is a human construct. Thus, the concept of god is a human construct. We crave the unknown and yet fear it. But that unknown gives us a beacon of thought which survived by mere idea we crave. We "demand" something greater than our own, which is a surviving idea. These aren't subjective statements by the way. These are facts based on what people refuse to step on because some people desire to panhandle to other people and accept what they believe, despite the claims based on dualistic ideas.

As for anyone of Kierkegaard's time, I know not of anyone in particular, but we could say individuals like Rene Descartes, Emmanuel Kant, Martin Heidegger among many actually been influenced under this person, albeit for many reasons. There were lesser known individuals who never had their works gained any light who agreed with that idea.

 

You're either so smart that my mind cannot comprehend what you're trying to say or your words are mostly gibberish.

Guess what I think?

And for clarity's sake, are you saying that Kierkegaard influenced Descartes and Kant? Were his ideas so powerful that he influenced thinkers who lived and died before he was born?

 

I'd say their ideas are as equally as plausible as Jared Loughner with his "conscious dreaming" idea. Hey, they all fall under the same plane, ya know.

 

Yes, his ideas were so powerful and extremely influential. He was so far ahead of his time, felt lonely, and went back to the future. Yeah, it's gibberish. But, I too am from Gibber. Google map it.