Ask God for Me

[Oncedeceived]

I am not convinced by this evidence.

If it is just a story, that is not convincing. If a video was produced that had an alien coming out of the UFO then I would look at it and make a determination. Videos today are not trustworthy especially with extraordinary claims but I would be willing to listen to experts about the video being altered or not. When you see a video of big foot it is more likely it is a fake, just like videos of aliens. More evidence is required.

Right, I agree. The more evidence one has, the more support is provided for the claim. It is through the process of gaining more support that one has confidence of said claim, do you agree?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Right, I agree. The more evidence one has, the more support is provided for the claim. It is through the process of gaining more support that one has confidence of said claim, do you agree?

In general the more good evidence the better. But a ton of bad evidence does not add up to good evidence. Sometimes one piece of good evidence is enough to convince me. If I witnessed an alien body myself that one piece of evidence would be sufficient evidence for belief. If I heard 500 stories of people seeing an alien body then that would not be enough evidence for belief because the claim is extraordinary. Likewise, if I heard 500 people telling stories of visiting McDonald's, that would be sufficient for me to believe them. The claim is mundane. It really depends on the claim and the evidence.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Hi Kylie. You know, back when I first saw you posting here, I noticed that little blurb under your screenname, "defeater of illogic". I often feel a sense of intimidation when speaking with atheists as they tend to be quite intelligent. It's their intelligence which usually leads them to become atheist. It can be easy to become proud of such intelligence and come to believe you are your own God, smoothed over with ideas that subservience to some greater intelligence would, in turn, be akin to abandoning your sense. I doubt there is any atheist who would agree with this assessment (at least, not outwardly), but I feel there is at least some truth to it.

I feel something like this may be happening here. Tough you are a defeater of illogic (and probably in many cases you really can be quite perceptive), in this case I do not see that happening. I see illogic, an illogic which I think should be fairly simple to see. Yet it is not, so I must ask myself, why is this person, who is almost certainly quite intelligent in many areas of life, somehow not getting in in this particular area.

I believe the answer is that this is more so a test of wills rather than a rational examination of the logic behind the argument. You have never heard of the teachings of Jesus before (I mean, specifically what he taught, like the examples I presented to you), despite being married to a Christian. I don't say that to impugn you or your husband, but rather as context. It's rare to find any Christian these days who knows what Jesus taught. For example, did you know Jesus said we should not make promises for any reason? That's a real command from Jesus. He said we should just say what we mean without any need to swear on it.

Instead, what you've heard is something which is similar to what Jesus taught; ask Jesus into your heart. It's close, but not quite. Jesus did talk about He and the Father coming into a person and making Their home there, but that was premised on the understanding that the person would initiate the relationship via obedience to Jesus' teachings. It is obedience which would cause Them to come into a person's heart.

This idea that one need only ask Jesus into their heart along with a good feeling and then boom, you're done, is much simpler. It's become popular precisely because it does not require any change or commitment to anything more than a vague list of precepts, all of which are fairly optional, like going to church, reading the Bible, paying tithes, baptism, and a few prayers here and there. You're pretty much free to continue living how ever you like, but you also get all the salvation and good feelings that comes with the knowledge that you are saved.

That same ease-of-performance is what appealed to you. A simple, unobtrusive test you can perform without any need to change, struggle, or suffer; very appealing. The fact that so many Christians today promote it as the ultimate test for knowing God just reinforces that sense of ease and so you tried it.

And, as you've said, nothing happened. Now you have proof; the Christians themselves swear by this test and yet it failed. You were genuine. You were sincere and still the test failed. Now you have confirmation which even the Christians must acknowledge. You have a shield.

But, here I come, saying the test was flawed, that it was wrong and not consistent with what Jesus taught despite whatever these other professing Christians told you. Of course you will get a negative result if you perform an improper test, much like you would not expect water to boil by setting a kettle on a drawing of a hotplate. This "ask Jesus into your heart" thing is like the drawing of the hotplate; it has the appearance of the real thing, but it is only a cheap imitation.

You have already decided in your heart that the test failed. Now I'm taking that victory away from you. I'm removing the convenient shield. I'm invalidating what you've believed to be a genuine effort on your part.

That is why you so stubbornly insist on referring back to the previous instructions you were given. Acknowledging that the test itself was a failure before you ever even tried it would put you right back in the position of being accountable for trying the correct test; the one that actually requires some commitment in order to perform properly.

Defeater of illogic, let go of that false test.

It has been my experience that when a Christian finds out you are a non believer and asks what you tried to find god they will always point to one thing you did not do "right" as a reason for your failure. When that does not work it will be something else you did that was wrong or you just were not sincere enough or another Christian will tell you another method to try that will work. How many methods will someone have to try before they can stop and just live their lives?

Where is gods responsibility in this to have one message to everyone on how to know he exists? Cannot he come down here and clear up the confusion? Even if the bible has one message on how to be saved/know he exists it is demonstrably not clear as every christian seems to have their own thoughts on it. Yet it is somehow my fault that I don't know the correct method when Christians cannot come up to a consensus reading the same book.

No one as of yet has got a message from god to tell me what wold convince me he exists. It is a sincere request, I want to know if God exists if he does. This is Gods opportunity to convince me.

 

[John Helpher]

How many methods will someone have to try before they can stop and just live their lives?

I guess you're trying the, "Just give up because I'll only be disappointed anyway" method?

How many methods will someone have to try before they can stop and just live their lives?

No one is saying Kylie can't live her life. I've actually told her a few times now if she's not interested in what Jesus has to offer then she should just say that. But that's not what she's doing. She's saying she tried something Jesus did not say to do, and using that experience as evidence of a problem with Jesus. That is not only irrational but also unfair.

Where is gods responsibility in this to have one message to everyone on how to know he exists?

Jesus' teachings. Kylie tried it some other way.

Cannot he come down here and clear up the confusion?

He already did that, but what you mean is that you want a personal appearance from God, that you want him to do what you say before you'll acknowledge him. You wouldn't do it that way in normal, day to day life. If you were looking for a job, you would not demand that your employer come to you to prove himself first before you agreed to take the job.

Even if the bible has one message on how to be saved/know he exists it is demonstrably not clear as every christian seems to have their own thoughts on it.

Right, your confusion equates to a problem with the source material. You'll spend the rest of your life blaming God for your own lack of sincerity.

No one as of yet has got a message from god to tell me what wold convince me he exists.

Based on what I've heard from you, you're working hard to make sure it stays that way.

It is a sincere request, I want to know if God exists if he does. This is Gods opportunity to convince me.

If only God would just do what you tell him to do, then of course you'd be faithful to him, that is, until he asked you to do something contrary to your personal desires. Then you may let Him know he needs to jump through another hoop in exchange for your cooperation, with the promise of many more hoops further along to maintain your loyalty.

Isn't it weird how God doesn't seem to be particularly interested in that kind of relationship?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I guess you're trying the, "Just give up because I'll only be disappointed anyway" method?

No, just trying to find out what method to use. What is the reason to keep trying different methods without any evidence they will work?

No one is saying Kylie can't live her life. I've actually told her a few times now if she's not interested in what Jesus has to offer then she should just say that. But that's not what she's doing. She's saying she tried something Jesus did not say to do, and using that experience as evidence of a problem with Jesus. That is not only irrational but also unfair.

I will let Kylie answer for herself.

Jesus' teachings. Kylie tried it some other way.

If Jesus teachings are the key then why are they demonstrably confusing?

He already did that, but what you mean is that you want a personal appearance from God, that you want him to do what you say before you'll acknowledge him. You wouldn't do it that way in normal, day to day life. If you were looking for a job, you would not demand that your employer come to you to prove himself first before you agreed to take the job.

Paul got an appearance from Jesus why not for everyone else? Does god play favorites?

Right, your confusion equates to a problem with the source material. You'll spend the rest of your life blaming God for your own lack of sincerity.

You cannot have a conversation about God without telling others what they think and accusing them of things you cannot possibly know.

Based on what I've heard from you, you're working hard to make sure it stays that way.

Did God tell you that? I just have a higher level of evidence than you.

If only God would just do what you tell him to do, then of course you'd be faithful to him, that is, until he asked you to do something contrary to your personal desires. Then you may let Him know he needs to jump through another hoop in exchange for your cooperation, with the promise of many more hoops further along to maintain your loyalty.

I am looking for evidence that god exists. Following him is different and another conversation. Not my personal desires but my personal morals. If the Christian god wants me to follow him he needs to convince me that he exists and is moral.

Isn't it weird how God doesn't seem to be particularly interested in that kind of relationship?

Well that is not what I am asking for anyway. But isn't it weird how you cannot tell the difference between your version of god and a god that does not exist?[/quote]

 

[John Helpher]

Well that is not what I am asking for anyway.

But it is. You said:

he needs to convince me that he exists and is moral.

If God doesn't do what you say, then you're gonna stick your lip out, stomp your feet on the ground, and declare that you won't believe he's real.

This goes to my comment that you are not sincere about looking for God. Of course, the creator of the universe is not accountable to you. It is not his responsibility to obey you which is why such a thing will never happen and is exactly the point; you've put yourself in a situation where you can righteously ignore what God wants from you, because he will not first do what you want. It's essentially a test of wills, and you're not gonna win that fight.

God will allow you to stubbornly spend the rest of your life shaking your fist at him for the sin of not caving to your demands for proof.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

If God doesn't do what you say, then you're gonna stick your lip out, stomp your feet on the ground, and declare that you won't believe he's real.

Please quote my entire post, here it is:

I am looking for evidence that god exists. Following him is different and another conversation. Not my personal desires but my personal morals. If the Christian god wants me to follow him he needs to convince me that he exists and is moral.

So I said that believing he exists is different than following him. If he is real and the bible accurately describes him then I would believe he exists but I would not follow a god with the morals described in the bible as I understand them. God would have to convince me he is worthy of following him. No stomping of feet, I just need sufficient evidence, you claims about my motivations are arrogant and dishonest as I have pointed pointed in the past.

This goes to my comment that you are not sincere about looking for God. Of course, the creator of the universe is not accountable to you. It is not his responsibility to obey you which is why such a thing will never happen and is exactly the point; you've put yourself in a situation where you can righteously ignore what God wants from you, because he will not first do what you want. It's essentially a test of wills, and you're not gonna win that fight.

Not at all. Any God worth following and worshiping would understand my situation and not just demand obedience knowing I am sincere and in need of good evidence. I can't just decide to believe he exists and I just cannot decide that he is moral without sufficient evidence. Your formula is just one of hundreds with the success rate of one as far as I can tell.

God will allow you to stubbornly spend the rest of your life shaking your fist at him for the sin of not caving to your demands for proof.

I won't spend the rest of my life angry at god, I will spend the rest of my life doing good, loving people, enjoying life. You have a stereotype of atheists. We are all different.

 

[Kylie]

Hi Kylie. You know, back when I first saw you posting here, I noticed that little blurb under your screenname, "defeater of illogic". I often feel a sense of intimidation when speaking with atheists as they tend to be quite intelligent. It's their intelligence which usually leads them to become atheist.

Are you suggesting that believers are unintelligent?

It can be easy to become proud of such intelligence and come to believe you are your own God, smoothed over with ideas that subservience to some greater intelligence would, in turn, be akin to abandoning your sense. I doubt there is any atheist who would agree with this assessment (at least, not outwardly), but I feel there is at least some truth to it.

I have absolutely no problem in accepting that I am mistaken about a particular viewpoint I hold, and I have no problem changing my beliefs about any issue at all. All I ask is that I am provided evidence to justify such a change in position before I change it.

And if I am provided with evidence that does justify believing that God exists, I will do so. If I am provided with evidence that this God wants me to live my life a certain way, I will do so.

But like I said, I need to be provided with evidence to justify such a change in viewpoint first. I'm sure you'd agree that changing one's viewpoint before having any justifiable reason to do so is not a good idea. If we did, then we'd be forever changing our viewpoint any time someone said, "You should believe in X, and you'll get the evidence for X after you believe in it."

I feel something like this may be happening here. Tough you are a defeater of illogic (and probably in many cases you really can be quite perceptive), in this case I do not see that happening. I see illogic, an illogic which I think should be fairly simple to see. Yet it is not, so I must ask myself, why is this person, who is almost certainly quite intelligent in many areas of life, somehow not getting in in this particular area.

If you see me using a logical fallacy at any point, please point out which one I am using. I'll do the same if I see you using a logical fallacy.

I believe the answer is that this is more so a test of wills rather than a rational examination of the logic behind the argument.

No. My ego is not in play here. As I've said many times, I am only interested in getting to the truth. If you can demonstrate that God is the truth, then I'll accept that. A rational examination of the logic behind the argument is all I want.

You have never heard of the teachings of Jesus before (I mean, specifically what he taught, like the examples I presented to you), despite being married to a Christian. I don't say that to impugn you or your husband, but rather as context. It's rare to find any Christian these days who knows what Jesus taught. For example, did you know Jesus said we should not make promises for any reason? That's a real command from Jesus. He said we should just say what we mean without any need to swear on it.

I have actually read the Bible.

Instead, what you've heard is something which is similar to what Jesus taught; ask Jesus into your heart. It's close, but not quite. Jesus did talk about He and the Father coming into a person and making Their home there, but that was premised on the understanding that the person would initiate the relationship via obedience to Jesus' teachings. It is obedience which would cause Them to come into a person's heart.

This sounds suspiciously like that "changing one's viewpoint before having any justifiable reason to do so" bit I was talking about earlier.

That same ease-of-performance is what appealed to you. A simple, unobtrusive test you can perform without any need to change, struggle, or suffer; very appealing. The fact that so many Christians today promote it as the ultimate test for knowing God just reinforces that sense of ease and so you tried it.

It didn't appeal to me. I've been an atheist all my life, and I've never felt I needed religion. I didn't do it for myself, I did it for my husband, and I did it because he asked me to because it was important to him.

And, as you've said, nothing happened. Now you have proof; the Christians themselves swear by this test and yet it failed. You were genuine. You were sincere and still the test failed. Now you have confirmation which even the Christians must acknowledge. You have a shield.

But, here I come, saying the test was flawed, that it was wrong and not consistent with what Jesus taught despite whatever these other professing Christians told you. Of course you will get a negative result if you perform an improper test, much like you would not expect water to boil by setting a kettle on a drawing of a hotplate. This "ask Jesus into your heart" thing is like the drawing of the hotplate; it has the appearance of the real thing, but it is only a cheap imitation.

It wasn't about doing a proper test for God, it was about my husband asking me to do something for him because it was important to him that I do it, and me doing it because I love him and I could see how important it was for him.

You have already decided in your heart that the test failed. Now I'm taking that victory away from you. I'm removing the convenient shield. I'm invalidating what you've believed to be a genuine effort on your part.

That is why you so stubbornly insist on referring back to the previous instructions you were given. Acknowledging that the test itself was a failure before you ever even tried it would put you right back in the position of being accountable for trying the correct test; the one that actually requires some commitment in order to perform properly.

Defeater of illogic, let go of that false test.

Hang on...

That test DID fail. You've agreed to this fact.

The fact you say a different test is needed does not change the fact that the first test failed. Blame the ones who set the test, not the one who carries it out.

 

[Kylie]

You talk as if 'doing Christianity' should be expected to work like walking into a Kentucky Fried Chicken and placing an order for some 'Original Recipe' ..........................................................

For that, you can blame the people who said that was the way it could be done.

Of course, if you are taking issue with the recipe analogy, you'll have to take that up with @John Helpher

 

[2PhiloVoid]

For that, you can blame the people who said that was the way it could be done.

Oh, believe me, I ... do! But, now that you realize the error, you can take steps to get out from under that notion and reassess the epistemology that may be involved, right? It would not only be the more realistic thing to do, but also the more scientific thing to do, too. Thank God for the concepts of 'human limitation' and the 'Hermeneutic Circle'!

Of course, if you are taking issue with the recipe analogy, you'll have to take that up with @John Helpher

.......well, we'll see. If there's any "taking up to do" with him, it won't be here in this forum.

 

[John Helpher]

I have absolutely no problem in accepting that I am mistaken about a particular viewpoint I hold

This is the point of my comments. The test you performed (i.e. asking Jesus into your heart) was a faulty test. It's not what Jesus said to do, regardless of who (whether your husband or some other churchy person) told you to do it.

You say you're willing to accept when you're mistaken; this is a situation where it'd be useful for you to demonstrate that sincerity by recognizing that the test you performed is not consistent with what Jesus taught.

In other words, you have not yet tried Jesus. And it sounds like you're not interested in trying Jesus. You were willing to do the "ask Jesus into my heart" thing because it didn't cost you anything any you wanted to satisfy your husband that you at least tried the ritual. But that's not giving Jesus an genuine go. And that's fine, so long as you're able to recognize it as such. What you did was a favor for your husband.

I realized you've already acknowledged that, but it seems to be you still want to be able to say that you gave Jesus a fair go and as a result you got your evidence that there is no God. Those cannot both be true.

Please note the distinction I'm making here; I'm not saying you can't still claim to be an atheist or whatever you want to be, I'm only saying that you cannot say you've tried Jesus as part of the evidence for why you believe there is no God.

 

[Kylie]

Oh, believe me, I ... do! But, now that you realize the error, you can take steps to get out from under that notion and reassess the epistemology that may be involved, right? It would not only be the more realistic thing to do, but also the more scientific thing to do, too. Thank God for the concepts of 'human limitation' and the 'Hermeneutic Circle'!

If someone wants to give me a better way to do it, they are certainly free to suggest their better method.

 

[Kylie]

This is the point of my comments. The test you performed (i.e. asking Jesus into your heart) was a faulty test. It's not what Jesus said to do, regardless of who (whether your husband or some other churchy person) told you to do it.

You say you're willing to accept when you're mistaken; this is a situation where it'd be useful for you to demonstrate that sincerity by recognizing that the test you performed is not consistent with what Jesus taught.

In other words, you have not yet tried Jesus. And it sounds like you're not interested in trying Jesus. You were willing to do the "ask Jesus into my heart" thing because it didn't cost you anything any you wanted to satisfy your husband that you at least tried the ritual. But that's not giving Jesus an genuine go. And that's fine, so long as you're able to recognize it as such. What you did was a favor for your husband.

I realized you've already acknowledged that, but it seems to be you still want to be able to say that you gave Jesus a fair go and as a result you got your evidence that there is no God. Those cannot both be true.

Please note the distinction I'm making here; I'm not saying you can't still claim to be an atheist or whatever you want to be, I'm only saying that you cannot say you've tried Jesus as part of the evidence for why you believe there is no God.

Once again, you seem to be missing the point. I was not doing it to find Jesus, I was doing it because that's what my husband asked me to do.

I did what my husband asked me to do, and you're criticising me because I wasn't doing what you thought I should do for a completely different reason.

And even though you agree that I've already acknowledged that, you're still having a go at me for it.

Like I've said many times, I didn't do it because I wanted to give Jesus a fair go, I did it because my husband asked me to.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If someone wants to give me a better way to do it, they are certainly free to suggest their better method.

Who says it's a "method"?

 

[John Helpher]

Like I've said many times, I didn't do it because I wanted to give Jesus a fair go, I did it because my husband asked me to.

Mmmm, this isn't the whole truth. It is part of the truth. You've actually been saying two things, which is why there's so much confusion here. Yes, you've said several times that you were only doing this for your husband; he asked you to perform a ritual that Jesus did not teach his followers to do, and you only performed the ritual to make him happy. It was not about trying to find evidence, or proof, or anything of that nature. It was only for your husband. Keep this quote (above) in mind as you read through these comments form your previous posts...

post #314 (to Iconoclast)

I have already made it abundantly clear to you that I have already done what you asked and I got nothing.I mentioned in a post from January 13th of this year that I did it for my husband.

Even in this one statement you're saying both things, that you did it for your husband, but also that you "got nothing". Why would you expect to "get something" if you were doing something you didn't believe in just to make your husband happy? Obviously, you want both to be true; you want to give the impression that you made a genuine effort so you've got something to give the Christians when they come your way, but you also want it to be clear that you don't really take this stuff seriously; it was just a thing you did for your husband.

post #355 (to Iconoclast)

If you can give me a method I have not tried, then I'd be happy to give it a go. But so far, everything believers have told me amounts to little more than, "This is what got me really convinced of the belief I already believed, so it must work the same for you too!"

But, this isn't about giving Jesus a fair go, right? It's just about making your husband happy, since you're a devout atheist who is not looking for anything more.

post #355 (to Iconoclast)

I see no reason to waste my time on something that I know from experience is unlikely to produce results.

Results? It sure does sound like you're talking about more than just making your hubby happy.

post #360

In any case, It's not just to satisfy my curiosity. If I get the evidence, I'd become a believer, as I've said many times. By giving me said evidence, God would get what he wants - me to believe in him.

Huh, sure does sound like you're talking about sincerely looking for evidence and not just being curious or performing a ritual to make your husband happy. One could easily get the impression that you're trying to say two different things at the same time...

post #361 (to Iconoclast)

And you are completely wrong about this. Why don't you try this:

Kylie - "i always want to know the truth. If God is the truth, then I want to know."

Icon - "are you willing to do what is necessary and come to God on His terms"

Kylie - "I already have done it, and the results I got indicate that there is no God."

Icon - "But it wasn't a test I could see, so you have to do it again."

Kylie - "I see no reason to waste my time doing a test which I've already done that produced no results..."

But, you've made it very clear that all this "ask Jesus into your heart" stuff (the very test you're referencing in this comment) was not about giving Jesus a fair go or looking for truth, but rather only to make your husband happy.

post #363

I prayed for Jesus to come into my life.

Nothing happened.

Why would you expect anything to happen? You were only doing this as a favor for your hubby, and not to give Jesus a fair go. That's what you said. It's like you're trying to make two opposite things true at the same time.

post #369

Likewise, if I got the evidence I needed to believe in God, then I would have followed through with that belief.

This is you trying to make it sound like you're only interested in evidence, right? But, didn't you say something about none of this relating to genuinely giving Jesus a fair go?

post #386

Or perhaps I am not interested in obeying anyone until I know for a fact that the person exists?

But, you said the test was not real for you. You weren't looking for evidence of existence, but rather just doing what your husband wanted.

post #386

This really sounds like those skin cream ads that claim that they will fight the "seven signs of aging," you know the ones where they claims that a particular thing is bad and try to make you afraid of them so they can sell you the "cure" they've invented?

No, this sounds more like someone claiming to be interested in evidence, when the opposite is true. You are the one selling fake skin cream. On one side of your mouth you make a big deal about how you only want the truth, evidence, and proof, while on the other side of your mouth you say that this was only ever about you just making your husband happy and not about giving Jesus a fair go. There are dozens of comments from you like this. Here, I'll list a few more:

post #386

If you can demonstrate that Jesus and/or God as described in the Bible is real, I will obey their laws completely.

post #386

All you've done is claim that you don't think I really want to follow God's laws even if I was shown irrefutable evidence that God was real.

post #387 (To Hawkins)

Of course, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

post #434

I'd know because I felt Jesus in my heart, wouldn't I?

post #434

But surely God could give me something that would utterly convince me.

post #434

but I have to do something first without any evidence of results.

post #452

I said I prayed for Jesus to come into my heart.

You asked me what it would have been like if that had worked.

I said that if it had worked I'd have felt Jesus in my heart.

post #462

And if you'd read the conversation I'd been having with The Iconoclast that this whole thing was in regards to a previous discussion in which he suggested that if I opened my heart to Jesus, then Jesus would come to me and I would get the evidence I required.

Post #495

I was told to do a thing and I'd get evidence for God.

I did the thing.

I didn't get the evidence.

post #508

And if I am provided with evidence that does justify believing that God exists, I will do so.

post #508

As I've said many times, I am only interested in getting to the truth.

post #508

Hang on...

That test DID fail. You've agreed to this fact.

Remember that first quote from you I pasted at the start of this post? Here it is again:

post #508

It [asking Jesus into your heart] wasn't about doing a proper test for God, it was about my husband asking me to do something for him because it was important to him that I do it, and me doing it because I love him and I could see how important it was for him.

I think it's clear who's selling the fake skin cream here, Kylie. I won't waste anymore time on your game-playing.

 

[Kylie]

Mmmm, this isn't the whole truth. It is part of the truth. You've actually been saying two things, which is why there's so much confusion here. Yes, you've said several times that you were only doing this for your husband; he asked you to perform a ritual that Jesus did not teach his followers to do, and you only performed the ritual to make him happy. It was not about trying to find evidence, or proof, or anything of that nature. It was only for your husband. Keep this quote (above) in mind as you read through these comments form your previous posts...

post #314 (to Iconoclast)


Even in this one statement you're saying both things, that you did it for your husband, but also that you "got nothing". Why would you expect to "get something" if you were doing something you didn't believe in just to make your husband happy? Obviously, you want both to be true; you want to give the impression that you made a genuine effort so you've got something to give the Christians when they come your way, but you also want it to be clear that you don't really take this stuff seriously; it was just a thing you did for your husband.

You seem to be taking this very personally.

I was asked by my husband to open my heart to God and Jesus because it was important for him that I do that.

So I did it.

I never said that this was what Jesus instructed people to do, I said that it is what my husband asked that I do. And I felt nothing from God or Jesus.

I have been very clear and open about this. Iconoclast seems to think that if I do it again and again I'll eventually get the result that he thinks I should get based on his religious belief.

You, on the other hand, seem to think that because I wasn't trying to do what you think I should have been doing, you have the right to get upset about it.

post #355 (to Iconoclast)


But, this isn't about giving Jesus a fair go, right? It's just about making your husband happy, since you're a devout atheist who is not looking for anything more.

I've also stated many times that I am interested in learning the truth. And if anyone can demonstrate that God and Jesus are the truth, I'd be willing to have a listen to them. Yet you have apparently judged me as being someone who just wants to reinforce my beliefs. Firstly, what happened to all that "judge not lest ye be judged" stuff? For shame, John. You are judging me unfairly and also deliberately ignoring what I have said.

post #355 (to Iconoclast)


Results? It sure does sound like you're talking about more than just making your hubby happy.

As I've said so many times that I've lost count, I'm after the truth.

post #360


Huh, sure does sound like you're talking about sincerely looking for evidence and not just being curious or performing a ritual to make your husband happy. One could easily get the impression that you're trying to say two different things at the same time...

I examined the arguments for and against God long before my husband asked me to do it. I'd already reached the conclusion that there was no convincing evidence to support the existence of God. And since I've not had any new evidence presented to me, merely repeats of arguments and evidence that I've already rejected, I see no reason to think that examining the same arguments and evidence will give me a different result.

post #361 (to Iconoclast)


But, you've made it very clear that all this "ask Jesus into your heart" stuff (the very test you're referencing in this comment) was not about giving Jesus a fair go or looking for truth, but rather only to make your husband happy.

Read the first line of mine that you quoted and bolded: i always want to know the truth. If God is the truth, then I want to know.

post #363


Why would you expect anything to happen? You were only doing this as a favor for your hubby, and not to give Jesus a fair go. That's what you said. It's like you're trying to make two opposite things true at the same time.

My husband asked me to be open to the truth. Even though I had been open to the truth (my examination of the arguments for and against) and reached a conclusion, I understood that he hadn't seen that and that he wouldn't feel right until he could see that I had done so. So I did it out of love for him.

post #369


This is you trying to make it sound like you're only interested in evidence, right? But, didn't you say something about none of this relating to genuinely giving Jesus a fair go?

You make it sound like that is the same as me saying that I was making sure I was trying to stack the deck AGAINST Jesus. That is just not true.

post #386


But, you said the test was not real for you. You weren't looking for evidence of existence, but rather just doing what your husband wanted.

As I've said, I am seeking the truth. I had already done an examination of the evidence and reached a conclusion. I did this test for my husband, but I did not expect that it would change my beliefs.

post #386


No, this sounds more like someone claiming to be interested in evidence, when the opposite is true. You are the one selling fake skin cream. On one side of your mouth you make a big deal about how you only want the truth, evidence, and proof, while on the other side of your mouth you say that this was only ever about you just making your husband happy and not about giving Jesus a fair go. There are dozens of comments from you like this. Here, I'll list a few more:

post #386


post #386


post #387 (To Hawkins)


post #434


post #434


post #434


post #452


post #462


Post #495


post #508


post #508


post #508


Remember that first quote from you I pasted at the start of this post? Here it is again:

post #508


I think it's clear who's selling the fake skin cream here, Kylie. I won't waste anymore time on your game-playing.

Again, I will say that I AM interested in finding the truth, whatever it may be. But when you have examined all the evidence and reached a conclusion, and then somebody asks you to do a test, do you think that one test is going to change the results?

You seem so determined to say that just because I did one test to satisfy my husband that I am lying when I say I am interested in the truth. And yet that is just not true. What I did for my husband was just one small part of my examination for the existence of God.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Once again, you seem to be missing the point. I was not doing it to find Jesus, I was doing it because that's what my husband asked me to do.

I did what my husband asked me to do, and you're criticising me because I wasn't doing what you thought I should do for a completely different reason.

And even though you agree that I've already acknowledged that, you're still having a go at me for it.

Like I've said many times, I didn't do it because I wanted to give Jesus a fair go, I did it because my husband asked me to.

Does it surprise you that nothing happened then? It doesn't me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

In general the more good evidence the better. But a ton of bad evidence does not add up to good evidence. Sometimes one piece of good evidence is enough to convince me. If I witnessed an alien body myself that one piece of evidence would be sufficient evidence for belief. If I heard 500 stories of people seeing an alien body then that would not be enough evidence for belief because the claim is extraordinary. Likewise, if I heard 500 people telling stories of visiting McDonald's, that would be sufficient for me to believe them. The claim is mundane. It really depends on the claim and the evidence.

Well there you go. If God revealed Himself to you, it would be sufficient but your choice was to doubt rather than go to Him. Millions and millions of people have had God reveal Himself to them in a multitude of ways, and once that happens, you never doubt again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

[QUOTE="Clizby WampusCat, post: 74964869, member: 420857"double post

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Well there you go. If God revealed Himself to you, it would be sufficient but your choice was to doubt rather than go to Him. Millions and millions of people have had God reveal Himself to them in a multitude of ways, and once that happens, you never doubt again.

This is not what I said at all. I never had God reveal himself to me. If he did I would have no choice but to believe.