Christianity's most inconsistent position

[NBB]

No, my point is simple. Personal experience lends nothing to truth. If so, then all religions are true. The fact that I'm making points, which have no easy and slick asserted blank answers, is not my problem. It's yours. Blank assertions are abundant. And in your case, they are somehow 'validated' simply because you assert them. So please do not tell me 'I must win'. Your every blankly asserted response in this thread speaks to such a conclusion - that you have 'found Jesus', and all the the one's who have not are just lost in their illogic.

• That people that didn't find Jesus are lost in their illogic is true. very true.
• I don't know why i have vignettes i didn't type them
• Nature speaks of something greater, and we need to find what it is.

 

[NBB]

No, my point is simple. Personal experience lends nothing to truth. If so, then all religions are true. The fact that I'm making points, which have no easy and slick asserted blank answers, is not my problem. It's yours. Blank assertions are abundant. And in your case, they are somehow 'validated' simply because you assert them. So please do not tell me 'I must win'. Your every blankly asserted response in this thread speaks to such a conclusion - that you have 'found Jesus', and all the the one's who have not are just lost in their illogic.

Personal experience builds what you are so that cannot lend nothing to truth is......

 

[cvanwey]

• That people that didn't find Jesus are lost in their illogic is true. very true.
• I don't know why i have vignettes i didn't type them
• Nature speaks of something greater, and we need to find what it is.

I will let the prior responses, in which you have provided, speak for themselves.

But yes, I also conquer to your very last point (to some small degree). If there does exist 'something greater', it would sure be nice to know what that might actually be.

But the ability to ask such questions, does not then conclude there must be one or two necessarily.

But thank you for demonstrating my points - that blank assertions, by way of anecdotal accounts, lend nothing to validated truth.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You brought up the comic book, not me. My question is very simple. Was the --> intent <-- of the author to demonstrate truth to the existence of Thor, yes or no? If yes, then 'hermeneutic' the crap outta it If not, then case closed.

Yep! Thor doesn't exist, which is what I indicated in not so direct words in my previous post.

 

[NBB]

I will let the prior responses, in which you have provided, speak for themselves.

But yes, I also conquer to your very last point (to some small degree). If there does exist 'something greater', it would sure be nice to know what that might actually be.

But the ability to ask such questions, does not then conclude there must be one or two necessarily.

But thank you for demonstrating my points - that blank assertions, by way of anecdotal accounts, lend nothing to validated truth.

That is preaching, that the bible says most people will find God through it. Good luck finding proof of God without first believing someone with an 'anecdotal' experience and not a scientific proof.

 

[cvanwey]

That is preaching, that the bible says most people will find God through it. Good luck finding proof of God without first believing someone with an 'anecdotal' experience and not a scientific proof.

I rather enjoy the attempt in equivocation

You are placing the metaphorical cart before the proverbial horse. You are arguing in circles. You 'think' the Bible was inspired by the very God you believe in. I must first already reconcile that the Bible was god inspired, and not just man written. Like I stated prior, I am a pure product of my indoctrination. But even so, find it hard to accept that such a book was inspired, for various reasons well outside the scope of this thread.

My point is that many truths are verified without anecdotal experience. The lack in such experiences is what seems to more-so validate such supernatural experiences, or lack there-of, not the antithesis in the claims that one experienced them.

Case and point, five people are in the same room, at the same time. One states they see a ghost, and the others do not see the ghost. Whom/who is/are 'right', and how might one investigate?

Thanks

 

[NBB]

I rather enjoy the attempt in equivocation

You are placing the metaphorical cart before the proverbial horse. You are arguing in circles. You 'think' the Bible was inspired by the very God you believe in. I must first already reconcile that the Bible was god inspired, and not just man written. Like I stated prior, I am a pure product of my indoctrination. But even so, find it hard to accept that such a book was inspired, for various reasons well outside the scope of this thread.

My point is that many truths are verified without anecdotal experience. The lack in such experiences is what seems to more-so validate such supernatural experiences, not the antithesis in the claims that one experienced them.

Case and point, five people are in the same room, at the same time. One states they see a ghost, and the others do not see the ghost. Whom/who is/are 'right', and how might one investigate?

Thanks

IF you are going to believe in God and experience something from him which people can, then or either you start believing something that is not within scientific proof realm, not neccesarily always needs to be the bible but something that starts your faith at least, or well i don't think you can other way, when i was a kid i believed in God, but actually had no real hard proof of him, later i was touched by him, and had absolute proof, for myself at least.
Every christian needs to know God in his path, there is no 'i know God, then let me show you how he is' like a method or something, and how its done can vary.

 

[NBB]

I rather enjoy the attempt in equivocation

You are placing the metaphorical cart before the proverbial horse. You are arguing in circles. You 'think' the Bible was inspired by the very God you believe in. I must first already reconcile that the Bible was god inspired, and not just man written. Like I stated prior, I am a pure product of my indoctrination. But even so, find it hard to accept that such a book was inspired, for various reasons well outside the scope of this thread.

My point is that many truths are verified without anecdotal experience. The lack in such experiences is what seems to more-so validate such supernatural experiences, or lack there-of, not the antithesis in the claims that one experienced them.

Case and point, five people are in the same room, at the same time. One states they see a ghost, and the others do not see the ghost. Whom/who is/are 'right', and how might one investigate?

Thanks

A lot of people were converted by friends or family, they were drunks, or drug addicts, they were rude or other things, and they started to say they now believe in God because of a preaching, or they were invited to church and something happened, and the lives of them were changed, and they were changed, then the unbeliever family member/friend started to believe, etc etc.

 

[cvanwey]

A lot of people were converted by friends or family, they were drunks, or drug addicts, they were rude or other things, and they started to say they now believe in God because of a preaching, or they were invited to church and something happened, and the lives of them were changed, and they were changed, then the unbeliever family member/friend started to believe, etc etc.

Yes, and other opposing religions have the very same testimonials. So we are right back to square one.

Thanks

 

[cvanwey]

IF you are going to believe in God and experience something from him which people can, then or either you start believing something that is not within scientific proof realm, not neccesarily always needs to be the bible but something that starts your faith at least, or well i don't think you can other way, when i was a kid i believed in God, but actually had no real hard proof of him, later i was touched by him, and had absolute proof, for myself at least.
Every christian needs to know God in his path, there is no 'i know God, then let me show you how he is' like a method or something, and how its done can vary.

Please read all my other responses. We are just going in circles at this point.

 

[NBB]

Please read all my other responses. We are just going in circles at this point.

A word 'of wisdom': you are not going to find God with scientific proof, like finding him walking around or something. Look for more subtle evidence.
You should not ask that. If you do, then that doesn't mean what i say is not true.

 

[cvanwey]

A word 'of wisdom': you are not going to find God with scientific proof, like finding him walking around or something.
You should not ask that. If you do, then that doesn't mean what i say is not true.

Thanks. And as I've demonstrated, personal experiences lend nothing to truth. Otherwise spirits, aliens, other gods, the loch ness monster, and the countless other claims, would also be validated as truth.

So I guess I need to just keep asking questions here, awaiting a better type of argument

 

[NBB]

Thanks. And as I've demonstrated, personal experiences lend nothing to truth. Otherwise spirits, aliens, other gods, the loch ness monster, and the countless other claims, would also be validated as truth.

So I guess I need to just keep asking questions here, awaiting a better type of argument

Look for more fine sutble evidence, there is to be found.

 

[NBB]

Thanks. And as I've demonstrated, personal experiences lend nothing to truth. Otherwise spirits, aliens, other gods, the loch ness monster, and the countless other claims, would also be validated as truth.

So I guess I need to just keep asking questions here, awaiting a better type of argument

I don't know what type of argument can convince you.
Maybe a miracle can happen to you... (not sarcastic)

 

[NBB]

Yes, and other opposing religions have the very same testimonials. So we are right back to square one.

Thanks

I get that you don't have the minimal intention of seeking truths without something blatant showing up in your face.

 

[cvanwey]

I get that you don't have the minimal intention of seeking truths without something blatant showing up in your face.

I've had many things seemingly so up in my face, which were later discovered as most likely false. What your point?

 

[Par5]

There has been a lot of talk in this thread about how a person's life is changed for the better when they "find" god, yet there is not a day goes past that you don't have Christians posting new threads here on CF, mainly threads in which I am not allowed to participate, pleading for help and prayers as they struggle with problems like drugs, alcohol, pornography, infidelity and thoughts of suicide. Some even say they feel that their god has deserted them. Seems like they suffer from the same kind of things lots of unbelievers struggle with as well. Just a thought.

 

[cvanwey]

Look for more fine sutble evidence, there is to be found.

I can find or instill deeper 'meaning' in anything, if I so desire. I can invoke intentional agency, where ever I so choose. If I start doing so, does this mean all such events, in which I feel are crafted and honed specifically just for me, are now so?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Seeing these questions makes it pretty clear to me that we are still talking past each other. I do not know about being one of Jehovah's fallen angels or whatever, but the point is that any of the "gods of the nations" would be rejected by the Jews, which makes their 'real world' existence or non-existence a moot point. If the gods of the nations were 'real' in some sense, it wouldn't matter, because they were already told to only worship their own God, and if these other gods were only ever ideas, then it wouldn't matter, because they were already told to only worship their own God.

A slightly different answer could probably be given to the question of relatedness. Since it's not good enough to simply have an idea of there being only one true God, or for that matter more than one, to actually qualify as worshiping Him within any particular religion (or else Judaism, Christianity, and Islam would actually be the same religion, rather than three different religions conveniently grouped under the title of "Abrahamic" by lazy people, and all forms of polytheism would be the same religion), it's entirely possible to say that, yes, every group's idea of "God" or "gods" is ultimately related to the one true God, while also maintaining that the God or gods of every group but your own is false. This is what you've rightly identified as henotheism, and it is a part of the monotheism put forward by the aforementioned three religions, not something separate from it. I mean, would you wonder about the Islamic commitment to monotheism because a place like Saudi Arabia executes people for witchcraft? That surely makes it seem like the Saudis at least behave as though spirits other than Allah exist, and to the extent that they can be given the supplication (successfully, maybe?) which in Islam is due only to Allah, this is effectively a kind of roundabout recognition of the existence of other gods besides Allah, despite their creedal statement saying otherwise (they go even a bit further than Judaism or Christianity on this point, stating that there is no "small g" god but God/Allah, whereas at least in the other two the small-g gods are recognized as existing in whatever sense they may among the non-believers).

In summary, I would say that the "separate existence" idea is simply irrelevant, while the "relatedness" idea is both obvious and irrelevant.

So...I don't know or care, and yes.

It matters more whether or not a deity is real. You seem to think it matters more whether a deity is acknowledged. That's not what I'm going after on this thread.

 

[DogmaHunter]

God's word is necessarily true, truth being an attribute of God himself. So if God exists, his word alone is a proper justification of knowledge.

"if".
So his words aren't "necessarily true". Since "if".

So really, there is no justification for this "knowledge", except in some fallacious circular way.