Let's talk about god
- Thread starter Karaka
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
For all the others :
I asked a simple question. A legitimate question. A question which I justified and took great pains to explain. A question which could teach us all something. That question was :
Is there something you can conceive which would make you change your mind about Jesus?
It is a question anybody who is intellectually honest and who believes in Jesus should ask himself. It is a question most appologists answer in the affirmative and then give their personal something. It is a question most educated atheist have an answer for too. But when I ask you that question here all of the sudden : There is an enemy in the camp! (jesussaves – post #255)
B1Davanda's answer was clearest and boldest:
No.
Magenta evaded it.
Later, Depleted ranted about my hidden agenda and my intent to « destroy the weak in faith »by asking that question, obviously feeling it was threatening to faith. Requoting it twice. And she actually made a good case for it being a threat I would say, I was impressed.
Ladybug calls it a « profanity » and asked people not to requote it so it could be edited out from this forum more easily. A profanity ? Seriously ?
It appears to me I've hit a nerve somehow. What's so dangerous about that question ? Can a question be dangerous to faith ? Is faith vulnerable to questioning ? Hmm... now that Depleted makes me reflect upon it, I see it is so. No wonder you don't like my question.
But I'm disapointed in your reactions, people, I really am. You have gone too far. I can not accept what you are saying because reasonable and honest people do not refuse the possibility that they could be in error. Your dogmatic fundamentalism is utterly repulsive to me and I understand now why it is repulsive to so many, even other christians. I thought that christians on this website would be thinking, like most sensible people do, that being open minded was a virtue and that they would welcome dialogue. It turns out I was mistaken, I landed in a nest of fundamentalists. This « no » is shoking to me. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and that's what I get.
Honestly I have better things to do than talking with people so close minded they won't even consider the possibility that they could be in error, who think that even hinting that they could would be threatening the faith of the « weak » among them. To me that's a complete surrender of reason and common sense and there can be no meaningfull discussion if one side takes the position from the start that the other can not possibly be right. If nothing anybody can say or show you could have any impact on what you believe, then you are not worth talking to. I came here to weigh the pro and cons of what you were saying, a pretty brave move I thought. I did learn a fair bit, but I don't see where we can move from here. Most of you don't seem to think there are cons in what you are saying so you only consider what you claim is the absolute truth. You are in a closed loop where belief reinforce itself, ad nauseam, in an orgy of confirmation bias. That defeats my purpose.
But it is possible that the more extreme among you take the front of the scene and that others, intimidated, do not dare respond from fear of attracting your ire. So I repeat the question and if anybody wants to keep the discussion going, I'm game, just send me a personal message and we can do that in private( beyondET : thinking of what you said for example, but mostly JimmieD), but those who can't or won't answer can stop posting here and ignore this thread from now on, I'm not interested in talking to them any more and I won't respond to them after that.
I imagine some of you are going to talk trash about me and dismiss me as another dogmatic « maltheist », having « faith in the religion of naturalism » as said Robbomango, up to no good and trying to lure the kids away as implied Depleted . I just would like you to ponder on who is open to the other side's view here. I repeatedly said I was, I came here and talked to you, I discussed your views with respect and curiosity. And you threw me off with a resounding « NO » when I merely hinted that being mistaken is something everybody, even you, is at risk of. I do not see how you could reconcile you accusing me of being close minded with your own close mindedness. I wonder if it is that you consider close minded anybody who doesn't agree with you. Well, that's more close minded than I can deal with.
Magenta you ask : Will you allow Jesus a foothold in your life?
If what it takes to be a good christian is to be close minded, then I reject your Jesus and I don't think he is worth worshiping. But deep down I don't think your fundamentalism is really the best christianity has to offer.
Magenta you also say :
When God spoke to me, I knew it was God
Garee concurs, saying « We know Christ, the anointing Holy Spirit of God through His law of faith, as it works in us »
others have made similar claims
That statement, that it seems most of you would accept as self evident, is nothing of the sort. You sound totally ignorant of the latest advances in neurology and psychology, you even seem to dismiss the though that science can have anything to say about the matter. That's plain denial and that's not doing you credit. You seem to ignore for example that knowledge and the awareness of knowing arise in different areas of the brain.
It means you can feel that you know something while not actually knowing that something or even if that something is not true. The most common example is deja vu. This fact casts doubt on how you « knew it was God » because you could be having this impression even if what you believed in was false. Have you looked into what we know about how we know ? Doesn't sound like it. Without that understanding you can not claim knowing anything without a very high risk of being in error and no way of showing you aren't.
And then you ask questions such as this :
Why would I believe you or some unknown philosophers and/or scientists above my own experiences, and the Word of God? What do your scientists and philosophers know?
Garee says something similar.
Well, without going yet once more through the provisional knowledge concept, a good example of what scientists know, let's say regarding spiritual epiphanies, is that there are three main competing explanations available to us, (not just one as you pretend).
They are :
1 – spiritual : direct revelation from a higher power
2 - pathological : it didn't really happen, hysteria, shizoid personality disorder, etc
3 – physiological: feelings that arise directly from activation of localized areas of the brain (limbic system), accidentarily or not.
Each of of those is a possibility although only #2 and #3 have been shown conclusively to explain real life cases, which makes #1 a smaller probability among the lot. When you or anybody else go through a spiritual epiphany, it always feels like #1 and you're convinced. But #2 and #3 feel exactly the same, so the person having the experience, when it happens to her, can not tell the difference. So your certainty that it was #1 is not justified if you have not made sure it wasn't #2 nor #3. It is actually less likely to be #1 than any of the other two given what we know about how we know. So if you take it on faith that it is #1, you are likely to be mistaken about it. It is demonstrable that some people are mistaken that way. Why not you ? If you do not make any effort to find out if it was #1 or #2 or #3, then you are deluding yourself into thinking it MUST have been #1. The key point is that it doesn't matter how it feels to you because all 3 feel the same. I'm utterly baffled how somebody could deny that and go on claiming absolute knowledge that Jesus touched her without further inquiry.
I asked a simple question. A legitimate question. A question which I justified and took great pains to explain. A question which could teach us all something. That question was :
Is there something you can conceive which would make you change your mind about Jesus?
It is a question anybody who is intellectually honest and who believes in Jesus should ask himself. It is a question most appologists answer in the affirmative and then give their personal something. It is a question most educated atheist have an answer for too. But when I ask you that question here all of the sudden : There is an enemy in the camp! (jesussaves – post #255)
B1Davanda's answer was clearest and boldest:
No.
Magenta evaded it.
Later, Depleted ranted about my hidden agenda and my intent to « destroy the weak in faith »by asking that question, obviously feeling it was threatening to faith. Requoting it twice. And she actually made a good case for it being a threat I would say, I was impressed.
Ladybug calls it a « profanity » and asked people not to requote it so it could be edited out from this forum more easily. A profanity ? Seriously ?
It appears to me I've hit a nerve somehow. What's so dangerous about that question ? Can a question be dangerous to faith ? Is faith vulnerable to questioning ? Hmm... now that Depleted makes me reflect upon it, I see it is so. No wonder you don't like my question.
But I'm disapointed in your reactions, people, I really am. You have gone too far. I can not accept what you are saying because reasonable and honest people do not refuse the possibility that they could be in error. Your dogmatic fundamentalism is utterly repulsive to me and I understand now why it is repulsive to so many, even other christians. I thought that christians on this website would be thinking, like most sensible people do, that being open minded was a virtue and that they would welcome dialogue. It turns out I was mistaken, I landed in a nest of fundamentalists. This « no » is shoking to me. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and that's what I get.
Honestly I have better things to do than talking with people so close minded they won't even consider the possibility that they could be in error, who think that even hinting that they could would be threatening the faith of the « weak » among them. To me that's a complete surrender of reason and common sense and there can be no meaningfull discussion if one side takes the position from the start that the other can not possibly be right. If nothing anybody can say or show you could have any impact on what you believe, then you are not worth talking to. I came here to weigh the pro and cons of what you were saying, a pretty brave move I thought. I did learn a fair bit, but I don't see where we can move from here. Most of you don't seem to think there are cons in what you are saying so you only consider what you claim is the absolute truth. You are in a closed loop where belief reinforce itself, ad nauseam, in an orgy of confirmation bias. That defeats my purpose.
But it is possible that the more extreme among you take the front of the scene and that others, intimidated, do not dare respond from fear of attracting your ire. So I repeat the question and if anybody wants to keep the discussion going, I'm game, just send me a personal message and we can do that in private( beyondET : thinking of what you said for example, but mostly JimmieD), but those who can't or won't answer can stop posting here and ignore this thread from now on, I'm not interested in talking to them any more and I won't respond to them after that.
I imagine some of you are going to talk trash about me and dismiss me as another dogmatic « maltheist », having « faith in the religion of naturalism » as said Robbomango, up to no good and trying to lure the kids away as implied Depleted . I just would like you to ponder on who is open to the other side's view here. I repeatedly said I was, I came here and talked to you, I discussed your views with respect and curiosity. And you threw me off with a resounding « NO » when I merely hinted that being mistaken is something everybody, even you, is at risk of. I do not see how you could reconcile you accusing me of being close minded with your own close mindedness. I wonder if it is that you consider close minded anybody who doesn't agree with you. Well, that's more close minded than I can deal with.
Magenta you ask : Will you allow Jesus a foothold in your life?
If what it takes to be a good christian is to be close minded, then I reject your Jesus and I don't think he is worth worshiping. But deep down I don't think your fundamentalism is really the best christianity has to offer.
Magenta you also say :
When God spoke to me, I knew it was God
Garee concurs, saying « We know Christ, the anointing Holy Spirit of God through His law of faith, as it works in us »
others have made similar claims
That statement, that it seems most of you would accept as self evident, is nothing of the sort. You sound totally ignorant of the latest advances in neurology and psychology, you even seem to dismiss the though that science can have anything to say about the matter. That's plain denial and that's not doing you credit. You seem to ignore for example that knowledge and the awareness of knowing arise in different areas of the brain.
It means you can feel that you know something while not actually knowing that something or even if that something is not true. The most common example is deja vu. This fact casts doubt on how you « knew it was God » because you could be having this impression even if what you believed in was false. Have you looked into what we know about how we know ? Doesn't sound like it. Without that understanding you can not claim knowing anything without a very high risk of being in error and no way of showing you aren't.
And then you ask questions such as this :
Why would I believe you or some unknown philosophers and/or scientists above my own experiences, and the Word of God? What do your scientists and philosophers know?
Garee says something similar.
Well, without going yet once more through the provisional knowledge concept, a good example of what scientists know, let's say regarding spiritual epiphanies, is that there are three main competing explanations available to us, (not just one as you pretend).
They are :
1 – spiritual : direct revelation from a higher power
2 - pathological : it didn't really happen, hysteria, shizoid personality disorder, etc
3 – physiological: feelings that arise directly from activation of localized areas of the brain (limbic system), accidentarily or not.
Each of of those is a possibility although only #2 and #3 have been shown conclusively to explain real life cases, which makes #1 a smaller probability among the lot. When you or anybody else go through a spiritual epiphany, it always feels like #1 and you're convinced. But #2 and #3 feel exactly the same, so the person having the experience, when it happens to her, can not tell the difference. So your certainty that it was #1 is not justified if you have not made sure it wasn't #2 nor #3. It is actually less likely to be #1 than any of the other two given what we know about how we know. So if you take it on faith that it is #1, you are likely to be mistaken about it. It is demonstrable that some people are mistaken that way. Why not you ? If you do not make any effort to find out if it was #1 or #2 or #3, then you are deluding yourself into thinking it MUST have been #1. The key point is that it doesn't matter how it feels to you because all 3 feel the same. I'm utterly baffled how somebody could deny that and go on claiming absolute knowledge that Jesus touched her without further inquiry.
Magenta you go on : « They are saying you can't know, and you are putting your faith in them. Hmmm. Why do they even think they have anything worthwhile to pass along? «
Swordman says, talking about science :
« All the above changes annually, while the scriptures never change. »
First , Magenta, you are belaboring under the assumption that not being certain means not knowing anything. That's not the same thing, just think about it.
Knowledge is provisional, it is ever changing, ever being refined, revised. When scientists are wrong, they admit it, and then adopt the thing that showed they were wrong and that is by definition more probable of being true. If you do that consistently and long enough, you are bound to get closer to truth and what you say is definitely worthwile to pass along. You wouldn't be writing on your computer if it wasn't the case that some people found out about electrons this way. But absolute knowledge is elusive, you could be wrong again and not know it. Yes, even you.
So science is not a matter of faith in an absolute truth, it is a matter of limited trust in a provisional knowledge, with the understanding that that knowledge is open to revision.
Any knowledge not open to revision is dogmatic and given human failibity, most likely to be wrong. And that's why knowledge obtained by faith or by revelation is to be taken with a grain of salt, if it is not open to revision, then it could be anchored in its mistakes. Science learns. Faith affirms, even when what it affirms is contradictory to Reality. Is the Earth flat ? Is the Sun turning around the Earth ? Is the Earth only 6000 years old? No. Yet scripture imply it is so and people in the past or up to this day claim it is so. Faith and revealed scripture can be wrong and should change, should adapt, to counteract that. Only when they do, we call it science, not faith. When science disagrees with the bible, you cling to the bible and distrust science. I do the opposite because the scientific method has been designed to overcome our mistakes and scripture has been designed to perpetuate them (if I interpret the quotes posted here correctly, i.e. Hebrews 11:1). The beliefs you profess are self perpetuating. They do not allow for error so you don't see the possibility of error.
Swordman also says :
Billions of people will find themselves having missed the mark with God, who insist on defining their own terms of knowing God.
You accept what you just said on faith. What can be more « defining your own terms of knowing God » than claiming your own subjective experience enables you to claim absolute knowledge of God, whatever that experience was ?
Faith has been shown to be an unreliable epistelomogy in practical matters and even you christians show distrust of it. You don't pretend to « know » your car will keep working if you pray for it, you bring your car to service at the mechanic. You don't just have faith your open artery will miraculously stop pouring your blood on the pavement, you rush to the hospital. Faith also has been shown to be plain wrong in some cases. Nobody can deny that some people pretend to know things that are wrong, you christians just have to think of the muslims or whichever religious group you don't like for examples. A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Your certainty, your faith, is not special. It is the same faulty faith as the muslims and the lunatics and you shouldn't trust it. You don't trust it when somebody use it to disagree with you but you trust it for yourself. Trying to find out if God is knowable by other means than an unpractical and demonstrably unreliable way is crucial, I would think. What such way do we have at our disposal ? Science. Maybe we should listen to what it says after all... and if it turns out that science shows you are wrong, well, that would mean you were wrong and that's not the end of the world. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just accepting the possibility and trying to find out what's true and what's not.
Robbomango
The Religion of Naturalism, a faith based idea that things have made themselves is often labeled science these days.
What close minded ignorance... where did you pick up that particular brand of nonsense ? I'm shocked somebody coud say something like that. You have just demonstrated you do not know the first thing about how science works. I had no idea people in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century still thought like this outside of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan... thanks for shattering my naivete.
Swordman says, talking about science :
« All the above changes annually, while the scriptures never change. »
First , Magenta, you are belaboring under the assumption that not being certain means not knowing anything. That's not the same thing, just think about it.
Knowledge is provisional, it is ever changing, ever being refined, revised. When scientists are wrong, they admit it, and then adopt the thing that showed they were wrong and that is by definition more probable of being true. If you do that consistently and long enough, you are bound to get closer to truth and what you say is definitely worthwile to pass along. You wouldn't be writing on your computer if it wasn't the case that some people found out about electrons this way. But absolute knowledge is elusive, you could be wrong again and not know it. Yes, even you.
So science is not a matter of faith in an absolute truth, it is a matter of limited trust in a provisional knowledge, with the understanding that that knowledge is open to revision.
Any knowledge not open to revision is dogmatic and given human failibity, most likely to be wrong. And that's why knowledge obtained by faith or by revelation is to be taken with a grain of salt, if it is not open to revision, then it could be anchored in its mistakes. Science learns. Faith affirms, even when what it affirms is contradictory to Reality. Is the Earth flat ? Is the Sun turning around the Earth ? Is the Earth only 6000 years old? No. Yet scripture imply it is so and people in the past or up to this day claim it is so. Faith and revealed scripture can be wrong and should change, should adapt, to counteract that. Only when they do, we call it science, not faith. When science disagrees with the bible, you cling to the bible and distrust science. I do the opposite because the scientific method has been designed to overcome our mistakes and scripture has been designed to perpetuate them (if I interpret the quotes posted here correctly, i.e. Hebrews 11:1). The beliefs you profess are self perpetuating. They do not allow for error so you don't see the possibility of error.
Swordman also says :
Billions of people will find themselves having missed the mark with God, who insist on defining their own terms of knowing God.
You accept what you just said on faith. What can be more « defining your own terms of knowing God » than claiming your own subjective experience enables you to claim absolute knowledge of God, whatever that experience was ?
Faith has been shown to be an unreliable epistelomogy in practical matters and even you christians show distrust of it. You don't pretend to « know » your car will keep working if you pray for it, you bring your car to service at the mechanic. You don't just have faith your open artery will miraculously stop pouring your blood on the pavement, you rush to the hospital. Faith also has been shown to be plain wrong in some cases. Nobody can deny that some people pretend to know things that are wrong, you christians just have to think of the muslims or whichever religious group you don't like for examples. A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything. Your certainty, your faith, is not special. It is the same faulty faith as the muslims and the lunatics and you shouldn't trust it. You don't trust it when somebody use it to disagree with you but you trust it for yourself. Trying to find out if God is knowable by other means than an unpractical and demonstrably unreliable way is crucial, I would think. What such way do we have at our disposal ? Science. Maybe we should listen to what it says after all... and if it turns out that science shows you are wrong, well, that would mean you were wrong and that's not the end of the world. I'm not saying you are wrong, I'm just accepting the possibility and trying to find out what's true and what's not.
Robbomango
The Religion of Naturalism, a faith based idea that things have made themselves is often labeled science these days.
What close minded ignorance... where did you pick up that particular brand of nonsense ? I'm shocked somebody coud say something like that. You have just demonstrated you do not know the first thing about how science works. I had no idea people in the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century still thought like this outside of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan... thanks for shattering my naivete.
Aristocrat :
I'd be surprised if you hadn't already encountered answers for these discrepancies, given the amount of Apologetics literature you have read. All or most of these questions are answered in some form.
Depleted, this is specifically for you too.
Aristocrat, if somehow I misrepresent your position, then excuse me for thinking you are also a close minded born again fundamentalist. I'm under the impression that everybody I talk to here is. I can't remember every post and what everybody says. I seem to recall you have only posted about legitimate bible study answers to my queries and so maybe you are a legitimate bible scholar genuinely arguying your case. In that's so I appologize and please contact me via personal message so we can talk about this seriously, that could be interesting, maybe you'll convince me like in Depleted story.
Anyway, I don't really want to dig deeper into it here, the important point is not whether I am familiar with the responses or not. I'm not asking you to point them to me, I've read about them in some pretty dense and serious books, and I've also read the rebutals, and counter rebutals, etc etc, that's why I want to avoid the debate. My point is that the debate is not settled, I'm defending my position as an agnostic, not the position that the resurection didn't happen, note the difference. I ask questions experts ponder about and you dismiss them as if it was obvious what the answers were, for example Depleted says the « alleged » discrepancies have been resolved.... not so in my understanding, they are still in the bible and that's a problem. You both dismiss any counter evidence or counter argument as refuted and not worthy of attention, low grade stuff. Then why are people still arguying about it then and not accepting Jesus as their savior? Pride ? Give me a break. Would a John Lennox or a W L Craig say the uncontroversial discovery of Jesus bones would change their mind about the resurection if they had such a shut and closed case ? Thorny questions have been answered but not adequately, not conclusively, the issues remain and certainty about the matter is not justified. And what people believe is irelevant to whether it is true or not.
The existence of God is not settled, the debate over the resurection either. It is just not a closed case. People, smart educated knowledgeable people, disagree about those matters and even sometimes agree to disagree, agree that the answer is eluding us. The debate is raging. And while the debate is raging, you have no ground to say you have the answer because you « know » it is so. Your certainty about the matter is not justified. Yes, I want you to doubt. As Voltaire was saying « Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd ». You fundamentalists need to accept there is a chance, a possibility, that some argument or some evidence could refute your position, otherwise there is no point debating with you and people will dismiss you as close minded.
and to conclude, Jandian , you say
There isn't really anything we can say to convince you.
That's not true. You just need to show me you have taken all main possibilities into account before reaching your conclusions, and show me how you have eliminated the possibilities that would prove you wrong. If instead what you do is tell me, like the others have, that I just have to take it for granted, on faith, then we have an epistemological problem. I assert that believing on faith is not reliable, nor is relying on revealed scripture. I ask you guys to show me your faith is a reliable way of knowing. That's what it would take to convince me. That and some serious modern day, uncontroversial, widely documented miracles, I guess. Like a bunch of christian amputees growing back their limbs for example. But for it to work it would have to be only christians of course, if it works for muslims too, then we're back where we started...
When people assert they have hit the roof and can't go closer to truth and thus hold the absolute truth, while showing evident signs of not only of ignorance of basic psychological biases that usually make people think that way wrongly but also of not having merely considered the possibility of error, they are simply not credible.
I'd be surprised if you hadn't already encountered answers for these discrepancies, given the amount of Apologetics literature you have read. All or most of these questions are answered in some form.
Depleted, this is specifically for you too.
Aristocrat, if somehow I misrepresent your position, then excuse me for thinking you are also a close minded born again fundamentalist. I'm under the impression that everybody I talk to here is. I can't remember every post and what everybody says. I seem to recall you have only posted about legitimate bible study answers to my queries and so maybe you are a legitimate bible scholar genuinely arguying your case. In that's so I appologize and please contact me via personal message so we can talk about this seriously, that could be interesting, maybe you'll convince me like in Depleted story.
Anyway, I don't really want to dig deeper into it here, the important point is not whether I am familiar with the responses or not. I'm not asking you to point them to me, I've read about them in some pretty dense and serious books, and I've also read the rebutals, and counter rebutals, etc etc, that's why I want to avoid the debate. My point is that the debate is not settled, I'm defending my position as an agnostic, not the position that the resurection didn't happen, note the difference. I ask questions experts ponder about and you dismiss them as if it was obvious what the answers were, for example Depleted says the « alleged » discrepancies have been resolved.... not so in my understanding, they are still in the bible and that's a problem. You both dismiss any counter evidence or counter argument as refuted and not worthy of attention, low grade stuff. Then why are people still arguying about it then and not accepting Jesus as their savior? Pride ? Give me a break. Would a John Lennox or a W L Craig say the uncontroversial discovery of Jesus bones would change their mind about the resurection if they had such a shut and closed case ? Thorny questions have been answered but not adequately, not conclusively, the issues remain and certainty about the matter is not justified. And what people believe is irelevant to whether it is true or not.
The existence of God is not settled, the debate over the resurection either. It is just not a closed case. People, smart educated knowledgeable people, disagree about those matters and even sometimes agree to disagree, agree that the answer is eluding us. The debate is raging. And while the debate is raging, you have no ground to say you have the answer because you « know » it is so. Your certainty about the matter is not justified. Yes, I want you to doubt. As Voltaire was saying « Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd ». You fundamentalists need to accept there is a chance, a possibility, that some argument or some evidence could refute your position, otherwise there is no point debating with you and people will dismiss you as close minded.
and to conclude, Jandian , you say
There isn't really anything we can say to convince you.
That's not true. You just need to show me you have taken all main possibilities into account before reaching your conclusions, and show me how you have eliminated the possibilities that would prove you wrong. If instead what you do is tell me, like the others have, that I just have to take it for granted, on faith, then we have an epistemological problem. I assert that believing on faith is not reliable, nor is relying on revealed scripture. I ask you guys to show me your faith is a reliable way of knowing. That's what it would take to convince me. That and some serious modern day, uncontroversial, widely documented miracles, I guess. Like a bunch of christian amputees growing back their limbs for example. But for it to work it would have to be only christians of course, if it works for muslims too, then we're back where we started...
When people assert they have hit the roof and can't go closer to truth and thus hold the absolute truth, while showing evident signs of not only of ignorance of basic psychological biases that usually make people think that way wrongly but also of not having merely considered the possibility of error, they are simply not credible.
For all those reasons I am tired of talking to you fundamentalists. I'm giving up. Think what you want about it. I'll continue to seek and question everything, but I'll do it with people who are open minded and not so obviously resistant to the mere concept that they could be mistaken. Then maybe we'll be able to get closer to the truth together.
Please don't bother with answers, I'm not coming back to this thread, I'm done, this time for good, you can let the kids out again.
If you feel like answering me personally, in private, I'll be glad to talk one on one with some of you if they are reasonable and respectful, but this thread is dead.
Thank you for you time.
Please don't bother with answers, I'm not coming back to this thread, I'm done, this time for good, you can let the kids out again.
If you feel like answering me personally, in private, I'll be glad to talk one on one with some of you if they are reasonable and respectful, but this thread is dead.
Thank you for you time.
No, you just have problems synthesizing. I had already said, in Him we live and move and have our being. Honestly I cannot think of anything that would cause me to lose my faith. And I also previously said that I would pray I never do. You are incapable of putting one and one together to get two as an answer even when it stares you in the face.
Can you change your mind about being alive to believe you are dead and buried? That is the question I put to you. Can you believe that while you are alive? How? What could convince you that you are dead while you are still breathing air? You may as well ask that question. That is what I said. I made a comparison which was not an evasion. Can you come up with something that will convince you that you are dead while you are living? Let's hear it. If you know nothing you can believe anything, right? Change your belief to one where you convince yourself you are dead. Do it! Then tell us how something so fundamental is just our imagination, how you can't know anything because some expert who says he knows nothing said so. LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Yes, you used profanity in your response to me. Twice.
Not what you are now thinking, you simply show your confusion.
Yes, we all knew you would go there, or that in reality that is where you started and you would show us your true colors eventually, I predicted a lot of it, even, LOL, you are blind to that too, you are no different than all the others atheists who come to mock and scoff.
You have no idea what we are talking about and dismiss it with your own brand of ignorance.
Stop projecting your ignorance onto us and go have an encounter with God and come back and tell us which part of your brain it took place in.
Good bye.
Can you change your mind about being alive to believe you are dead and buried? That is the question I put to you. Can you believe that while you are alive? How? What could convince you that you are dead while you are still breathing air? You may as well ask that question. That is what I said. I made a comparison which was not an evasion. Can you come up with something that will convince you that you are dead while you are living? Let's hear it. If you know nothing you can believe anything, right? Change your belief to one where you convince yourself you are dead. Do it! Then tell us how something so fundamental is just our imagination, how you can't know anything because some expert who says he knows nothing said so. LOLOLOLOLOLOL
Yes, you used profanity in your response to me. Twice.
Not what you are now thinking, you simply show your confusion.
Yes, we all knew you would go there, or that in reality that is where you started and you would show us your true colors eventually, I predicted a lot of it, even, LOL, you are blind to that too, you are no different than all the others atheists who come to mock and scoff.
You have no idea what we are talking about and dismiss it with your own brand of ignorance.
Stop projecting your ignorance onto us and go have an encounter with God and come back and tell us which part of your brain it took place in.
Good bye.
P
Karaka, you don't love God so nothing anyone will/would/can/could say will change your thinking. I'm not critisizing you because I didn't always love Jesus the way I do now, you aren't anyplace anyone else here hasn't been.... doubting. You cannot intellectualize a change in a person's heart.
It's okay though, because when God calls you it will be unmistakable. You will feel it indeniably and you will know it is Him.
It's okay though, because when God calls you it will be unmistakable. You will feel it indeniably and you will know it is Him.
Magenta,
I just have to respond: please look up cotard's syndrome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion
I just have to respond: please look up cotard's syndrome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cotard_delusion
D
I'm too lazy to go count how many questions you've asked so far. One thing is clear. You gave up on your first question, but because there was no answer that would satisfy you. "That question" was to avert attention from your first question, as well as picking out your prey.
And yes, blaming everyone else and then complicating everything even further are also parts of the game. And kudos on the "closed-minded" mantra. As predictable as "vote for" in a campaign ad.
And yes, blaming everyone else and then complicating everything even further are also parts of the game. And kudos on the "closed-minded" mantra. As predictable as "vote for" in a campaign ad.
Actually Karaka,
Though I started my response by saying we couldn't convince you, I did give a very basic explanation why. Please read again.
If miracles are documented in the bible and you don't believe, what makes you think you will believe modern day documentation?Furthermore, information like that is available all over the net.
It is GOD who set the standard for relationship with HIM. Because HE is spirit, He approaches us via the spirit, Its a different frequency. Trying to know Him via natural means tend to be futile. And minus all the jargon that's what Jimmie dee is saying..... you can't prove GOD through methodology you are asking us to use.
Taste and see that the LORD is good. What do yo have to loose? That's the only way you will know.
Though I started my response by saying we couldn't convince you, I did give a very basic explanation why. Please read again.
If miracles are documented in the bible and you don't believe, what makes you think you will believe modern day documentation?Furthermore, information like that is available all over the net.
It is GOD who set the standard for relationship with HIM. Because HE is spirit, He approaches us via the spirit, Its a different frequency. Trying to know Him via natural means tend to be futile. And minus all the jargon that's what Jimmie dee is saying..... you can't prove GOD through methodology you are asking us to use.
Taste and see that the LORD is good. What do yo have to loose? That's the only way you will know.
I don't think you've misrepresented my position unless your previous posts about ChristianChat.com members were meant to be all-inclusive. I don't think you touched on it until this post. So no worries.
I think if we were to continue any theological discussion in private, though, it wouldn't be about psychology. That's a little beside the point unless your point is to convince a Christian that there are errors in their reasoning and open their mind to the notion that they might be wrong. And I wouldn't understand why you would do that if your goal here is to be introspective and consider the possibility that you are wrong and thereby become enlightened. That's what I thought you were originally representing your position to be.
I do enjoy debating (read: bouncing ideas off of others and thinking critically about their responses). It is intellectually challenging. Changing one's beliefs, however, occurs not in a single day but over the course of a lifetime. Going into a discussion with that in mind, we could still share our personal world views.
I think if we were to continue any theological discussion in private, though, it wouldn't be about psychology. That's a little beside the point unless your point is to convince a Christian that there are errors in their reasoning and open their mind to the notion that they might be wrong. And I wouldn't understand why you would do that if your goal here is to be introspective and consider the possibility that you are wrong and thereby become enlightened. That's what I thought you were originally representing your position to be.
I do enjoy debating (read: bouncing ideas off of others and thinking critically about their responses). It is intellectually challenging. Changing one's beliefs, however, occurs not in a single day but over the course of a lifetime. Going into a discussion with that in mind, we could still share our personal world views.
A
Instead of answering on a global level of why doesn't everyone believe.. Why don't we just deal with why you don't believe?
I venture to say that you don't because you have made a choice, however uninformed it may be. With all the world's desire to rebel, it's a wonder that there isn't any rebelling against the way that the world doesn't believe in God.
I venture to say that you don't because you have made a choice, however uninformed it may be. With all the world's desire to rebel, it's a wonder that there isn't any rebelling against the way that the world doesn't believe in God.
J
with due respect karaka there is something that does not make sense here. you have read all these spiritual books, the hindu book would be the bhagavad gita and its IMO the most complex of all. many hindus dont understand the vedas.
and then you say that you are very well read in science and philosophy.
have you ever read about the great scientist such as tesla, einstein, newton, etc? many of them always become atheist when they get in college (its the cool thing to do when your a young scientist) but the great ones understand early on that science without spirituality can only go so far and you can not go any further.
so it makes little sense you can have so much knowledge on so many things and yet be so narrow minded. narrow minded people are usually very limited in their knowledge.
and then you say that you are very well read in science and philosophy.
have you ever read about the great scientist such as tesla, einstein, newton, etc? many of them always become atheist when they get in college (its the cool thing to do when your a young scientist) but the great ones understand early on that science without spirituality can only go so far and you can not go any further.
so it makes little sense you can have so much knowledge on so many things and yet be so narrow minded. narrow minded people are usually very limited in their knowledge.
M
Karaka, I suppose you will return even if it's just to have a quick peek.
As to the can anything convince you God doesn't exist question. The answer is no.
You see we have the Holy Spirit living within us, convicting, testifying,
teaching, comforting.
Jesus said he would send another
John 14:16-18 NKJV
[16] And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that
He may abide with you forever- [17] the Spirit of truth, whom the world
cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know
Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. [18] I will not leave you
orphans; I will come to you.
John 7:37-39 NKJV
[37] On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried
out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. [38] He
who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers
of living water." [39] But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those
believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because
Jesus was not yet glorified.
One day hopefully the above will all make sense to you, God the Holy Spirit
comes to you when you turn to Him, He fills you in a tangible way, the bible
speaks of rivers of loving waters flowing and it's true.
When He is especially close you can feel it physically in your stomach like
waves rolling through you, you can also sense Him with your mind and
feel Him with your emotions for He is God abiding within each one of us.
Many preachers old school ones, spoke about having fire in your belly.
Have you ever heard that saying "fire in the belly" that's where it comes
from.
Once tasted never forgotten. Hopefully you will understand for
yourself some day.
As to the can anything convince you God doesn't exist question. The answer is no.
You see we have the Holy Spirit living within us, convicting, testifying,
teaching, comforting.
Jesus said he would send another
John 14:16-18 NKJV
[16] And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that
He may abide with you forever- [17] the Spirit of truth, whom the world
cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know
Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. [18] I will not leave you
orphans; I will come to you.
John 7:37-39 NKJV
[37] On the last day, that great day of the feast, Jesus stood and cried
out, saying, "If anyone thirsts, let him come to Me and drink. [38] He
who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said, out of his heart will flow rivers
of living water." [39] But this He spoke concerning the Spirit, whom those
believing in Him would receive; for the Holy Spirit was not yet given, because
Jesus was not yet glorified.
One day hopefully the above will all make sense to you, God the Holy Spirit
comes to you when you turn to Him, He fills you in a tangible way, the bible
speaks of rivers of loving waters flowing and it's true.
When He is especially close you can feel it physically in your stomach like
waves rolling through you, you can also sense Him with your mind and
feel Him with your emotions for He is God abiding within each one of us.
Many preachers old school ones, spoke about having fire in your belly.
Have you ever heard that saying "fire in the belly" that's where it comes
from.
Once tasted never forgotten. Hopefully you will understand for
yourself some day.
Hi Karaka thanks for the reply.
It would seem from my perspective that you simply are not interested in following the matter of faith , coming from, generated by God to the end of the matter..
Self-evident to who, Christ, or your own self ? And plain denial in respect to what and whose law?
It’s not a philosophical argument, as if it (God’s word) was after any man. Christians reason by the faith generated by God. Not a faith that comes by and through reasoning through their own imagination. That would be the atheist’s own personal religious faith base.
We are to have no gods in the likeness of men, as spirit being in respect to our own selves before God. That would violate his first commandment
It is our faithful Creator’s creation who made the first atom and molecule by saying through a work of His faith ..”Let there be and there was”.
Eternal, supernatural God which denotes no beginning has no natures as a beginnings, but creates them by speaking a word of faith. God is not made up of the rudiments of this world. Therefore Christ’s faith that comes from hearing God does not rest on the flesh of any man. Hear Him and receive His rest from your own self-righteous attempt it is the call of the good news, believe God..
What is self-evident is It would appear that you are having the faith of Christ, the promised anointing Holy Spirit of God in respect to your own faith coming from fleshly imagination of you own heart/conscience and not after the Christ the author and finisher of Christian faith., as that not seen.
Christians from my experience don’t chase their own tail as the circular reasoning need to understand God who has no form. The scripture provide the faith that can please God . He did not infallibly inform us to believe whatever you want by having a faith according to the working our own mind .But rather to let the mind of Christ be the light unto your path as a lamp unto your reasoning. We serve a law of faith not a theory of faith not as if we were following after the philosophies’ of men and not the perfect law of God that does quicken our souls giving us who is not seen, His understanding.
It’s not called déjà vu but rather a fulfillment of His promise as the teacher comforter and guide. He works to bring all things in which he has taught us to our minds again as a work of His faith working in us. Again, its not called deja vu. But rather actively bringing things to our minds and heart.He has not left us as orphans without a spiritual father.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Doubt is not the opposite of faith ,unbelief is. Christian doubt just as those who have no faith in respect to Christ.
His way is perfect not lacking anything.
The latest advances in neurology and psychology have nothing to do with the faith of Christ which comes from hearing God alone through the scriptures. Empirical science does not have anything to say about the matter. We simply do not know Christ after the rudiments or elements of this world through the philosophies of any man
That what you are offering as faith pretty much sums up a atheist belief system having their own self as a god that they put before the God who wrote the scriptures with his own finger. he is not served by human hands. He moves men according to the god purpose of his eternal will.
It would seem from my perspective that you simply are not interested in following the matter of faith , coming from, generated by God to the end of the matter..
Self-evident to who, Christ, or your own self ? And plain denial in respect to what and whose law?
It’s not a philosophical argument, as if it (God’s word) was after any man. Christians reason by the faith generated by God. Not a faith that comes by and through reasoning through their own imagination. That would be the atheist’s own personal religious faith base.
We are to have no gods in the likeness of men, as spirit being in respect to our own selves before God. That would violate his first commandment
It is our faithful Creator’s creation who made the first atom and molecule by saying through a work of His faith ..”Let there be and there was”.
Eternal, supernatural God which denotes no beginning has no natures as a beginnings, but creates them by speaking a word of faith. God is not made up of the rudiments of this world. Therefore Christ’s faith that comes from hearing God does not rest on the flesh of any man. Hear Him and receive His rest from your own self-righteous attempt it is the call of the good news, believe God..
What is self-evident is It would appear that you are having the faith of Christ, the promised anointing Holy Spirit of God in respect to your own faith coming from fleshly imagination of you own heart/conscience and not after the Christ the author and finisher of Christian faith., as that not seen.
Christians from my experience don’t chase their own tail as the circular reasoning need to understand God who has no form. The scripture provide the faith that can please God . He did not infallibly inform us to believe whatever you want by having a faith according to the working our own mind .But rather to let the mind of Christ be the light unto your path as a lamp unto your reasoning. We serve a law of faith not a theory of faith not as if we were following after the philosophies’ of men and not the perfect law of God that does quicken our souls giving us who is not seen, His understanding.
It’s not called déjà vu but rather a fulfillment of His promise as the teacher comforter and guide. He works to bring all things in which he has taught us to our minds again as a work of His faith working in us. Again, its not called deja vu. But rather actively bringing things to our minds and heart.He has not left us as orphans without a spiritual father.
John 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Doubt is not the opposite of faith ,unbelief is. Christian doubt just as those who have no faith in respect to Christ.
His way is perfect not lacking anything.
The latest advances in neurology and psychology have nothing to do with the faith of Christ which comes from hearing God alone through the scriptures. Empirical science does not have anything to say about the matter. We simply do not know Christ after the rudiments or elements of this world through the philosophies of any man
That what you are offering as faith pretty much sums up a atheist belief system having their own self as a god that they put before the God who wrote the scriptures with his own finger. he is not served by human hands. He moves men according to the god purpose of his eternal will.
Last edited:
Millions of people globally from all walks of life experiencing the same love of Christ all can't be having neurological or psychological disorders. God is moving and transforming people even in these days of increased knowledge and unlimited distractions. He is making Himself very clear and the time will come and has come when people will consciously choose not to follow God but shake their fist at Him. The evidence is of His existence is great, and its everywhere but many do not see it.
God is moving, always has been moving and He cannot and will not be stopped until the end of the age.
Seek Him and you will find Him, that is His promise. He rewards those who seek Him.
God is moving, always has been moving and He cannot and will not be stopped until the end of the age.
Seek Him and you will find Him, that is His promise. He rewards those who seek Him.
Last edited: