Singularity

That your faith is as blind as mine as to the future has been established as YOUR GOD'S WILL!!!

Why do you fight against "God's grace," its plan, which is that 1. you accept on blind faith, before 2. the "touching" results in activation of the divine propaganda chip?

Obviously the one who tries to explain the propaganda to one who is not outfitted with the divine chip is doomed to failure, no? That is the plan as it was described it to me, this past week.

Are you trusting the foolishness of preaching the gospel and allowing the increase to reflect God's glory? Or trying to justify your blind faith, to yourself and others, by your good works and trying to force results which you hope will prove you made a better choice, (so you can chant, "na nana na na, you stupid atheist!") and feel superior?

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

If a thing is universally agreed to be true, it is a fact, whether it is actually true or not. The Earth was flat for hundreds of years, because everyone agreed that it was so. That begs the question; was the earth flat all those years, or were the facts wrong? Facts and t***h are not synonyms, facts change as new information is acquired, t***h is immutable. That being said, we accept facts based on what we know right now, it may or may not be the t***h. Many errors occur because people, including scientists, accept as fact what is only a theory and try to build upon that. When the theory is proved wrong, all that came from it is wrong as well. 2+2=4 is a universally agreed to conclusion, but in quantum mechanics is not always true.

V***ses may cause cancer, but not all v***ses cause cancer all the time and not all cancers are caused by v***ses, so we cannot say "it is a fact that v***ses cause cancer", even though it is partially true. See the difference? Facts change, t***h does not and it is a mistake to decide that t***h is supported by known facts. It was a fact that Pluto was a Planet for years and years, but it wasn't true - the facts were wrong.

Atheists, agnostics and Christians alike are positing theories, none any more true or false than any other. People may choose to believe wh**ever they wish and garner "facts" to make themselves feel comfortable with their choice - no one can prove them one way or the other. What is true for you, may not be true for anyone else, as you have drawn conclusions from the facts as you understood them and the facts you chose to consider. Facts are relative, t***h is not, so YOUR "t***h" belongs to you exclusively, even if others share similar beliefs. A case in point, very few Christians believe EXACTLY the same on every Christian concept, neither does anyone else.

I suspect your "confusion" is a result of your reluctance to give credence to my theorem.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Faith is never blind, or at least it should not be. The only way to build faith is through knowledge. Many believe that all one needs is the bible (sola scriptura) but the bible never says that. The whole field of ancient theology is so vast you could not completely study it in a lifetime. For example the study of Christian apologetics gives reason for faith and intelligent people want reasons because they still have heads - it's just as simple as that. One of the reasons people are not getting reasons to defend the Faith is that they are not getting (being taught) the faith to defend. But that's beyond your comprehension so we'll let it go with that.

Singularity

Definition of fact in English:

fact
Top 1000 frequently used words
Pronunciation: /fakt/
NOUN

1A thing that is indisputably the case:
she lacks political experience—a fact that becomes clear when she appears in public
a body of fact
More example sentences Synonyms
1.1 (the fact that) Used in discussing the significance of something that is the case:
the real problem facing them is the fact that their funds are being cut
More example sentences
1.2 (usually facts) A piece of information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.
Example sentences Synonyms
1.3chiefly Law The t***h about events as opposed to interpretation:
there was a question of fact as to whether they had received the letter.

Your confusion is a fact.

Singularity

Then show me the proof of your faith.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Prove my faith is false/invalid and that God is nonexistent.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

How do you prove faith wrong, since it is a subjective fact?

Or do you mean to ask to prove that God is nonexistent.

If I pray, and I don't get the simplest prayer answered than God does not exist.

I get the same result if I don't pray.

Dummy Boy Loc: Michigan

Matthew 18: 4-7

4“Whoever then humbles himself as this child, he is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. 5“And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
Stumbling Blocks

7“Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come; but woe to that man through whom the stumbling block comes!

Singularity

You are an i***t.

Singularity

You made the claim faith is never blind, show me what you see by faith.

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

What's obviously beyond your own comprehension is that people can and do believe differently than you do, and it makes it them none the lesser.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

I never said it made you lesser, it's You atheists that believe people of Faith, particularly and specifically Christians, who are ignorant, superstitious, gullible jerks who believe in some sky god. That's your interpretation of what we believe not our own but you use that sort of language to belittle and try to diminish our faith. That's fine; do your worst. Furthermore, you have the mistaken notion that we're trying to force our faith on you which we are actually forbidden to do. If God won't force Himself on you understand that no Christian can do likewise.

Singularity

Then why are you here now?

I have the right to opine that your philosophy is stupid and your behavior boorish and unchristian by many Christians standards, without you following me around to hassle me in direct defiance of your celestial marching orders!

You have registered disagreement.

Wake me up when you are done with the rest of your proselytizing/antagonizing/insulting. I want to see the sandal dusting. I yearn for the sandal dusting. Please start dusting off your sandals. Please.

Nondeferential clarity really bothers you enough that it's clearly the very definition of an "occasion of sin."

From Wikipedia:

In case you dont know, in Roman Catholic teaching, an occasion of sin is an external set of circumstances—whether of things or persons—which either because of their special nature or because of the frailty common to humanity or peculiar to some individual, incite or entice one to sin.

There are both proximate and remote occasions, where a proximate occasion is one in which men of like calibre for the most part fall into mortal sin, or one in which experience points to the same result from the special weakness of a particular person. The remote occasion lacks these elements. All theologians are agreed that there is no obligation to avoid the remote occasions of sin both because this would, practically speaking, be impossible and because they do not involve serious danger of sin.

The proximate occasion may be necessary, that is, such as a person cannot abandon or get rid of. Whether this impossibility be physical or moral does not matter for the determination of the principles hereinafter to be laid down. A proximate occasion may be deemed necessary when it cannot be given up without grave scandal or loss of good name or without notable temporal or spiritual damage.

It may be voluntary, within the competency of one to remove. Moralists distinguish between a proximate occasion which is continuous and one which, whilst it is unquestionably proximate, yet confronts a person only at intervals. Someone who is in the presence of a proximate occasion at once voluntary and continuous is bound to remove it.

In confession, a refusal on the part of a penitent to do so would make it imperative for the confessor to deny absolution. It is not always necessary for the confessor to await the actual performance of this duty before giving absolution; he may be content with a sincere promise, which is the minimum to be required.

In root cause analysis the occasion of sin is identical to the idea of "set-up factors", i,e, situations in which it is likely for a person to perform dysfunctionally. In the nuclear industry community there is a set of ideas called "Event Free tools" that includes the idea of avoiding "Error Likely Situations", which are also called "Human Error Precursors."

In social counseling there is the acronymic advice, HALT (Hungry? Angry? Lonely? Tired?) relating to situations in which judgment is impaired. These may be regarded as "occasions of sin."

J Anthony Loc: Connecticut

Well, no one on this particular thread was attacking anyone or even discussing your particular faith. You popped-up here on the defensive and no one had attacked you.
I don't make presumptions or judgements about others' beliefs or religions, or their characteristics derived thereof. It's hypocritical.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

To you faith is subjective therefore it is made easier for you to reject. There are four responses to prayer. Yes, no, not now and I've been waiting for you to ask. You believe you can subjugate The Creator to your control and desires? Foolish boy.