do you believe in God?

[ginandtonic]

Dai, you are quite correct to say that this is not a 'slag off thread', I was just curious as to what drove the 'belief' as I have explained before.
Sometimes I think it works like this:-

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

You didn't answer my question - " what do you think of Malcolm X?", Daihlo

[Daihlo]

Dai, you are quite correct to say that this is not a 'slag off thread', I was just curious as to what drove the 'belief' as I have explained before.
Sometimes I think it works like this:-

"For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible"

You didn't answer my question - " what do you think of Malcolm X?", Daihlo

As a believer, I wouldnt say that no proof is necessary for myself anyway. In fact, before I came to believe, I just accepted the general opinions and writtings/teachings etc on what I thought Christianity is. Since becoming a believer, I have researched more extensively and widely into this subject that anything else in my life.
There is faith, but sometimes certain types of proof come after believing.

As for Malcolm X, not sure, why do you ask?

Daihlo.

[Emmet J]

I love the way that you once again have accused me of 'slagging off Christians and Jesus' and of 'running down views that don't agree with mine' when this can be seen to clearly not be the case in any of my posts. It is not the case since:

a) I happen to think that Christianity (in as much as the term relates to the teachings attributed to Jesus of Nazareth) is actually mostly a fine idea in principle.

b) I have never expressed to you what my views are, so you cannot possibly discern when I am 'running down' views which are not in line with them.

If someone has faith, true faith in the sense that requires no claims to 'proof,' then I will not enter into a debate with them, because there is nothing I can say to change their minds, as ginandtonic said: "For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible." Faith does not require proof, so to bicker over the need for proof can imply a weakness of faith (IMHO).

What I have a problem with is people claiming access to some truth, proof, fact, etc. which is evidence for something which cannot currently be evidenced, such as the existence or nature of God, the divinity of Jesus or the theory of evolution. The reason I can't stay quiet in these cases is because the people who claim these proofs are either guilty of lying or repeating lies (which is perhaps the lesser charge of 'wilful ignorance') and I believe that someone should make the case for the opposing side of the argument so that eveyone has all the information with which to make their own informed decision.

[bigleeroy1]

immmmmmmm aliiiiiivvvveeeeeeeee

[Rob T]

In my opinion, someone who does not believe, in his or her darkest hour , will have some sort of belief.

Well, that's lovely and arrogant of you.

[ginandtonic]

As a believer, I wouldnt say that no proof is necessary for myself anyway. In fact, before I came to believe, I just accepted the general opinions and writtings/teachings etc on what I thought Christianity is. Since becoming a believer, I have researched more extensively and widely into this subject that anything else in my life.
There is faith, but sometimes certain types of proof come after believing.

As for Malcolm X, not sure, why do you ask?

Daihlo.

X was someone whom turned his life around, in your posts i see traits of him in you.

[ginandtonic]

immmmmmmm aliiiiiivvvveeeeeeeee

Big Lee are you turning into an african-american evangelist?