Ask God for Me

[Clizby WampusCat]

Itś terrible to me that some believe that anyone can say anything...that people can claim anything...it doesn´t make it true....

This statement implies that peopleś words can not be trusted...

With that line of thinking, what is the point of asking anyone to provide evidence of anything.

Is your default position to believe someone until you have evidence it is not true? A claim is not evidence.

 

[Kylie]

I believe that this maxim is first of all very subjective, who determines how extraordinary a claim maybe and how evidence is determined extraordinary to explain it. An example being for instance, life coming from non-living materials. This is an extraordinary claim, which would need in line with the maxim, to be extraordinary due to the fact only life we see arising comes from living materials. Another example would be intelligence, we only know of intelligence arising from intelligence...it is an extraordinary claim which according to the maxim would need extraordinary evidence. In both examples there isn't any extraordinary evidence for those claims, yet you have no problem believing both without it.

Stop trying to change the subject. Any rational person would agree that the claim that God impregnated a woman so he could send a demigod to Earth to die for our sins and then be resurrected a few days later is an extraordinary claim.

Would it not be most likely that if a movement (the Church) were to be growing and was considered a problem for Rome that those writers that wrote about it, would have been happy to claim that they were worshipping someone that didn't even exist? Why would they claim someone who didn't exist was crucified by Pontius Pilate?

This doesn't address my point.

Why would those that felt Christians were a problem ignore such a prominent element to the whole movement? And again, why claim He was killed by Pontius Pilate if He didn't exist?

The absence of records is easy to explain. They were lost. They were destroyed. It's plausible that these were trotted out as explanations for why there were no records.

Actually the accounts of the Bible have very few inconsistencies, and the material is very cohesive.

Sure.

I am totally in awe of this. That is like saying why are Christians not following Jewish standards. We are not called Jews because we are not Jewish. Jews turned to Jesus as their Messiah, which was turning away from those who rejected Christ as their Messiah. We as the Christian Church are gentiles that are grafted into the line of Jews.

Sounds like you pick and choose when to refer to the followers of Jesus as Jews and when to refer to them as Christians.

A proper analogy would be this: Your daughter got punished on Tuesday for not picking up her room, she got punished Friday for not following directions, she got punished the following Friday for another offense. When discussing with your husband who was say out of town for several months, you relay the instances of offenses of why your daughter was punished. You don't wait to punish her, you don't give a day to day report of her punishment but when listing all the offenses you do it when you are compiling all the events that were around that point.

That's a terrible analogy because the text is not the punishment.

I will not address each one of these separately because I want to ask you first, what evidence or source would give you this information?

The fact that there are no contemporary sources is free for all to see.

Have you heard of inductive reasoning?

Yes. It is not sufficient to establish any objective fact in this case.

I wanted you to tell me what "evidence" could or would be used to determine this.

Your question does not follow.

You were telling me that there were people who mocked the early Christians and saying that this mocking supported their claims, saying that no one would allow themselves to be mocked for someone they knew didn't exist.

So what exactly are you asking me to provide evidence for?

Do you understand that evidence to support my claims is wide range and as far as the historical components, they are confirmed.

This wide ranging evidence seems to be impossible for you to provide.

It gives me insight into your worldview.

What are you talking about? You asked me to provide something, I provided it. Now you are acting like you've just discovered some important secret and you refuse to say what it is. Your vagueness is unimpressive.

 

[miknik5]

Is your default position to believe someone until you have evidence it is not true? A claim is not evidence.

It is my position to believe GOD who told me...yes...and it is because HE told me, that no man will be able to convince me otherwise.

I thought that I had made that clear in my testimony.

 

[Kylie]

It is my position to believe GOD who told me...yes...and it is because HE told me, that no man will be able to convince me otherwise.

I thought that I had made that clear in my testimony.

That seems to be a textbook example of closed-mindedness...

Would you consider yourself closed minded?

 

[miknik5]

That seems to be a textbook example of closed-mindedness...

Would you consider yourself closed minded?

No. I believe myself to be firmly planted on THE FOUNDATION...and because of it, no....sand....can come between my feet and THE FOUNDATION...

 

[miknik5]

Kylie, may I suggest that what you don´t understand you should not speak against? You can continue on not understanding, but to speak against it, well...you are better just not to...

You could, however...consider yourself as close minded.

Further, I would suggest also that your opinions remain your opinions...and better kept to yourself...

If what you say is not true, why say it?

A big difference between GOD and men, don´t you think?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It is my position to believe GOD who told me...yes...and it is because HE told me, that no man will be able to convince me otherwise.

I believe you believe this. But don’t get offended because I do not believe you. I am not saying that what you experienced was false, I am saying I do not have sufficient evidence to believe it is true.

Would you believe a Muslim if they told you something like this about their god? That Allah talked to them directly? Because they do.

I thought that I had made that clear in my testimony.

you don't get to decide if you were clear or not. The people reading it get to decide that.

 

[miknik5]

I believe you believe this. But don’t get offended because I do not believe you. I am not saying that what you experienced was false, I am saying I do not have sufficient evidence to believe it is true.

Would you believe a Muslim if they told you something like this about their god? That Allah talked to them directly? Because they do.

you don't get to decide if you were clear or not. The people reading it get to decide that.

No I won´t because I know there is only ONE GOD and ONE TRUTH...and I understand all that HE gave me to understand...

I know what I know...and I know who I learned it from... and THE GOSPEL, which had been closed to me throughout my young adulthood, in that moment, was opened to me in the quiet of my house...

There was no reason that my mind should have, at that moment, comprehended THE GOSPEL...I wasn´t practicing my faith, I wasn´t reading THE BIBLE, I wasn´t going to church.

I was at home, on maternity leave...and the day HE chose to reveal to me THE GOSPEL, my mind and my heart were opened, by HIM, and I heard THE GOSPEL and understood it in that moment that HE revealed it to me....

 

[miknik5]

No. I know that by HIS sending HIS SON into the world, HE not only provided man with the ONLY WAY back unto the presence of GOD, but HE shut up the mouths of every spirit who has, from the beginning, distorted THE TRUTH and twisted THE TRUTH and suggested alternatives to THE TRUTH...

Because sir, many will profess to have god(s), but deny THE SON...and those who deny THE SON, in a sense call the ONE TRUE GOD a liar...they do not believe HIS TESTIMONY which HE has given of HIS SON...in this, they have neither THE SON, or THE GOD and FATHER who sent HIM....

But the man who receives GOD´S TESTIMONY regarding HIS SON, has THAT WITNESS , and THAT WITNESS testifies with that man´s spirit to THE TRUTH...and the man who has GODŚ TESTIMONY is convicted in his own spirit....and is sealed...and .that man will never be moved off THE FOUNDATION.

 

[miknik5]

Oh, it was clear...
A person would have to have some sort of reading or comprehension problem not to have understood what I said.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

No I won´t because I know there is only ONE GOD and ONE TRUTH...and I understand all that HE gave me to understand...

I know what I know...and I know who I learned it from... and THE GOSPEL, which had been closed to me throughout my young adulthood, in that moment, was opened to me in the quiet of my house...

There was no reason that my mind should have, at that moment, comprehended THE GOSPEL...I wasn´t practicing my faith, I wasn´t reading THE BIBLE, I wasn´t going to church.

I was at home, on maternity leave...and the day HE chose to reveal to me THE GOSPEL, my mind and my heart were opened, by HIM, and I heard THE GOSPEL and understood it in that moment that HE revealed it to me....

I understand but can you take a step back and see that for a non believer this kind of evidence is insufficient because another person with a different god can have the same testimony?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Oh, it was clear...
A person would have to have some sort of reading or comprehension problem not to have understood what I said.

You seem to want to have a fight. I am not interested. Have a good day.

 

[miknik5]

I understand but can you take a step back and see that for a non believer this kind of evidence is insufficient because another person with a different god can have the same testimony?

And again, there is only ONE GOD and ONE TRUTH...regardless of those who believe and those who do not...

 

[miknik5]

You seem to want to have a fight. I am not interested. Have a good day.

I am black and white sir...you told me that one can´t understand what I claim...and I don´t want to beat around the bush...I said yes, they can...

You do not want to talk again with me, that is fine...but do not suggest that what I said was not clear. It was....
Or that I somehow want to have a fight. I don´t...



But I will say what is TRUTH...even if one says it is a claim without evidence...it is still TRUTH...regardless of what another needs in order to be convinced of its validity...

Again, it doesn´t matter who believes or does not believe.

TRUTH remains TRUTH...regardless...

 

[Oncedeceived]

Stop trying to change the subject. Any rational person would agree that the claim that God impregnated a woman so he could send a demigod to Earth to die for our sins and then be resurrected a few days later is an extraordinary claim.

Changing the subject? You are the one that brought this in! Don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot do you? You say you only believe things when the evidence is there to substantiate it, but when I point out two examples which by the very same maxim you brought into the conversation, you cry foul!

This doesn't address my point.

Oh really? Why not?

The absence of records is easy to explain. They were lost. They were destroyed. It's plausible that these were trotted out as explanations for why there were no records.

No records of Jesus not existing?

Sure.

Sure what? I am somewhat surprised you are unaware of all this. The gentiles (non-Jews) were not wanted in the early days of Christ's ministry. (Jesus wanted them but not the Jewish Disciples). Jesus knew the Jews would reject Him as their Messiah and that the church would be constructed by the Jewish disciples and the gentile people.

Sounds like you pick and choose when to refer to the followers of Jesus as Jews and when to refer to them as Christians.

To someone uniformed and unknowledgeable about Christianity I imagine so.

That's a terrible analogy because the text is not the punishment.

Where in the world did you get that?

The fact that there are no contemporary sources is free for all to see.

I gave you a list remember.

Yes. It is not sufficient to establish any objective fact in this case.

I don't see why not.

Your question does not follow.

You were telling me that there were people who mocked the early Christians and saying that this mocking supported their claims, saying that no one would allow themselves to be mocked for someone they knew didn't exist.

No, that isn't what I said.

So what exactly are you asking me to provide evidence for?

Why can't you go back and see rather than make me do it?

This wide ranging evidence seems to be impossible for you to provide.

What evidence would you consider evidence for Jesus's existence and resurrection? I would like an answer to this.

What are you talking about? You asked me to provide something, I provided it. Now you are acting like you've just discovered some important secret and you refuse to say what it is. Your vagueness is unimpressive.

Believe me, I don't have any desire to impress you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I know this is what you believe, but you have not shown it is true. I know you are more moral than God because I know you would not send someone to hell for lying. Do you think I deserve eternal punishment for my wrongdoing?

I know God exists, you yourself said if you knew God existed you would have no choice but to worship Him. God makes the rules. He created us. He has the right regardless to do what He wills. I don't know you, I don't know what sins you have done or why. God does. I know God is loving and merciful and so I can seriously rest assured that He does the right thing.

It is easy if you believe without sufficient evidence.

What would be sufficient for you?

These are the top 20 earthquakes measured. The Richter scale was introduced in 1935. If you look at the estimated Richter scales there were larger ones in history. This shows the deadliest on record was in 1556. List of historical earthquakes - Wikipedia

I took a quick look and it seemed to be the same thing, the later the date the closer the timing.

Which is not quantifiable.

Ok.

Do you think these are the only pandemics in history? No, these are some of the worst ones.

And they got closer in timing as well.

So this is very important to discuss. This is not the case. Here is why.

You said:
knowing this first of all, that scoffers will come in the last days with scoffing, following their own sinful desires.

I said:
Can't you see you have set yourself up for belief no matter what evidence is provided for you? If I agree with you that must mean god exists. If I disagree with you then god exists because the bible says there will be "scoffers".

You Said:
I'm just saying that the Bible claims that in the last days there will be scoffers.

I Said:
Yes so if we disagree it is because god exists if we agree it is because god exists. Convienient.

You Said:
But true.

I Said:
This does not allow you to process any information that is against your position. It is bad epistemology.

You Said:
Pot kettle black.

Can't you see that you have set yourself up to always be right? You believe that any information or evidence that you agrees with your interpretation of the bible is correct and any information or evidence that disagrees with your interpretation of the bible is incorrect because we are just scoffers as the bible says. I have demonstrated that I can change my mind on worldview altering ideas, becasue I have. I evaluate the evidence as best I can to determine the truth. Something you are not doing in relation to your faith. So you saying I am doing the same as you are in evaluating evidence for your beliefs is untrue. I think this is really important for you to consider. If you can never be shown wrong on these issues then how can you know you are right?

Well actually no. I don't base anything on people scoffing. I mean they do and have always but it seems that due to factors of our current times we know that it has increased. Regardless, I have knowledge of God's existence, the evidence I see in the universe is supportive of that knowledge.

 

[Kylie]

No. I believe myself to be firmly planted on THE FOUNDATION...and because of it, no....sand....can come between my feet and THE FOUNDATION...

You say no, but that sure sounds like a yes to me...

 

[Kylie]

Kylie, may I suggest that what you don´t understand you should not speak against? You can continue on not understanding, but to speak against it, well...you are better just not to...

You could, however...consider yourself as close minded.

Further, I would suggest also that your opinions remain your opinions...and better kept to yourself...

If what you say is not true, why say it?

A big difference between GOD and men, don´t you think?

What have I said that's closed minded?

 

[Kylie]

Changing the subject? You are the one that brought this in! Don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot do you? You say you only believe things when the evidence is there to substantiate it, but when I point out two examples which by the very same maxim you brought into the conversation, you cry foul!

So you are claiming that the existence of a God who sends himself in the form of his son to Earth through a pregnancy in a woman who did not agree to have that pregnancy (withdrawn as per post 1604) so the God could sacrifice himself to himself in order to convince himself to forgive all of humanity for the sins of two people who he practically set up to fail is no more extraordinary than evolution causing the development of simple self replicating molecules into more complex versions?

In any case, we are having a discussion about evidence for God. If you are going to try to make the conversation about the evidence for the development of life or intelligence, then you are most certainly changing the subject.

Oh really? Why not?

Because you don't explain why we should expect to find a source that points out the non-existence of a person who would later be said to have lived at the time. I raised this point in post 1573.

No records of Jesus not existing?

No, explanations why there are no records.

Going back to my example from post 1573, if, in a thousand years time people asked why there were no records of Arthur the Giant poodle who was president of the world, people couild say that the records were destroyed or otherwise lost.

Sure what? I am somewhat surprised you are unaware of all this. The gentiles (non-Jews) were not wanted in the early days of Christ's ministry. (Jesus wanted them but not the Jewish Disciples). Jesus knew the Jews would reject Him as their Messiah and that the church would be constructed by the Jewish disciples and the gentile people.

There are tons of inconsistencies in the Bible. Where it is inconsistent with what we know of the world, and inconsistent with itself.

Where in the world did you get that?

If I was writing a text about my daughjter's punishment, then I would describe her transgressions and then describe the punishments given for them.

I would not describe the punishments and then later, in a different part of the text, talk about the transgressions and not connect them to the punishments she received.

I gave you a list remember.

Please show me where you gave me a list of CONTEMPORARY sources.

I'll remind you that a contemporary source does NOT come from people who weren't eyewitnesses and they do NOT come from several decades after the events they describe.

I don't see why not.

Because it draws from limited experience, because it can be affected by personal biases...

No, that isn't what I said.

Why can't you go back and see rather than make me do it?

In post 1524, you cited Lucian as part of a series of sources that you presented as evidence Jesus existed, saying that even though Lucian ridiculed Christians, he still believed that Jesus was real.

In post 1526, I pointed out that Lucian's text only showed that there were people who believed that Jesus existed, and it was not evidence that he DID exist.

In post 1546, you pointed out that it also shows that there were people who mocked Christians.

Assuming you actually had some point to make with this comment, I asked in post 1551 if you thought people mocking others for having a belief means the belief is real.

And in post 1557, you asked me why people would mock someone who didn't exist.

And, silly me, I thought you meant that people wouldn't mock believes in Jesus if they knew Jesus didn't exist. So, in post 1560, I pointed out an example of where I myself was mocked for something that wasn't real.

And then in post 1572, you claimed that wasn't your point. Well, it sure came across as your point.

But still, I was willing to entertain the idea that you did have some different point to make. So in post 1573, I asked you what your point actually was.

In post 1577, you said your point was that you wanted me to tell you "...what "evidence" could or would be used to determine this."

And then in post 1582, I said your question does not follow. You want evidence that could be used to determine WHAT? That early Christians were mocked? I'm not disputing that. So what statement is it that you want me to describe the kind of evidence that would support it?

What evidence would you consider evidence for Jesus's existence and resurrection? I would like an answer to this.

Multiple sources that come from the time of the events they describe, clearly state who the authors are and are all in agreement with each other.

Believe me, I don't have any desire to impress you.

That's good, because I'd be very disappointed if you did have such a desire and this was the best you could do.

In any case though, what was the purpose of asking me for those sources?

 

[miknik5]

What have I said that's closed minded?

Somehow you CLAIM that a person who has given their testimony needs to provide YOU with more evidence...
The evidence itself, is the TRUTH that the GOSPEL is not received as from men to begin with...but from GOD...and the fact that it is, is the evidence and the testimony of many...

However, you do not believe...therefore you are closed minded to the things that are beyond this world...and you would have to believe first that there is a GOD before you can go any further into opening your mind to the TRUTH that HE does speak, and HE does reveal HIMSELF to those who seek HIM and never stop seeking HIM...

Without faith it is impossible to please GOD for one would (FIRST -MY EMPHASIS) have to believe HE is and a rewarder of all who diligently seek HIM....