Other than the necessarily subjective standard of someone coming around to believing in God, how can we establish if a person has attempted to develop an open an honest relationship w/the divine? Is there any way? Is there any way to firmly establish that the positive effects of religion in some lives aren't effectively psychosomatic, where someone convinces themselves that there's reason to take a brighter outlook, and that brighter outlook yields positive results through more favorable interactions with other people?

HisWillness wrote:

I understand that the above is your firmly-held belief, and I've been short with you previously because I've never found the Bible to be as helpful as scientific hypothesis in answering my questions. For instance, I couldn't possibly read the creation myth and take it at face value, and then conclude that the earth is less than 10,000 years old. That's just heavily unlikely. The way that radioisotopes work, we can have a decent idea of how old the earth is without consulting the bible. In fact, if we had not separated ourselves from biblical dogmatism in the enlightenment, we might never have known what radioisotopes are.

This is where I would like to go from here actually.  It's apparent that my belief and following may be different than you think.

Your example of a 10,000 year old Earth:

Nowhere in the Bible does it suggest that the Earth is 10,000 years old or less, but more precisely, it backs up scientific claims of an Earth that is Billions of years old. 

To clarify this misunderstood belief.  The English Bible (possibly other languages, I don't know) translate in Genesis God's creation in "days".  However, if you research the Hebrew word in it's place, you'll see that the word isn't exactly "days' and is actually a reference to an unknown period of time.  It was generally understood before the translation of those periods of time into days that those periods of time logically were much much longer. 

The reason why it's translated into days is becuase the Hebrew word used cannot be accurately translated into English.  The best way to do it was to claim a specific period of time that the majority of people would understand be it that the word suggested a specific period of time but didn't reference to how long that was. (this is my comprehension of it anyway.  I still don't see the justification of such a translation and think there could have been better words to use.) 

The Hebrew word specifically when translated into English would be saying something like: "a specific period of time".  To put it into Genesis, they would have had to translate it as, "The first specific period of time God... then, the second specific period of time which was the same length of time as the first period of time, God..."  I guess it was just easier to say "day".

 

I would like to stay focused on this and other misunderstandings like this.  I'm not however going to ignore the rest of your post. 

 

HisWillness wrote:

Oh, I see. No, the burden of proof (really, evidence) is still with you, I'm afraid. It's an extraordinary claim to say that a character featured in a story is not only real, but a completely reliable account of that character. That is the claim you make. Just by name, Nicholas Nickleby could be real. Nicholas Nickleby as described by Dickens is much less likely to have been a real person. Not just because he's a fictional character, but because of the very specific description of Mr. Nickleby. Less likely is the key to my point. I'm not saying that never was there ever a Nicholas Nickleby. In fact, I'm not saying that it is impossible that there is a God, or that there is a Santa Claus or aliens among us. I maintain that those things are extremely unlikely.

If you were unaware of the existence of a Duck Billed Platypus and I described it to you, how likely would that animal be to actually exist in your understanding?

did I miss your point?

HisWillness wrote:

So that we can be fair to one another, this is obviously our impasse. My trust of the scientific method and mathematics is much greater than that of claims written 2,000 years ago...

I actually like to use scientific method.  It doesn't necessarily have to do with material objects.  It can be used in any process of discovery.

HisWillness wrote:

This is the third time you've used wind. Wind is moving air. Air is matter, and thus material. It is available to be measured. Gods make themselves unavailable for measure at all times, and completely. In that way, they behave the same as a figment of your imagination.

You see the issue with others on this site and defining wind as is.  Who said God cannot be observed?  he cannot be physically observed, but that doesn't mean people have not observed him.  There are many who believe and many who do not follow God that would disagree with your statement.

HisWillness wrote:

But it always is testimonial. It's a belief and a relationship in something you believe is true despite its heavily unlikely nature. You (and a culture of others) picked writings to believe. But you've done so without critical thinking. If there were critical thinking involved, you would doubt if what you're reading is true, which you presumably cannot once you've committed to the idea that God is real.

have you read the part about how I came to know Christ?

HisWillness wrote:

Not entirely true. I want to understand the mechanism that makes you believe in something that never works its way into the physical world. I imagine you've told yourself the same thing about many gods. Perhaps Wotan and Zeus are not YHWH, but they once had a following, and were just as earnestly worshipped. Now we have Scientologists honestly believing in alien lordship. Human beings do this. We make gods who resemble our cultural superego. That's a much easier explanation than the idea that all these gods actually exist, and are just hiding, waiting for us to screw up.

ok, God did work his way into the physical world though through Christ...  Though that's what I'm talking about, that's just a story to you right?

HisWillness wrote:

It's the Nicholas Nickleby example above. Could there have been an entity that did not exist (that is, did not take part in the physical plane - same difference) and fit the exact description of a fictional character? It's possible, just highly unlikely that a real Nicholas Nickleby walked the earth. In the same sense as Santa and his flying reindeer.

highly unlikely keeps coming up.  I guess I should ask what would make God more likely in your understanding?

HisWillness wrote:

But He did change. He stopped all that slaughter and slavery that he thought was the way the Israelites should behave originally. After Jesus, there are no orders to kill, and no orders to enslave.

due to the fact that Jesus fulfilled the law.  He took the penalty for all of us who seek that forgiveness.  There was no scape goat before.

HisWillness wrote:

That's sort of the problem. I don't understand the God character because of His Conflicting Nature in the Bible, but you occasionally do understand God, and have no problem educating others. Is it that there's nothing in the Bible specifically talking about other gods? Or just that because YHWH is a jealous god, that you shouldn't spend too much time cavorting with the gods of others?

no, the Bible isn't my reasoning for believing, it is my way of better understanding God and understanding who I should be as a follower of Christ.

HisWillness wrote:

[Again, I don't know how you figured out that you're right, here. Was that the luck of the draw? Jews have the same God that Christians do, and share a common history. But somehow you can tell that they're wrong. This is your knowledge of God, that seems to be beyond what you could know.

one example.  The muslims believe in Jesus Christ as a powerful prophet.  However, for Jesus to claim all he did, including being the Son of God as he did (the Muslims do not believe he is the Son of God) for the Muslim faith to be true and to accept Jesus as they do, they would have to accept the fact that Jesus among their other prophets are liars. 

HisWillness wrote:

These are all fine questions, but what could we come away with saying simply that this was the work of God? If planes went into the twin towers because that was the "will of Allah", and Allah managed to get them in under God's radar, then what does this say of God?

not that allah got it under God's radar (though to clarify, Allah and YHWH are historically understood to be the same God, just different followings of Him), but that God allowed it to happen.  We might not understand, but the future dramatically changed because of that event. Only God would know what could have come from either future.  There's I'm sure more than we know.  

HisWillness wrote:

 

But you do understand how God works, so you'd be able to tell me whether or not Allah was able to sneak some planes by Him. Or push Hurricane Katrina ever closer to the houses of the less fortunate, and not to the rich people. That seems inconsistent with the opinions on rich people written in the New Testament.

yes, but that doesn't mean I understand why those events were allowed to take place. 

Don't forget that the planes going into the towers was the act of people.  God will not affect free will and therefore would not stop a persons choice to fly planes into the World Trade Centers.

HisWillness wrote:

That's practically the definition of not existing.

therefore memories do not exist. 

HisWillness wrote:

It IS always a possibility. But an equally possible explanation to anything where you'd say "God did it" is "Wotan did it", "Zeus did it", or "The Flying Spaghetti Monster did it". Since all you have to go on are the writings in the Bible, and those are equally as credible as the stories of the Koran, or the earliest creation myths, you have a nearly infinite array of non-physical entities whose behaviour cannot be confirmed outside of their respective stories. 

We're getting lost here.  I've claimed to believe the Bible stories to be true.  I haven't been focusing on them as my source for happenings.  You're in control of where we go. I'll just answer what you ask to the best of my ability.

HisWillness wrote:

Science is clear on things that are falsifiable: if any statement is able to be falsified, it can make its way into scientific knowledge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

God is not falsifiable because observation and experiment do not apply to God. The only statements regarding God come from The Bible. God cannot be observed or measured, and so removes Himself from the realm of the quantifiable real.

I've been saying there's much more than the Bible.  Maybe you and I should not talk about Biblical happenings until later. 

I still want to stick on the first topic just to clarify what i believe and what you understand to be true.

HisWillness wrote:

Now ... does there exist a separate plane in which all the gods congregate outside of the realm of reality? Maybe. But then how could such a creature be understood? How could you possibly understand that creature to be like human beings, if that creature has no participation in the physical plane? You would doubt my faith in the existence of leprechauns and fairies just as I doubt your faith in God.

would i?  What would be your reasoning for believing? I'm sure if it's something you feel I should consider to be true, you'd have more than just the stories to back it up just as I do about God.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I spent so much time on this somewhat tangential subject precisely because it was a clear example of a difference of understanding and did not have religious aspects to distract the discussion.

notice it still got lost however, no matter how simple the concept was.  Why was it so hard to see the movement of air as "wind"?  I understand it to be because you've never considered wind anything beyond what you could feel.  Is that true?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Thanks for clearing that up. So now we can move on, now that I have established that I have to assume that even the simplest terms may be misunderstood.

It seems to be the case.  Though usually when that's the case, people try to say I change the meaning of the word.  I think we've clearly established that I have taken the literal basic meaning of the word and nothing more or less. 

I kept on this longer because this is usually the fallout when it comes to "religious" discussion.  People know it one way, so when I present something different, it can't be true because that's not how you know it.  Do you see the point of this whole analogy yet? 

Just to note, we're starting to see there were more layers to this analogy than first assumed. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Until you can provide clear evidence that we do sense something significant beyond ourselves and nature, you have no grounds for asserting that such a sense actually does exist.

I've presented a few things already.  Have you not considered them?

As far as studies on Spiritual.  One example of a study used a CAT scan to observe electronic impulses in the brain when in a spiritual meditation.  This I think included spiritual interaction.  I don't quite remember. 

Anway, the outcome was exactly what I expected.  They noticed hightened brain activity in the metitative state.  That's a physical outcome.  It did not conclude that this person was actually talking to a spirit or having any spiritual encounter, though most meditating individuals would lower their brain activity to meditate.

Also, this is why I presented a challenge to you to "try it yourself".  Even if you've been there, dispensationalism and cults can really mess up your perception of what is real and true.  I'm asking you to try it without the guidance per-se of a religious organization. 

This may still require you to talk to Christians and/or explore religious organizations in your area, but you'd go into any of that with a controlled mind and understanding that anything you are told or presented you are going to take and only accept if you find it to be true yourself through reflection, research, prayer and understanding. 

The trick to all of this is you'd have to do what many people who even claim to follow Christ don't do.  You'd have to persue God with your whole heart.  Sincerely seeking Him out.  It's a task most on here have not been up to taking.  I would have no idea whether you'd be fully seeking Him out or not either.  This would be a personal journey.  The choice is always yours.

BobSpence1 wrote:

I do tend to get impatient with what comes across to me as persistent dodging of the questions I do ask, even when it may not be deliberate.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt, and retract my accusation of dishonesty. I will accept that your position on 'wind' is arguable, while not accepting it as the most natural understanding of the word.

alright

BobSpence1 wrote:

I have covered that above, and prepared to accept you were not 'dodging' there, just misunderstanding.

But if you saw my response as 'dodging', that further underlines our different understandings here. Just what exactly do you think I was 'dodging'? Let me be clear here, I am genuinely interested, to further my understanding of your point of view, which I see as fundamental to gaining an understanding of your position.

I think it's clear then.  Neither of us are dodging each others questions.  From here on, they are misunderstandings until otherwise noted.  I'm on here not to dodge, but to challenge what I know.

BobSpence1 wrote:

Yes, that is a response, and a very common one, and does not logically require that God or Christ exist as more than a shared belief. The psychological processes involved are fairly well understood.

But please continue.

Alright, one example.  I'll keep it breif and to the point for now and if more detail is needed, then we'll go from there:

A friend of mine was as he says, "running with the devil".  I'm not very well versed in his complete history, but I do know he has claimed spiritual experiences in that life.  I'm not sure to what extent.

He came to know Christ through the movie "The Passion".  He says he couldn't understand how someone could go through what Christ did and not fight back or condemn them. 

This view comes from an understanding that he was aware of Christ's existence, but was not accepting of His ways.

Once he found Christ, from that day on his life changed dramatically.

He changed from a man you'd run in fear from due to the fact that he'd probably leave you bleeding in an alley if you didn't to someone with the biggest heart in the world and is a very compassionate and loving Character. 

Granted this change took some time and wasn't comnpletely overnight.  His life change was fast still.  People who have known him for years can't understand logically how he changed so fast and dramatically. A complete 180. 

His quote of his life change; "I went from wanting to travel the world exploring different cultures and people so I could kill them, to wanting to travel the world, exploring different cultures and people so I can save them." 

For 20 years he used to hurt people.  It took less than 1 year for him to change completely. 

let's go from here.   

I have more evidence for that conclusion that you have for yours. See, I have my belief and your posts. All you have is your belief.

Get snarky with friends of mine - don't expect me to throw a bouquet in your direction.

Yes, sadly, I have a better comprehension of how just how limited and shallow you are in your insight and understanding, how the commitment to your belief warps your judgement and clouds your reasoning. Obviously, by definition, you will not be conscious of this yourself. A glaring example of how the power and respect the Religious/Faith that the meme has acquired allows a person to justify the most glaring lapses of logic. Getting this from analogy from other people is exactly how such superficially attractive but logically empty phrases become wide-spread.

Your inability to comprehend my arguments here is consistent with the blindness you show, the inability to grasp what I (and others here) are getting at, in so many other responses. Its just that this particular 'analogy' shows the fundamental shallowness of your position so well from a rational/logical perspective, as distinct prom the  emotional side, which may well be quite complex. It also makes the logic fallacies clearer, without the distraction of religious or even direct supernatural allusions.

I hold out little hope for you to come to comprehend this.

You argue that it is I how doesn't get it, and I accept that is honestly how you perceive it, but in so many cases the failure in logic is just so glaring on your part, that it can be shown objectively that you are the one whose position is weakest. I have tried to allow for mis-communication, less than ideal expression of what you are trying to get across, but when I try to clarify what could be such a case, you rarely concede this as even a possibility.

"Just because you can't feel God, doesn't mean he isn't there", but it does suggest that 'He' is a far smaller and less consequential entity than commonly suggested, of no more significance that the tiniest puff of air movement caused when I slowly raise my finger...

So maybe you are more accurate than I thought

Just to keep with the flow of what this forum was intended to be.  I'll present one more idea.

just an idea, but what about taking into consideration the personality and behavior of a larger group of people, say a group of true followers (not of churchianity) vs. a group (any group) outside that following..  Just another idea for a possible "tangeble" evidence. 

acceptable?

BobSpence1 wrote:

Yes, sadly, I have a better comprehension of how just how limited and shallow you are in your insight and understanding, how the commitment to your belief warps your judgement and clouds your reasoning. Obviously, by definition, you will not be conscious of this yourself. A glaring example of how the power and respect the Religious/Faith that the meme has acquired allows a person to justify the most glaring lapses of logic. Getting this from analogy from other people is exactly how such superficially attractive but logically empty phrases become wide-spread.

It's strange you conclude that be it that there was no "religious organization" that formed the beleifs I now hold.  How do you explain my understanding?  and don't give me that fuzzy feeling crap because that's not it.  (just sarcasm not anger)

BobSpence1 wrote:

Your inability to comprehend my arguments here is consistent with the blindness you show, the inability to grasp what I (and others here) are getting at, in so many other responses. Its just that this particular 'analogy' shows the fundamental shallowness of your position so well from a rational/logical perspective, as distinct prom the  emotional side, which may well be quite complex. It also makes the logic fallacies clearer, without the distraction of religious or even direct supernatural allusions.

I understand your arguements.  instead of dwelling on something that obviously wouldn't work for you, I try different approaches. 

It seems clear to me that you're not looking for God, you're just here trying to prove to me that my following is wrong.  Im' here trying to conclude either way, but at least looking for common ground. 

I'm asking you to challenge what I know, so far all you've given me is, "I don't see that as evidence".  All that tells me is, that idea is not going to work for you at this point.

There are people on this site that have come to a mutual agreement with me that our conversation cannot progress simply because they were unable to look beyond the physical or some other aspect that was needed to better understand my following. 

They never concluded that I was wrong.  I never concluded that they were wrong.  They would admit they were stuck on an idea and had trouble getting past it, therefore we were unable to continue.  Are you at this point?  Or do you have something specific that you're actually looking for that might be relevent to the research of the spiritual world. 

BobSpence1 wrote:

I hold out little hope for you to come to comprehend this.

You argue that it is I how doesn't get it, and I accept that is honestly how you perceive it, but in so many cases the failure in logic is just so glaring on your part, that it can be shown objectively that you are the one whose position is weakest. I have tried to allow for mis-communication, less than ideal expression of what you are trying to get across, but when I try to clarify what could be such a case, you rarely concede this as even a possibility.

"Just because you can't feel God, doesn't mean he isn't there", but it does suggest that 'He' is a far smaller and less consequential entity than commonly suggested, of no more significance that the tiniest puff of air movement caused when I slowly raise my finger...

So maybe you are more accurate than I thought

You may be surprised at how well I understand where you're coming from.  I've been there.  All the questions you've all asked me, I've asked before myself.  The difference is, I was willing to use a process to come to a conclusion and would not accept just an explanation of what to believe. 

It seems to me that you're still looking for that explanation of what to believe.  Is that the case?  This of course assuming that you're not just here to prove my following wrong. 

just an idea, but what about taking into consideration the personality and behavior of a larger group of people, say a group of true followers (not of churchianity) vs. a group (any group) outside that following..  Just another idea for a possible "tangeble" evidence. 

I love all of you on here.  I love reading all the different thoughts people have on here.  It makes me proud that we live in a country where we can openly discuss our different thoughts and ideas.

That being said... Love is an emotion, with MRI's and brain scanning and what not, we have proof that different chemicals in our brains spell out love.  But how is it possible to explain love?  How is possible to tell someone who has never been in love what it feels like?  Would you say, "It's when the oxytocin, vasopressin, testosterone, estrogen, etc. flood your nervous system."  Probably not.  It would be like me asking anyone on here to tell a blind person, who has never seen in their life, what the color blue looks like.  Just because the blind person can't see blue, does that mean it doesn't exist...?  In their world it essentially doesn't exist because it has no bearing on their life.  It doesn't matter to them.  It's all about our perceptions.  So really to an atheist, what does it matter if God exists or not, it has no bearing on their personal lives?  (I admit we live in a Christianity based society, i.e. our form of morals and universal truths about how we treat others and such, our Constitution, Bill of Rights and amendments and such, which are based on Christian ideals... does have an influence.  I can admit to that, but it seems that these truths and morals, atheists tend to live by.)  Why try and denounce something that has no bearing on your own personal life?  Why try and prove other people wrong who do believe?  Why waste the time if it doesn't matter and we just die in the end?  I was attracted to this website because of a banner that said "Believe in God?  We can fix that?".  I laughed.  Why in this world would you chose to waste your time as such?  If life really is so short, and after we die, it's just over... why waste your time trying to get others to turn away from their illogical, unintelligent, and supposedly jaded thinking?  Wouldn't you rather be exploring and researching and seeing what makes this world go, if not from some divine creator's love?  The whole thought of atheists trying to denounce Christians is so illogical.  Why?  Life is too short.

Now prove that I don't love each of you... you can't.  Our experience, our life, is based completely upon our own perceptions.  So where does this go, if there were beyond a doubt any scientific research and/or evidence that supported a creator, this forum and this website would not be needed.  This forum was created in order to find someone who would put themselves on the line with scientific evidence that would be shot down anyways because it would not be deemed good enough or sufficient enough. 

Scientific proof:  If love is proven to exist... and God is love... He exists.  (You can say that I'm making irrational conclusions that are not really related to each other.  That is your perception.  But what have we already proven; it's all based on our own perceptions.  And yes, this is a "fuzzy" feeling.  Just as love is...)

The Atheist Conversation

Atheist:  Why do you believe in God?

Me:  Cause I can feel His love.

Atheist:  Prove it.

Me:  Do you love your mother?

Atheist:  Yes.

Me:  Prove it.

 

I love all of you on here.  I love reading all the different thoughts people have on here.  It makes me proud that we live in a country where we can openly discuss our different thoughts and ideas.

That being said... Love is an emotion, with MRI's and brain scanning and what not, we have proof that different chemicals in our brains spell out love.  But how is it possible to explain love?  How is possible to tell someone who has never been in love what it feels like?  Would you say, "It's when the oxytocin, vasopressin, testosterone, estrogen, etc. flood your nervous system."  Probably not.  It would be like me asking anyone on here to tell a blind person, who has never seen in their life, what the color blue looks like.  Just because the blind person can't see blue, does that mean it doesn't exist...?  In their world it essentially doesn't exist because it has no bearing on their life.  It doesn't matter to them.  It's all about our perceptions.  So really to an atheist, what does it matter if God exists or not, it has no bearing on their personal lives?  (I admit we live in a Christianity based society, i.e. our form of morals and universal truths about how we treat others and such, our Constitution, Bill of Rights and amendments and such, which are based on Christian ideals... does have an influence.  I can admit to that, but it seems that these truths and morals, atheists tend to live by.)  Why try and denounce something that has no bearing on your own personal life?  Why try and prove other people wrong who do believe?  Why waste the time if it doesn't matter and we just die in the end?

  I was attracted to this website because of a banner that said "Believe in God?  We can fix that?".  I laughed.  Why in this world would you chose to waste your time as such?  If life really is so short, and after we die, it's just over... why waste your time trying to get others to turn away from their illogical, unintelligent, and supposedly jaded thinking?  Wouldn't you rather be exploring and researching and seeing what makes this world go, if not from some divine creator's love?  The whole thought of atheists trying to denounce Christians is so illogical.  Why?  Life is too short.

Now prove that I don't love each of you... you can't.  Our experience, our life, is based completely upon our own perceptions.  So where does this go, if there were beyond a doubt any scientific research and/or evidence that supported a creator, this forum and this website would not be needed.  This forum was created in order to find someone who would put themselves on the line with scientific evidence that would be shot down anyways because it would not be deemed good enough or sufficient enough. 

Scientific proof:  If love is proven to exist... and God is love... He exists.  (You can say that I'm making irrational conclusions that are not really related to each other.  That is your perception.  But what have we already proven; it's all based on our own perceptions.  And yes, this is a "fuzzy" feeling.  Just as love is...)

The Atheist Conversation

Atheist:  Why do you believe in God?

Me:  Cause I can feel His love.

Atheist:  Prove it.

Me:  Do you love your mother?

Atheist:  Yes.

Me:  Prove it.

It seems there'd be a huge selection bias there, as you'd be able to say that "true followers" must exhibit trait A, where A is what you're trying to prove.

That'd be my concern.

So your God is energy?

Why did the writers need to anthropormorphize it?

The explanation might be similarly grounded except that I don't have to belong to the Church of Ball Lightning or wholly believe in the book that was written by people who claimed to be inspired by ball lightning in order to see it.

jcgadfly wrote:

So your God is energy?

As far as verbally explaining what he is, sure.

jcgadfly wrote:

Why did the writers need to anthropormorphize it?

How would you explain Him? Other than with fairydust involved.

jcgadfly wrote:

The explanation might be similarly grounded except that I don't have to belong to the Church of Ball Lightning or wholly believe in the book that was written by people who claimed to be inspired by ball lightning in order to see it.

Who said you had to belong to a church to believe? 

Many people who first build a relationship with Christ and start following him are very ignorant of the Bible, therefore I would say that "wholly believing" in the Bible isn't necessary for believing in the existence of God and possibly starting to follow him. 

Assuming the stories are true, it is said that Satan believes in God because he knows he's real, but doesn't of course accept the Bible's teachings. 

I'm sorry, it's just not relevant. My point was obviously poorly worded. The Bible provides no way to determine the age of the earth, does it? No, it doesn't. It takes science for that. Science has to discover all sorts of things about the radioactive decay of various elements, and then we can date the earth. It doesn't matter if the Bible matches that in the vaguest possible way ("seven periods of time" doesn't help anybody), because no matter what age was found, you'd say, "right, that's seven periods of time".

Sure, without evidence I'd think you were having me on. But there are plenty of pictures, eggs, bones, fossils, and even living specimens. Not so with God.

Yes, it's a story to me. Whether the story is true or not is as debatable as any ancient history.

Physical presence. I understand that God will never have physical presence, but that's another reason for the unlikeliness of gods in general (not just God).

Right. But God did change, which was my point. God is not immutable. Or is it your opinion that God's plan is fixed, and He had this planned the whole time?

And when Jesus suggests plucking out your own eye, do you not take that as a kind of an "expression", and not a literal command? It's not even good advice! (i.e. If you're having trouble keeping the rules of the Old Testament, then beat yourself up about it.)

So your idea of God is more of an invisible creature that does not interfere in the lives of people? And will never interfere? How is God even relevant then? Oh, the after-life, right?

In the absence of electrical impulses through your brain, memories do not exist. In the event of damage to the frontal lobes, memories may be permanently erased. That's still physical.

What I believe is easy: testable things are real. We often have difficult metaphysical discussions with people who visit here, because they're not aware that metaphysics (as NigelTheBold will often remind us) requires an epistemology. Science is the most wonderful direction towards an epistemology ever created by man, so if we're going to ask ourselves what "real" is, and get heavy about it, then to a scientific mind, it's an easy answer: testable things are real.

Well that's my point. I would have more than just stories. I would probably have some evidence, math, or a testable hypothesis. I know of this creature called a Platypus, and it's funny-lookin', and ... wait, you don't have to take my word for it, there are tons of pictures that other people have taken, and physical specimens in zoos, and skeletons in museums, etc, etc.

I do want you to believe what is true. I don't know anything about ultimate-super-complete-absolute Truth, but I can do better than subjective experience.

That's almost exactly what my sister-in-law says when I challenge her on her beliefs. I ask, "You keep putting tiny bowls of milk out for the faeries[1]. Why? It's never gone in the morning."

She says, "Oh, they don't physically drink it."

True story. Absolutely fucking true. And even more mind-boggling in real life.

My neice reported that this Christmas, she put out three small stockings, one each for the angels, the faeries, and for the first time, the dragons. Little tiny helpful dragons that protect her.

They have changed her life dramatically, for the better. She used to be a crystal meth fiend.

 

[1] Her spelling, not mine.

As you would be the sole arbiter of what property A would be it comes down to "True christians agree with me and believe exactly as I do".

Very denominational of you.

As for Satan, he is as God is - a creation of those who wrote the Bible. "Assuming the stories are true" is one major assumption..

jcgadfly wrote:

As you would be the sole arbiter of what property A would be it comes down to "True christians agree with me and believe exactly as I do".

Very denominational of you.

yes indeed it is... unless of course I'm not the one that told others to believe as I do. 

I just explain what I understand.  I don't tell people believe this way or else.  In fact, I'm open to correction if anyone would like to. Denominations (in general) know they have it right and will not accept another way. 

your rewording failed.

If they're "feeling his love" doesn't that confirm knowing God is really there and is more than a figment???

caposkia wrote:

your rewording failed.

On the contrary, apparently, because ...

caposkia wrote:

If they're "feeling his love" doesn't that confirm knowing God is really there and is more than a figment???

If that's your test for the truth of things (a feeling like something's there), then every stalker of every celebrity is right. The object of their affection really does love them. Of course, celebrities are real people, so it almost makes it weirder to stalk someone invisible.

Your definition has nothing to do with whether you told them or not. You have "true Christian" defined as "a person who believes as I do and agrees with my views". It doesn't matter how they got to that conclusion. It also implies that anyone who has Biblically based beliefs but sees things differently from you are "false Christians".

I'm happy to read that you say you're open to correction - still waiting for you to show that. I guess you have to believe there is a possibility of your being wrong first, eh?

caposkia wrote:

your rewording failed.

On the contrary, apparently, because ...

caposkia wrote:

If they're "feeling his love" doesn't that confirm knowing God is really there and is more than a figment???

If that's your test for the truth of things (a feeling like something's there), then every stalker of every celebrity is right. The object of their affection really does love them. Of course, celebrities are real people, so it almost makes it weirder to stalk someone invisible.