Divorced after 25 happy years

@fmf said
Grampy Bobby used to insist I was "saved" because I had once believed in Jesus even though I am now an agnostic atheist.

You can blame him if it doesn't work out the way he said it instead of the way it is described in scripture, as you are being held accountable for your choices in ignoring what Jesus did on your behalf. You justify yourself with subjective opinions over the Word; one is subjective, the other not. I don't believe in once saved, always saved; it is one of the very few things Rajk and I agree on; that, however, is purely doing what you just said our subjective opinions on the matter. The truth is the reality of God and the Word; we either are in Christ or just walking around in His name in our subjective selves.

@kellyjay said
You justify yourself with subjective opinions over the Word; one is subjective, the other not.

Your belief that "the Word" is "objective" is about as subjective as you can possibly get.

@kellyjay said
The truth is the reality of God and the Word.

I used to believe this, too.

@fmf said
Your belief that "the Word" is "objective" is about as subjective as you can possibly get.

Yes, we could say the same thing about a duck if we were talking about one too. Of the duck, that is just your opinion.

@fmf said
I used to believe this, too.

Now its a lie?

@kellyjay said
Now its a lie?

Nobody "lied" to me. And I haven't "lied" to you or to anyone about this.

Not believing something does not mean that the something in question is a "lie".

Please, KellyJay, don't go down the cretinous dj2becker rhetorical route.

@kellyjay said
Yes, we could say the same thing about a duck if we were talking about one too. Of the duck, that is just your opinion.

Faith in Jesus cannot in any shape, form or sense be analogized to a duck. If you are going to get all facetious and pouty, KellyJay, just stick it in your ear. 🙂

@fmf said
Nobody "lied" to me. And I haven't "lied" to you or to anyone about this.

Not believing something does not mean that the something in question is a "lie".

Please, KellyJay, don't go down the cretinous dj2becker rhetorical route.

I am talking about the scriptures is it the truth of God’s Word or not? It is a binary answer yes or no! I can say you believe it and another does not neither one of those people make it true or false the reality of the truth about scripture make it what it is.

It has been said that belief in God is simply a wish fulfillment of those scared of the dark. Others have said those that reject God for them it is a wish fulfillment for those afraid of the light. Neither of those can help us know what is true, to understand the difference between truth and falsehood.

The fact we are seeking truth doesn’t mean we can never come to know it. What is true is it the Word of God or not, a poll of what we think doesn’t answer that. The true answer to that question is important, our acceptance or rejection of doesn’t change the reality of it.

@kellyjay said
I am talking about the scriptures is it the truth of God’s Word or not?

I do not see your scriptures and beliefs as lies. When you tell me Jesus is "in" you, I do not think you are lying.

@kellyjay said
What is true is it the Word of God or not, a poll of what we think doesn’t answer that. The true answer to that question is important, our acceptance or rejection of doesn’t change the reality of it.

We can but speculate about such things.

@fmf said
I do not see your scriptures and beliefs as lies. When you tell me Jesus is "in" you, I do not think you are lying.

That is meaningless faith speech. What is true for you is not true for me is not a statement of absolute truth. If it were that would mean there is an absolute we can be held to putting us all under it, dispelling some beliefs so it is a contradiction.

All you are doing is saying I once thought this now I don’t as if how you look at things is all that matters! That covers what you think not what you say about it is true, real, authentic all you are talking about is yourself.

@kellyjay said
I responded, and you went silent. Evolution is a process, not something that starts anything, only a theory about an ongoing process, which is all of the genetic code drives. It sets up error checking and keeps copying cells running by the rules required for that to occur, a genetic code. You assume the code just sprang up without anyone writing it. Outside of your blind fai ...[text shortened]... ng to bother with that unless you can come up with something outside your own opinion on the matter.

The oldest fossils so far found are well over 3 billion years old; simple life forms, which evidently (the evidence is in the fossil record) became ever more complex, ending up with us. What happened prior to these simple life forms, self - replicating molecules/RNA/DNA is still theoretical, but whilst you take the stance that 'because you can't yet prove it it didn't happen' , my stance is that given all that we now know, there is in fact nothing to say that it could not have and did not happen. It's difficult to see that far back in time, it's work in progress, but since the beginning, as you rightly say, there has been an ongoing process which needs no divine intervention or intelligent thought. It doesn't even need 'your' mind to 'direct the transactions...'.

If you decide to write off the decades, nay centuries, of human endeavour which it has taken to discover that which we do know about natures' processes then so be it, stay with your talking snakes, and the words of people which were written long before evolution was even thought of. Your 'world views' are a few thousand years out of date, but there you go, your own particular version of blind faith is yours to have.

As to marriage, whether one 'believes' in the sanctity of marriage or not, and whatever may be ones' opinion, it's self - evident that any sanctity about the matter only lasts until one or both parties don't want it anymore, at which point the sanctity gets thrown out of the proverbial window.

@indonesia-phil said
The oldest fossils so far found are well over 3 billion years old; simple life forms, which evidently (the evidence is in the fossil record) became ever more complex, ending up with us. What happened prior to these simple life forms, self - replicating molecules/RNA/DNA is still theoretical, but whilst you take the stance that 'because you can't yet prove it it didn't ...[text shortened]... parties don't want it anymore, at which point the sanctity gets thrown out of the proverbial window.

AGAIN, today we find simpler cell life forms next to much more complex; one does not automatically mean older; we find both in our lifetimes' side by side even now. We can assume the dating is true; that does nothing to validate the newer ones came from, the older ones in question.

Even if I grant to you old and simpler before new more complex, the mechanism for these to form one from scratch without any guiding mind behind the process is still something you don't have, outside of your blind faith.

I can grant you time and simplicity; you have to explain how it started without anything guiding life's beginning; a mindless process somehow got information to compile, get stored, replicated, with error checking while having no goals, no targets. All the while living in a hostile environment that threatens life's existence, with environmental conditions, lack of food, and on and on with nothing that desired to keep the process working, guiding it so that all of the obstacles that needed to overcome were.

You think it could happen under a rock somewhere, in a pond, so it is no big deal, then explain it; if you cannot, if you can only say we cannot know how, BLIND FAITH is all you got, that is not an argument that is an admission you have nothing to offer. What we know now compared to over a hundred years ago doesn't make this all easier to figure out; the gap of how hard it is getting bigger, not smaller.

You didn't watch the link; I take it?

@kellyjay said
That is meaningless faith speech. What is true for you is not true for me is not a statement of absolute truth. If it were that would mean there is an absolute we can be held to putting us all under it, dispelling some beliefs so it is a contradiction.

We can but speculate about supernatural things - something unaffected by how many times you refer to your own opinions as "absolute truth".

@kellyjay said
All you are doing is saying I once thought this now I don’t as if how you look at things is all that matters! That covers what you think not what you say about it is true, real, authentic all you are talking about is yourself.

All you are talking about is yourself too, KellyJay. All we are doing here is talking about ourselves. When it comes to your faith, all that matters for you is how you look at your faith.

What's interesting is to witness your psychological need to reach into my past and try so desperately to decide what I perceived to be true back then.

Is it because talking to an ex-believer, deep down, makes you a tiny bit insecure? Or are you engaging in a bit of religionist willy-waving?