Ask God for Me

[Clizby WampusCat]

or:
1. God exists.
2. God wants you to sincerely want to know that He exists but you have issues with God that won't allow you to reconcile His existence.

Nope, I don't have issues with God, I have issues with the god of the bible's morals. I am open to believing god of the bible exists and that he is moral if he wants to convince me.

3. God will utilize people in the aid of furthering your acceptance of Him but for us to ask God specifically to tell us what would be the break open moment for you to accept His existence is not usually how it works. Even some of us that have had people in our own family who were not believers who had to have that moment outside of what we had prayed. All we can do is pray that you will have that moment where God reveals Himself either by an action or some other point of revelation that brings you to Him. My greatest hope for you Clizby is that you understand the sheer importance of your decision and that you get right with God sooner than later.

Can God convince me he exists? If so, then it is up to him not me.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

The method HE designed from the beginning.

What do you think that is?

It actually brings up the question why do you make HIM biased?

What do yo mean?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nope, I don't have issues with God, I have issues with the god of the bible's morals. I am open to believing god of the bible exists and that he is moral if he wants to convince me.

Like I said you have issues with God.

Can God convince me he exists? If so, then it is up to him not me.

He doesn't force anyone.

 

[miknik5]

What do you think that is?

HIS SON.

What do you mean?

GOD doesn´t have to do anything more than what HE has already done in HIS SON...your request suggests that somehow, GOD will show you favoritism...as if you are more important and in need of more than what HE has already provided to ALL men...ALL HIS children...

You simply do not believe that this is sufficient...and you want more.

You can´t have more...
your request suggests that GOD needs to do more...

But HE doesn´t.

 

[Kylie]

God can't create gods. There is one God and He was not created.

Special pleading.

You missed the fact that this is not my personal opinion or analogy but one of an expert. Robert Shapiro,
Robert Shapiro
Born November 28, 1935
New York City, United States
Died June 15, 2011 (aged 75) [1]
Nationality American
Alma mater City College of New York (BS), Harvard University (PhD)
Known for Work on origin of life
Awards Trotter Prize (2004) with Paul Davies [1]
Scientific career
Fields Chemistry
Institutions University of Cambridge, New York University
Doctoral advisor Robert B. Woodward
He as you see spent his career in the study of origins of life. He totally understands Chemistry and what challenges there are to finding an answer, I mean of course being an unbeliever, he wouldn't consider God. However, he knew that Science wasn't close to discovering how life could arise from non-living materials.

So no qualifications in biology? Because that seems to me to be a much more relevant field.

Begging the question fallacy.

Are you suggesting that we DON'T know the natural world exists? Or that we should assume that it doesn't? Are you proposing a brain in a jar scenario?

Which is your bias showing. Incredulity, is not the description I would use. The reverse is very much discovered. The more we discover, the more is found that supports Intelligence.

And there's your bias. There is not a single scientist making this claim regarding a field relevant to their field of study.

You have been rude from the very first post I responded to and to many others on this board.

Have I ever told you that you are incapable of thinking for yourself? I don't think so. And yet you call me rude.

Totally false. These are things that are part of the Christian worldview, that you are totally unaware of it seems.

They may be part of the Christian world view, but they are still assumptions.

I don't have a clue, I don't even remember what this is about.

Let me refresh your memory.

Post 1572, you said, "Do you have a source that claims that Jesus didn't exist and wasn't crucified like the Bible, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Talmud say that He was?"

Post 1573, I said, "Nothing contemporary.

But that shouldn't surprise us. Why would anyone at the time specify that an individual who didn't exist didn't actually exist? It would be like expecting someone living today saying that Arthur the Giant poodle who was president of the world doesn't exist just in case people in the future think that Arthur the Giant Poodle existed in 2020 and was president of the world.

But inconsistencies and a lack of contermporary accounts when we would expect consistency and accounts written by people who were alive and eyewitnesses does cast doubt on the claims made later."

Post 1577, you said, "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?"

Post 1582, I said, "This doesn't address my point."

Post 1595, you said, "Oh really? Why not?"

Post 1599, I said, "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."

Post 1602, you said, "We have sources that wrote during the time of Jesus, if He didn't exist they would have surely made that point. It wasn't at a later time as you have claimed."

Post 1605, I said, "Very well. Please show me these sources about Jesus that come from the time of Jesus."

Post 1627, you said, "They are the authors of the New Testament. The New Testament is a historical manuscript that gives people, places, locations and events that historical scholars have shown to be accurate. They were eyewitnesses to the events written in that Historical document. There are 25,000 manuscripts to date."

Post 1643, I said, "Okay. Please show me that the texts in the new testament are the work of authors who wrote at the time of the events they described."

Post 1650, you said, "What?"

Post 1657, I said, "I asked for sources about Jesus that come from the time of Jesus.

You said that the documents in the New Testament are such examples.

I am now asking you to provide evidence that the documents in the New Testament about Jesus actually came from the time of Jesus.

I don't know how you found this unclear."

Post 1672, you said in response to the first three paragraphs where I explained what I was asking, "Scholar usually agree that the original documents (and there is evidence of original documents)were written earlier than those complied some mere decades later. The New Testament has more documentation and earlier than any other written antiquity." In response to the last paragraph where I said I didn't understand how you found it unclear, you said, "I didn't."

Post 1686, I said in response to your first response, "Assumption." In response to your claim that you didn't find it unclear, I said, "Then why did you say, "What?""

You forget there are contemporary accounts of the EXISTENCE of Jesus.

For anything to be a contemporary account of Jesus, it would have had to come from the time he was alive. That is between roughly 0AD to 33AD. So please she me an account of Jesus that comes from this time period.

Your choice.

It's not a choice, it's a fact that people can do it.

Frum...remember?

John Frum was not the person making the claims. He was the person the claims were being made about.

I gave you what you asked for.

No you didn't.

False. You only doubt what you don't already believe to be true, even if it isn't true what you believe.

Look at you, being judgemental again.

No, I see one your trying to make without considering the culture, the people and the way people of the time behaved.

And you're the one trying to find excuses to dismiss an example of people worshipping a person who never existed, despite the fact that the events happened within living memory, because to admit that it can happen makes your position weaker.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Like I said you have issues with God.

Issues he could clear up but apparently refuses.

He doesn't force anyone.

To believe? So what, all I want is an informed decision. If he convinces me he exists he does not have to force me to believe he can just provide sufficient evidence for that belief. Is supplying sufficient evidence that the earth is spherical shaped forcing me to believe it is? I would still have the ability to choose to follow him but it would at least be an informed decision.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

HIS SON.

You know this does not explain anything. I have no idea how this answers my question.

GOD doesn´t have to do anything more than what HE has already done in HIS SON...your request suggests that somehow, GOD will show you favoritism...as if you are more important and in need of more than what HE has already provided to ALL men...ALL HIS children...

This is simply not true. He revealed himself to Paul and others in scripture by miraculous means. I hear Christians say that god revealed himself to them and gave them personal revelation etc. So god providing me sufficient evidence for his existence is not showing favoritism. If he does not that would be showing favoritism because he reveals himself to some but not others but holds all of us to the same standard of belief.

You simply do not believe that this is sufficient...and you want more.

Yes

You can´t have more...

I don't think you have the authority to decide this.

your request suggests that GOD needs to do more...

Only if he wants me to believe.

But HE doesn´t.

I am not saying god has to do anything this seems to be his MO.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Special pleading.

No, it would only be special pleading if you could show that Christianity didn't hold this to be a tenet in their worldview. This is an established part of Christianity.

So no qualifications in biology? Because that seems to me to be a much more relevant field.

Does it? Surprising considering this scientist has I believe some 125 publications to his name. He was considered a leading scientist in DNA research and wrote several books on the subject, I know of four. I find it interesting that your whole premise was that simple chemistry to form a self-replicating molecule is pure chemistry and now you claim an expert in the field should be "in a much more relevant field to address the issue. It is equally interesting that you have claimed you listen to experts.

Are you suggesting that we DON'T know the natural world exists? Or that we should assume that it doesn't? Are you proposing a brain in a jar scenario?

No, I am saying that you are saying that everything has a naturalistic explanation because we know the natural world exists. Which begs the question.

And there's your bias. There is not a single scientist making this claim regarding a field relevant to their field of study.

That is actually untrue. There are scientists in the field that are do believe that new discoveries support intelligence behind those discoveries. Some scientists that were atheists became believers due to those new discoveries. DNA is a discovery that implies Intelligence due to the information within it. Even Crick, commented, "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. Scientists acknowledge the "appearance" of design but deny due to their own personal biases against God to allow for the conclusion it is designed. The more we discover, the more support towards design is evident. You can deny it is design if that is your choice, however, the appearance of design is well documented through Science and scientists (the atheistic biases disallow for actual design).

They may be part of the Christian world view, but they are still assumptions.

It is not an assumption that Jesus was a Jew, it is not assumption that the Disciples were Jews. Paul was a Jew, His mother was Jewish.
Wiki:
The books of the New Testament were all or nearly all written by Jewish Christians—that is, Jewish disciples of Christ, who lived in the Roman Empire, and under Roman occupation. Luke, who wrote the Gospel of Luke and the Book of Acts, is frequently thought of as an exception; scholars are divided as to whether Luke was a Gentile or a Hellenistic Jew. A few scholars identify the author of the Gospel of Mark as probably a Gentile, and similarly for the Gospel of Matthew, though most assert Jewish...

Let me refresh your memory.

Post 1572, you said, "Do you have a source that claims that Jesus didn't exist and wasn't crucified like the Bible, Josephus, Tacitus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapion, and the Talmud say that He was?"

Post 1573, I said, "Nothing contemporary.

But that shouldn't surprise us. Why would anyone at the time specify that an individual who didn't exist didn't actually exist? It would be like expecting someone living today saying that Arthur the Giant poodle who was president of the world doesn't exist just in case people in the future think that Arthur the Giant Poodle existed in 2020 and was president of the world.

But inconsistencies and a lack of contermporary accounts when we would expect consistency and accounts written by people who were alive and eyewitnesses does cast doubt on the claims made later."

Post 1577, you said, "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?"

Post 1582, I said, "This doesn't address my point."

Post 1595, you said, "Oh really? Why not?"

Post 1599, I said, "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."

Post 1602, you said, "We have sources that wrote during the time of Jesus, if He didn't exist they would have surely made that point. It wasn't at a later time as you have claimed."

Post 1605, I said, "Very well. Please show me these sources about Jesus that come from the time of Jesus."

Post 1627, you said, "They are the authors of the New Testament. The New Testament is a historical manuscript that gives people, places, locations and events that historical scholars have shown to be accurate. They were eyewitnesses to the events written in that Historical document. There are 25,000 manuscripts to date."

Post 1643, I said, "Okay. Please show me that the texts in the new testament are the work of authors who wrote at the time of the events they described."

Post 1650, you said, "What?"

Post 1657, I said, "I asked for sources about Jesus that come from the time of Jesus.

You said that the documents in the New Testament are such examples.

I am now asking you to provide evidence that the documents in the New Testament about Jesus actually came from the time of Jesus.

I don't know how you found this unclear."

Post 1672, you said in response to the first three paragraphs where I explained what I was asking, "Scholar usually agree that the original documents (and there is evidence of original documents)were written earlier than those complied some mere decades later. The New Testament has more documentation and earlier than any other written antiquity." In response to the last paragraph where I said I didn't understand how you found it unclear, you said, "I didn't."

Post 1686, I said in response to your first response, "Assumption." In response to your claim that you didn't find it unclear, I said, "Then why did you say, "What?""



For anything to be a contemporary account of Jesus, it would have had to come from the time he was alive. That is between roughly 0AD to 33AD. So please she me an account of Jesus that comes from this time period.

First of all, thank you for taking the time to repost our conversation. That takes a lot of time and you have a family and a job so I appreciate it. Here is a time frame that most Biblical scholars agree upon in which the writers of the NT wrote:
Chronology of New Testament Books and Events
Date* Historical Event

4 BC Birth of Jesus
4 BC Death of Herod the Great
14 AD Death of Augustus Caesar
14 AD Tiberius Becomes Emperor of Rome
26 AD Jesus Begins his Public Ministry
29 AD Jesus is Crucified on Passover
29 AD Jesus Rises from the Dead and Appears to Many
29 AD The Holy Spirit Comes and the Church is Born
30 AD Christianity Spreads in Jerusalem
34 AD Stephen is Stoned and Martyrdom Begins
35 AD Paul Accepts Jesus on the Road to Damascus
37 AD Caligula Becomes Emperor of Rome
40 AD Cornelius and Gentiles Accept Jesus
41 AD Claudius Becomes Emperor of Rome
42 AD Antioch Becomes the New Center for the Christians
43 AD Theudas claims to be Messiah and is executed
46 AD The Book of James is Written
46 AD Paul Begins his First Missionary Journey
51 AD Paul Begins his Second Missionary Journey
52 AD The Book of 1 Thessalonians is Written from Corinth
53 AD The Book of 2 Thessalonians is Written from Corinth
54 AD Paul Begins his Third Missionary Journey
54 AD Nero Becomes Emperor of Rome
56 AD The Book of Galatians is Written from Corinth
57 AD The Book of 1 Corinthians is Written from Macedonia
57 AD The Book of 2 Corinthians is Written from Macedonia
58 AD The Book of Romans is Written from Corinth
58 AD The Book of 1 Peter is Written from Babylon/Rome (?)
59 AD Paul is Imprisoned at Caesarea
59 AD The Book of Philippians is Written from Caesarea
60 AD The Book of Matthew is Written from Antioch (?)
60 AD Paul Appears Before Agrippa
61 AD Paul is Imprisoned at Rome
61 AD The Book of Titus is Written from Rome
61 AD The Book of Philemon is Written from Rome
61 AD The Book of Mark is Written from Rome (?)
62 AD The Book of Ephesians is Written from Rome
62 AD The Book of Colossians is Written from Rome
62 AD Paul is Released
62 AD The Book of 1 Timothy is Written from Macedonia
63 AD The Book of Hebrews is Written from Judea (?)
64 AD Paul is Imprisoned Again
64 AD The Great Fire of Rome (Christians are Blamed)
65 AD The Book of 2 Peter is Written from Rome
65 AD The Book of 2 Timothy is Written from Rome
66 AD The Jews of Judea Revolt against Rome
67 AD The Book of Acts is Written from Rome
68 AD Paul is Martyred at Rome
69 AD Jerusalem is Besieged by the Romans
69 AD Vespasian Becomes Emperor of Rome
70 AD Jerusalem and the Temple are Destroyed and the Jews are Deported
73 AD The Jews Commit Mass Suicide at Masada
79 AD Titus Becomes Emperor of Rome
80 AD The Book of John is Written from Ephesus (?)
80 AD The Book of 1 John is Written from Judea (?)
80 AD The Book of 2 John is Written from Ephesus (?)
80 AD The Book of 3 John is Written from Ephesus (?)
89 AD The Book of Revelation is Written from Patmos
*All Dates are approximate, there has been much debate and speculation as to exact dates.

It's not a choice, it's a fact that people can do it.

Its your choice to believe what you believe.

John Frum was not the person making the claims. He was the person the claims were being made about.

I understood that.

No you didn't.

You asked me for a source, I gave you one. You didn't ask for the material from the source.

And you're the one trying to find excuses to dismiss an example of people worshipping a person who never existed, despite the fact that the events happened within living memory, because to admit that it can happen makes your position weaker.

I direct you again to the culture.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Issues he could clear up but apparently refuses.

How do you suppose he would clear those up?

To believe? So what, all I want is an informed decision. If he convinces me he exists he does not have to force me to believe he can just provide sufficient evidence for that belief. Is supplying sufficient evidence that the earth is spherical shaped forcing me to believe it is? I would still have the ability to choose to follow him but it would at least be an informed decision.

You ignore any and all evidence for the existence of God and call it insufficient. Which is fine, but you don't have a valid answer as to why it is insufficient when your naturalistic worldview gives you no evidence for why certain things exist the way they do.

 

[miknik5]

You know this does not explain anything. I have no idea how this answers my question.


This is simply not true. He revealed himself to Paul and others in scripture by miraculous means. I hear Christians say that god revealed himself to them and gave them personal revelation etc. So god providing me sufficient evidence for his existence is not showing favoritism. If he does not that would be showing favoritism because he reveals himself to some but not others but holds all of us to the same standard of belief.

Yes

I don't think you have the authority to decide this.
Only if he wants me to believe.
I am not saying god has to do anything this seems to be his MO.

Why did JESUS reveal HIMSELF to Paul?

That is a question you need to first ask yourself and the answer can be found here:

Acts 9:16

 

[miknik5]

As you have said, The method HE designed, is THE GOSPEL...HIS foreknowledge in sending HIS SON, from the beginning ,to redeem a people called and marked as belonging to GOD, in HIS SON...

That is the method...there is no other method/way but by, in and through and because of HIS SON.
Nothing else and no other means will be exalted above THE GIFT of GOD, found most clearly and visibly in HIS SON whom HE sent for the sins of the world...

 

[miknik5]

By the way, Clizby...do not believe any personal revelation outside the TRUTH of THE GOSPEL...

There are no longer prophets, sir...in the sense that there is foretelling...
But there are witnesses who testify to the TRUTH of THE GOSPEL...and they will simply be expounding/forthtelling, what GOD has already provided us in HIS (written) WORD.

There is a reason why it is written DO NOT GO BEYOND what is written....

There is NOTHING and NO THING that needs to be added to the STORY of OUR SALVATION in, by and through HIS SON...

GOD did not leave anything out...HE gave us everything we need to know the TRUTH of THE SON

And HE will not exalt any man over HIS SON....

 

[miknik5]

You know this does not explain anything. I have no idea how this answers my question.


This is simply not true. He revealed himself to Paul and others in scripture by miraculous means. I hear Christians say that god revealed himself to them and gave them personal revelation etc. So god providing me sufficient evidence for his existence is not showing favoritism. If he does not that would be showing favoritism because he reveals himself to some but not others but holds all of us to the same standard of belief.

Yes

I don't think you have the authority to decide this.
Only if he wants me to believe.
I am not saying god has to do anything this seems to be his MO.

You can´t have more...you have the BEST but you don´t realize it...
HIS motive was written in John 6

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

How do you suppose he would clear those up?

I don't know but do you think that he cannot?

You ignore any and all evidence for the existence of God and call it insufficient.

Evaluating evidence and determining they are insufficient for belief is the opposite of ignoring the evidence. You are reaching for straws here.

Which is fine, but you don't have a valid answer as to why it is insufficient when your naturalistic worldview gives you no evidence for why certain things exist the way they do.

I don't need to know how or why the universe exists to evaluate evidence for the existence of god. All the evidence I have evaluated as insufficient is so becasue it does not stand up to basic epistemological standards. I am not saying god does not exist only that there is insufficient evidence to believe he does.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

By the way, Clizby...do not believe any personal revelation outside the TRUTH of THE GOSPEL...

There are no longer prophets, sir...in the sense that there is foretelling...
But there are witnesses who testify to the TRUTH of THE GOSPEL...and they will simply be expounding/forthtelling, what GOD has already provided us in HIS (written) WORD.

There is a reason why it is written DO NOT GO BEYOND what is written....

There is NOTHING and NO THING that needs to be added to the STORY of OUR SALVATION in, by and through HIS SON...

GOD did not leave anything out...HE gave us everything we need to know the TRUTH of THE SON

And HE will not exalt any man over HIS SON....

You seem to think just because you say something makes that evidence that it is true. It is not.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

You can´t have more...you have the BEST but you don´t realize it...
HIS motive was written in John 6

Well then I cannot believe based on hearsay. That is bad evidence to believe extraordinary claims.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't know but do you think that he cannot?

He can. Will He? I don't know. Yet, putting myself in God's place: I create the universe and all life within it. I put out there evidence that I designed it but leave it where someone isn't forced to believe but has evidence to believe. I create life with DNA which contains information which only is a product of intelligent minds with a code, language and blue prints which illuminate that intelligence. Yet, He wants you to believe what you CHOOSE to believe. He creates the perfect planet for life to exist. He makes laws that the universe obeys and only intelligence is know to produce laws . Yet, He wants you to believe what you CHOOSE to believe. He writes a moral code within each human being that is universal and yet, He wants you to believe what you CHOOSE to believe. He gave you experiences that were to lead you to Him, yet, He wanted you to CHOOSE to believe. So putting myself in God's place, wanting you to make the choice for me rather than against me from your own free will, would I use something to force you to believe? So while He could give you undisputable proof of His existence, He wants everyone to make that choice on their own. You believe He is an immoral monster, why would the God of all of Creation bow down to the created when you feel the way you do?

Evaluating evidence and determining they are insufficient for belief is the opposite of ignoring the evidence. You are reaching for straws here.

I don't think so. You are fine not having evidence as long as that void is within your own worldview. Your chosen worldview I might add. So evidence isn't as important as you are claiming, you don't want to bow down to a God that you feel is less moral than you are. You don't want to bow down to a God who won't give in to your demands.

I don't need to know how or why the universe exists to evaluate evidence for the existence of god. All the evidence I have evaluated as insufficient is so becasue it does not stand up to basic epistemological standards. I am not saying god does not exist only that there is insufficient evidence to believe he does.

So you don't need evidence for reality to evaluate the evidence of the existence of God. The universe exists, why should it? How does it, how did it come into existence? Why does life at its very beginning have a language that produces a goal? Why does the earth sit exactly where it sets in the galaxy that is necessary for life to exist as we know it? These are reality. You can deny that it doesn't matter if your worldview can't explain it, but why then do you claim it is necessary, not only necessary but insufficient for you to believe God exists? That is bordering on hypocrisy.

 

[miknik5]

You seem to think just because you say something makes that evidence that it is true. It is not.

I know that and have said that from the beginning...
TRUTH is TRUTH...regardless of what one says, does or believes...or does not say, does not do, and does not believe...

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I know that and have said that from the beginning...
TRUTH is TRUTH...regardless of what one says, does or believes...or does not say, does not do, and does not believe...

And again you misunderstand me. I 100% agree that truth is truth no matter what anyone believes. I am talking about how we know that truth is truth. These are different things.

How do you know god exists?

 

[miknik5]

And again you misunderstand me. I 100% agree that truth is truth no matter what anyone believes. I am talking about how we know that truth is truth. These are different things.

How do you know god exists?

Because I do....