Can you cite a study to support that? I wouldn't normally ask, but I've never seen that claim made before. They really aren't. There are innumerable ways to measure performance. The difficulty is in measuring self-esteem. More recent studies have shown that the positive correlation between high self-esteem and academic performance went in the opposite direction; that is, good academic performance lead to high self-esteem. And in any case, consensus seems to be that whatever the correlation is, it's insignificant. That's far too general a statement. I don't know what you mean by "a certain measure," or "meaningful and successful." Then please tell me how I have it wrong. How is this: ...is anything less than a conclusion based on an assumption? I said nothing of factual certainty. I was talking about studying evidence and reaching a conclusion based upon that evidence. You claimed that even this required more self-esteem than you can muster, yet you've since made a handful of claims based on far less than my claims were. Even this quoted passage above contradicts your initial claim, as it is a conclusion based on personal experience. So again I ask: Why can't you do the same with a study of religion?
KJV John 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned : but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. NIV John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
Cue Balerion's hasty (and cowardly) evasion of the topic. Typical. And before you go on one of your usual victim playing trips - My point stands: A strong atheist or a strong theist have certainties that a seeker (such as the OP) typically doesn't have. So there is a real problem in how and whether the seeker can communicate with someone who operates out of certainty about God, in a way that would be meaningful for the seeker. If the OP or I would know how to do this, this thread wouldn't be necessary.
In other words, atheists are not worth miracles because they don't believe? Why does it take belief to have miracles revealed? Is it because of the belief that miracles are perceived as revealed? By this definition that makes a "Saint" a sinner and a sinner a "Saint" (if the sinner believes and not the Saint). That is unjust.
John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him. This is one of a many.
I didn't evade anything. I asked you a question and you bailed because you didn't have a good answer. Saying "I might be wrong about that" is apparently not in your vocabulary. Are you typing this in front of a mirror? I mean, talk about delusional. This is just more of your evasive BS. It's complete nonsense. There doesn't have to be agreement for the exchange of ideas to be meaningful. And you know this; the reason you refused to answer is because you couldn't without sounding wrong. I exposed the flaw in your position, and you don't know how to deal with it. Hence, shifting blame to me through some ridiculous non-sequitur. It has nothing to do with certainties (and I'm no strong atheist, so you're lying through your teeth about that, as well) it has to do with your faulty logic, which I exposed and asked you to account for. You balked. For once in your life, own up to it.
You say I'm wrong, but you won't clarify, so I'm left with assumptions based on your actions. As always, feel free to point out my error. Until then, don't whine when opinions of your position are based on the words you've actually offered. And just so we're clear, here's a refresher: ...is a false statement. The trouble with measuring self-esteem as it relates to success is always in the measurement of self-esteem itself, as it is necessarily self-reported. Success can be measured by grades, by salary, or by any other kind of objective criteria you wish. ...is a uselessly vague statement. Not only that, but it assumes that self-esteem is required for anyone to come away from an interaction feeling that it was either meaningful (a subjective and opaque qualifier) or successful (another subjective and opaque qualifier). It's a statement that isn't even a statement, in that its claims are entirely unclear. What is meant by success? Meaningful? ...is circular, because it is a factual statement. In other words, this very statement makes claims of the truth despite that claim being "One can't know the truth without ego and confidence." This would not be a problem if you had not earlier said that you lack such ego and confidence. ...is a conclusion, even though you claim you cannot even make such conclusions without having some form of ego and self-esteem.
Why do you regard ''rejection'' as ''wrath''? Would you regard ''Whoever revises for his exam will be qualified, but whoever rejects revision will not be qualified'', as some kind of wrath? jan.
Your reading comprehension has failed you again. The rejection in the verse is done by the person; the wrath is done by God.
So you and jaylew say, but where does it say that? Here is a verse from the same chapter.... ''He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.'' ...which kind of validates my point. jan.
Um, it says it in the verse. To repeat: John 3:36 Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath remains on him. What can't you understand about that? The wrath is God's reaction to unbelief, not the unbelief itself. Is English your second language? I can't fathom how you've gotten this so wrong. It's the same verse, genius. The version you quote is from the King James Bible, whereas the first is from the NIV. How? I'm pretty sure even you don't know what you're talking about at this point.
To sit there and not faith, or sit there and faith other than God is folly. We all have a faith in our processor hitting time and time again. Can you sense a faith to say you believe other than God? You certainly do faith, can you identify one? I can tell you no one believes in conflicting ideas, the universal nature of belief.
1. Jaylews question was a response to ''Can you please show me where the scriptures actually condemn others for not believing?''. Explain how this is a ''condemnation for not believing? This verse clearly shows that the person has already condemned their own self by not believing. 2. Nothing indicates that. If he rejects the son, (or consciously makes the effort to NOT believe), then he is choosing his activity which must transgress righteousness and the result is God's wrath. 3. Erm... no it isn't Einstein, it's verse John 3:18. 4. I nailed it firstly by quoting John 3:18, and then in this post by schooling you on the notion that there are other ways to look at the Bible instead of the lying cheating way you choose to. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! jan.
And the only proper way to respond to a bully is to comply with his demands, riiight. If Timmy had given Johnny his lunch money, as Johnny demanded, then Johnny would not have to beat up Timmy. But because Timmy refused, poor Johnny had no choice but to beat up nasty nasty Timmy. You like the Bible, don't you? Its mood appeals to you, doesn't it?
