A question for christians

[thenormalyears]

You believe in a God that is all knowing, he knows the past, present and the future, correct?

[OccamsRazor]

Honestly it's not about putting fear into the atheist, it's about questioning their belief structure. Are you sure God doesn't exist, and can you prove it to yourself?

Of course I am not sure that God exists, as you likewise admit that you are not certain beyond doubt that Thor doesn't exist. One doesn't simply believe in something because they can't disprove it.

but if you're not sure, I'd do some more research.

I have admitted the I cannot disprove God's existence. I would also suggest that disproving the existence of any metaphysical entity is not possible. How do I now proceed with my further research into this?

So to tell a believer that God does not exist is contridictory to everything they know, and would be like saying to someone your parents don't exist.

The burden of proof is with the believer. If you told me that my mum does not exist then I could quite easily mail you a photo of her. I could even bring her to your house and introduce you to her. I could show you my birth certificate (with her name on it) and her driving licence to prove it was my mum. We could even get a DNA test to prove maternity.
I have therefore proven "100% admissible in court" (to quote bernee51) that my mum does actually exist. The burden of proof lay with me and I fulfilled the requirements. What bernee is suggesting is that you provide similar proof for God, you assert that God exists, you therefore must prove that God exists.

because God is as real to me as my family.

Could you mail me a photo of him? (Sorry, that was a little facetious).

[harvey1]

I'm sure there are immigration issues that Sweden and the rest of the EU has had to deal with, but in the case of the United States the 28% that I'm referring to accounts for about 80 million people. That's almost ten times the population of Sweden.

Yes but you were using percentages and I was assuming that because you were discussing economic disparity, that your figures were per capita.

Economic disparity is not only a per capita problem. Poor people tend to migrate to the cities, and so millions of people live in concentrated areas of a city bringing about a number of harsh living conditions. In any case, is Sweden really suffering from migration issues and past racial tensions that have left whole city blocks in ruin? Personally, I can't understand why the U.S. is not seen as the model of the world in bringing large sectors of world population together and living mostly in harmony together. We're not Beruit. We're not Stockholm either.

[OccamsRazor]

Economic disparity is not only a per capita problem.

But it is unwise to suggest that, for example China is a poorer country than Albania because it has more people in poverty.

I can't understand why the U.S. is not seen as the model of the world in bringing large sectors of world population together and living mostly in harmony together.

Maybe, but I have found the US far more ghettoised than some other places (like London....but then again I would say that ). That opinion is a little unscientific however (i.e. it is based on what I happen to have seen and not on actual data).

[McCulloch]

I have an actual relationship with God, that I have experienced. Many others have experienced this very same relationship with God. So to tell a believer that God does not exist is contridictory to everything they know, and would be like saying to someone your parents don't exist.
[...]
I personally have searched, and found. I KNOW God exists, not because I've been brainwashed, not because I'm some dolt who doesn't know any better, but because God is as real to me as my family.

emphasis added
Let's examine this statement using your daughter as an example, assuming you have a daughter of at least a certain age.
If I ask to meet your daughter, and you and she agree, I can meet with her, shake her hand, talk to her and have her talk to me. You can show me a photo of her. She probably lives at a specific address. She takes part in specific activities, which can be independently validated. She has measurable attributes, height, weight etc.
If I ask to meet your God, I cannot meet with him, shake his hand. Yes, I can, apparently, talk to him, but there is no objective way to know if he has talked to me or anyone else. There is no photo. There is no address. There are no specific verifiable activities that he participates in. He has no measurable attributes.
I must conclude that your statement is hyperbole.

[harvey1]

But it is unwise to suggest that, for example China is a poorer country than Albania because it has more people in poverty.

Why is it unwise? Impoverished ghettos create severe problems that don't exist if the impoverished areas are smaller or more widely dispersed. Human culture changes in such conditions that make it more difficult for a second-generation to emerge out of poverty. Schools become war zones, playgrounds become recruiting areas for drug users, and housing costs drop so that buildings become abandoned and jobs leave the area. All of these conditions interact with each other to bring about spiraling and almost unsolvable conditions.

Maybe, but I have found the US far more ghettoised than some other places.

Well, as I said, the racism issues that made up much of the history of America are responsible for 13% of the population being discriminated against. The large wave of Latin migration would be difficult for any industrialized country to absorb. (Although, traditionally, almost all large migrations in the U.S. created "ghettos," but they were slowly dissolved as that population merged into the general population.)

[OccamsRazor]

Why is it unwise? Impoverished ghettos create severe problems that don't exist if the impoverished areas are smaller or more widely dispersed.

Errr...that was what I was saying. For example 5 million refugees turning up in Luxembourg would be likely to create a bigger socio-economic problem than 8 million refugees turning up in Australia. This would be purely because there is a bigger population and landmass for them to distribute even though it is a smaller absolute number. My point is that these issues should be considered on a per capita basis, or as you originally put it, as a percentage of the population.

[harvey1]

This would be purely because there is a bigger population and landmass for them to distribute even though it is a smaller absolute number. My point is that these issues should be considered on a per capita basis, or as you originally put it, as a percentage of the population.

If the impoverished population settles into a half dozen cities, then per capita can give very misleading results. I think for the most part, when people think of the real negative lifestyles that occur in the U.S., they are referring to the major inner cities where migration and racism have their biggest impact to the country.

[Goat]

Of course, you forgot that you just might be worshipping a false god. After all, it was written that 'God is not a man, that he should lie, and god is not the son of man, that he shoudl repent'. According to some, that means that the son of man is not god. Worshipping a false god is idoltry.

First of all, it would be correct to say that Jesus is deity incarnated in a human body. He is not "man" in the complete species sense of the intended meaning of that scripture.

Fast forward to the Book of Daniel, which was written at a time when the “son of man” phrase had a specific and known meaning. In the context of Daniel 7:13, where one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion and sovereign power and universal worship of the sort that God alone possesses, the significance of Jesus' "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne. "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context. And if the person in Daniel 7:13-14 is only someone “like” a son of man, then it certainly implies there must be some differences. Otherwise it would say something like, “A son of man” came before the Ancient of Days.” Also, Rashi understood Daniel 7:13-14 to be Messianic, so the "son of man" must be one amazing individual in his thinking.

In addition, at the time Numbers 23:19 was written, God had not yet become man (Christ), so the statement certainly does not preclude a future incarnation.

Well, it is true then, and it is true for all time. God is not a man, and God is not the son of man. That is my belief. That is what the Tanakh says. and 7:13-14 says 'Like" the son of man. SO, when has Jesus been refered to as 'Like the son of man'???

[Cathar1950]

SO, when has Jesus been refered to as 'Like the son of man'???

Good point Goat. I always found it interesting when Jesus speaks of the “son of man” he sounds like he is talking in the third person. Maybe he thought some one was coming after him.
I appreciate the Nazarene and Ebonite take on the story. Jesus was a man/prophet/zealot priest that dies a martyr at Roman hands by setting up a theocracy centered in the temple and now sits at Gods right hand having been adopted and will return to judge mankind by the good and evil works. His disciples had visions of him; his brothers were his disciples and his brother lead the church for 30+ years in Jerusalem respected by his fellow zealot Jews. After the war they all disappear and we get Paul and Pauline gospels. The Pauline gentile followers take control and destroy any remaining people or writings that disagreed with new Roman order and their new messiah the Emperor. Then spend 100’s of years killing Christian heretics. If fact more heretics then the 1000’s of Jews they killed. I doubt there was an empty tomb; they didn’t need one until the fall of Jerusalem. Then they needed stories because the real center of the church had been destroyed, the temple where the disciples spent the last days when not on missions. Diaspora Jews, God fears and gentiles grew where Paul had communities. Any Jew or friend that spoke of theocracy kept out of it or died on crosses and with Roman swords. Thousands were slaughtered in Palestine, Alexander and other Jewish communities. Thus many years after the fact the gospels and anonymous letters where created to tell a story often with many layers and variants. Only fragment of the beginning can be found buried under 100’s of years of tradition redaction and editing.
If you want to see a modern phenomena then look at the Mormons. In less the 200 years they have grown and even have scholar defending their beliefs. Look at all their writings.
There were many writing within years of Joseph Smith’s death. At least 3 branches I am aware of that all felt they were called by Smith to lead his church. There was
Jesse James Strang, the King of Beaver Island, Brigham Young was the second prophet and president of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and of course Joseph Smith III, leader of the "Reorganization" of the Latter Day Saint church eldest surviving son of Joseph Smith, Jr ... Latter Day Saint movement and succeeded his father as Prophet.
And they say it couldn't have been done in the 1st century.

[Easyrider]

Of course, you forgot that you just might be worshipping a false god. After all, it was written that 'God is not a man, that he should lie, and god is not the son of man, that he shoudl repent'. According to some, that means that the son of man is not god. Worshipping a false god is idoltry.

First of all, it would be correct to say that Jesus is deity incarnated in a human body. He is not "man" in the complete species sense of the intended meaning of that scripture.

Fast forward to the Book of Daniel, which was written at a time when the “son of man” phrase had a specific and known meaning. In the context of Daniel 7:13, where one "like a son of man" comes to the Ancient of Days (Almighty God) and is given dominion and sovereign power and universal worship of the sort that God alone possesses, the significance of Jesus' "son of man" usage cannot be overstated. It is functionally equivalent to saying that the one like a son of man is rightful heir and successor to the divine throne. "Son of man" is essentially the same as "Son of God" in this context. And if the person in Daniel 7:13-14 is only someone “like” a son of man, then it certainly implies there must be some differences. Otherwise it would say something like, “A son of man” came before the Ancient of Days.” Also, Rashi understood Daniel 7:13-14 to be Messianic, so the "son of man" must be one amazing individual in his thinking.

In addition, at the time Numbers 23:19 was written, God had not yet become man (Christ), so the statement certainly does not preclude a future incarnation.

Well, it is true then, and it is true for all time. God is not a man, and God is not the son of man. That is my belief. That is what the Tanakh says. and 7:13-14 says 'Like" the son of man. SO, when has Jesus been refered to as 'Like the son of man'???

See what I wrote above.