Protestantism

» Brian Tubbs - Supernatural

In response to Answering Migisi posted by pink101:

I will take that question up in a future blog or article - and we can discuss more in depth then. In the meantime, let me simply say this...

Even if you, Migisi, and a billion other people don't think we "need" the supernatural, that has absolutely ZERO bearing on whether the supernatural is real.

There are aspects of God that we don't understand and that some may not agree with or be comfortable with. But if God is real, then what we think of God makes little difference in terms of His actuality.

» pink101 - Answering Migisi

In response to Answering Migisi posted by Migisi:

.
To make people think you're well connected if you pull off some magic?
.
I wonder if Brother Jones knocked over that big deal yesterday? And, if so, was it because he is living right? What if he didn't get it after all our pra\yers?
.

.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Supernatural

In response to Supernatural posted by BrianTubbs:

.
I tend to think of those things for which we have no understanding as things we have not, as yet, discovered some natural cause.
.
I have a problem with single causation and believe things come about as a result of systemic causation.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - What do miracles prove?

In response to Answering Migisi posted by pink101:
.
To make people think you're well connected if you pull off some magic?
.
Hmm, yes. That would do it, wouldn't it. Handle some snakes, drink something poisonous...
.
You might be interested in this article (it's not long):
.
=======================
MIRACLES, WHAT DO THEY PROVE?
http://jdstone.org/cr/files/miracle.html
.
Some quick snippets:
.
"The more fabulous the miracle, the more credibility it lent to the one whom performed it.
...
"...In the four Gospels, no fewer than 232 miracles are reported. Of the 661 verses in Mark, 209 deal with miraculous doings. One third of Mark's gospel deals with miraculous events. John only reports of seven miraculous doings, but uses the word "sign" 17 times.
.
"While Judaism refuses to acknowledge miracles as proof of divine authorization, the Christian Gospels cite the miraculous acts of Jesus as proof of his alleged divinity. Each miracle performed by Jesus was designed to reveal that Jesus held the power of God to perform such works, illustrating not only supernatural powers and divine authorization, but also his own divinity.
...
"...Isn't it strange that God warned us about such things in Deuteronomy 13:2-3? About "The Idolatrous Prophet" God warns us: 13.2 - This is what you must do] when a prophet or a person who has visions in a dream arises among you. He may present you with a sign or miracle, 3 and on the basis of that sign or miracle, say to you, 'Let us try out a different god. Let us serve it and have a new spiritual experience.' 4 Do not listen to the words of that prophet or dreamer. God your Lord is testing you to see if you are truly able to love God your Lord with all your heart and all your soul.
...
"If a religion has to depend on miracles, that proves that it is not a true religion.
.
"A religion that has to depend *only* on prophecy that will come true only centuries after the prophecy was made is a failed religion." (end)
.
==========================
.
I tend to think of those things for which we have no understanding as things we have not, as yet, discovered some natural cause.
.
Me too.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Natural v. Supernatural

It's nice that the two of you agree, but that has no bearing on objective reality. Either Jesus turned water into wine or he didn't. Either he walked on water or he didn't. Either he healed people or he didn't. Either he rose from the dead or he didn't. You have no proof that he didn't do those miracles. I have no proof that he DID do them. So, it does come down to faith. It's clear that that the two of you have closed your minds to faith/belief in the supernatural. That's your right to do so.

*To say there's no "proof" is NOT to say that there is no evidence. The best evidence for Jesus' resurrection is the fact that an entire movement sprung up at that time believing it - and, in fact, with people DYING for that claim. Somehow, one has to explain the explosive growth of Christianity in the first century. Propagandas and conspiracies can't account for all of it. The best explanation is Jesus' resurrection.

» pink101 - Natural v. Supernatural

In response to Natural v. Supernatural posted by BrianTubbs:
.
Either Jesus turned water into wine or he didn't. Either he walked on water or he didn't. Either he healed people or he didn't. Either he rose from the dead or he didn't.
.
I wonder what difference it makes if he did those things or not. If he didn't, do you lose your faith?
.
If he did, do I change my mind?
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - Natural v. Supernatural

In response to Natural v. Supernatural posted by BrianTubbs:

You have no proof that he didn't do those miracles. I have no proof that he DID do them. So, it does come down to faith.
.
BINGO!! And what is the definition of faith? "Belief that does NOT rest on logical proof or material evidence." (thefreedictionary.com)
.
So why, oh why, do you keep talking about 'evidence' when 'faith' doesn't need it? You admitted above that you can't prove Jesus DID miracles. Can't you just say "This is what I believe" without the asterick? So what if other people believed it, and martyred themselves for it. People around the world have done the same for ~their~ myths and religions. It proves nothing.

-- posted by Migisi

» Migisi - Natural v. Supernatural

In response to Natural v. Supernatural posted by pink101:

.
If he didn't, do you lose your faith?
.
If he did, do I change my mind?

.

Excellent questions.

-- posted by Migisi

» Brian Tubbs - Faith Misconception

In response to Natural v. Supernatural posted by Migisi:

Faith is trust, not a blind leap in the dark. My contention is that, if you line up the major religions in the world and look at them closely (and I mean this in terms of their core origins and tenets - NOT their spinoffs, interpretive tangents, cultural divergences, etc.), then Christianity emerges as the most plausible of them all - based on the evidence.

However, the evidence will NOT take you all the way. You still must take a step of faith beyond the evidence. But it's not a giant leap.

» Brian Tubbs - And...

Christianity is much more plausible than atheism. For one thing, it's far more plausible to believe that God created the universe than to believe that it created itself (a scientific and logical impossibility). For another, there's just too much circumstancial and anecdotal evidence affirming spirituality and the supernatural for us to ignore. But I'm just scratching the surface. It makes more sense to believe in God than to reject His (or Her or Its) existence)