I don't have time to read an additional story right now. I'd rather focus on your statements and explanations for the moment.
Making claims of receiving messages from a "god" is something I consider to be immense and a very significant claim. It is, in my opinion, not a small matter.
My issue is with the idea that a person would use their "feelings" at all to gauge something as significant as claiming a "god" has spoken to you.
If you're suggesting that the larger phenomenon of people claiming "feelings" relating to a "god" speaking to them is how we must judge fact then this opens the door to additional "gods"... Is this what you're trying to suggest? Then Vishnu must also talk to millions of people.
Faith and evidence are not the same thing. If you have faith then wouldn't evidence be irrelevant? To my understanding, on religious terms "faith" is about making claims without evidence or facts -- it's about feelings. From a secular perspective, one should make judgements (especially of large claims) on the basis of the evidence and facts and not whether their feelings go this way or that way.
Confirmation bias is not the same as "faith". Confirmation bias doesn't inherently mean you ignore evidence to the contrary but that you look for evidence that supports your bias. Removing bias from observation and science is important. We can both agree about that. Because removing bias is important is exactly why secularists do not respect the claims of "faith" because that is the ultimate bias.
Again though, a theist should stick to one side of the issue. Is "god" real because of your "faith" or is "god" real because of evidence?
An anecdote. Okay. Throw some "evidence" at me, I've been looking for some time.
If you do not think contradictions are errancy, then okay. I suppose you're right since we can't compare it to the original manuscript. I have to say that's a wonderfully convenient position you're taking...
You actually can not trust that every scribe copied it as faithfully as possible because some had intentions outside of copying it "faithfully". So does this open the door to "doubt"? You also don't really address my concern. If you want to judge whether a "god" is speaking to you, you're suggesting that feelings and the bible are two thirds of what you need to reach a conclusion. Do you not see the problems here? There are too many flaws in this process to reach a clear conclusion about this large claim.
Why? Why do you require a bias to confirm something as massive as a communication from a "god"? If what you're dealing with is fact and truth, then anyone of any denomination should be able to observe it. Don't you think or do you disagree?
Do you realize that through your system of measuring a communication from a "god" that any religion on earth with any "god" can make the exact same claim and it would be as true as your claims? Is this truly the best a person can do to validate whether a "god" has spoken to them?
It appears to me to be a very shaky, flawed and biased process. So much so that I think it's more reasonable that we can not trust these claims until further evidence is available.
So these other observers also have to have "feelings", confirmation bias and a similar interpretation of the bible? This to you is a good enough way to detect if a "god" is talking to you? The floodgates are open. According to your way of understanding information, facts and reality, anyone can claim "god" is talking to them and it will be as true as your claims.
Are saying that everything stated in the old testament is a message of "good"?
Okay.
Trust me, it doesn't take long and is worth the read.
http://www.stevesisler.org/?p=308
Can you be more clear about what you mean when you say "immense" or "significant?" I think we are inferring different things from those words.
Why does it surprise you that feelings are part of gauging God? He is a personal God, after all, who appeals to our spirit before all other things.
I wouldn't say I'm an expert on Hinduism, but as far as I know Vishnu doesn't speak to people in modern times. Perhaps some links would quickly clarify this?
If you're suggesting that the larger phenomenon of people claiming "feelings" relating to a "god" speaking to them is how we must judge fact then this opens the door to additional "gods"... Is this what you're trying to suggest? Then Vishnu must also talk to millions of people.
Here, I don't know how you came to this statement from the part you were quoting. But we don't have to merely rely on feelings of people. Measure what they feel against reality. For instance, when you read the story I linked, you will see that the man hears a very sudden and unsettling calling from the Holy Spirit. He doesn't want to respond to it, he feels certain it will backfire, but he responds anyways and discovers that indeed there was a purpose to it. I'd argue that this man would not have done what he did if it was anything but the Holy Spirit calling him.
Faith is evidence. Read the first verse of Hebrews 11.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If you took the time to continue reading that chapter, Paul lists a great many people in the Old Testament who acted on faith and saw a response. Their faith was evidence of God's existence, because by trusting God, things happened. This is how it is for every Christian. When we put our faith in God, we do so with expectation.
Also I believe it is impossible for anyone to remove their bias of beliefs. We're people, not robots. Everyone lives their lives with their beliefs. In science, in politics, it's there. There's no reason we can't do these things without our beliefs, and no reason why we should. That's why an Atheist and a Christian can see the same thing and interpret it as evidence of God's existence or not.
There are no Bible contradictions. I'm sorry but there just aren't. I've seen people point out contradictions, and I've seen other people give perfectly legitimate explanations. If you can't provide proof that there is a contradiction, we can dismiss it as not being a contradiction. It's just your interpretation, like we have ours. I'm not in a convenient position, we're both taking these things on faith that we are correct. I'm putting my faith in God that there is no inerrancy, you're putting your faith in yourself that if we do not have an original text, what we have now is probably errant.
How do you know the scribes had reasons other than to copy it faithfully? Of course we can trust them, if we can trust God, then we can trust the scribes he appointed to preserve his Word. Just like we can choose not to trust them. Anything that requires faith leaves room for doubt. If there was never any doubt, would it really be faith?
I see no problem here. As I already explained faith before, surely you know by now that if we hear the Holy Spirit and act on faith, we will see a response. Faith takes the idea that "you have to make risks in order to succeed" one step further. When you take risks out of faith in God, you
will succeed.
Why is it confirmed by believers, not outsiders? Simple. Outsiders have no idea what's going on with God, they don't even believe he exists! How would they know the first thing about the Holy Spirit? If anything outsiders would likely lead that person astray! Once again this is a situation that requires faith before all other things. It's no more a matter of bias than consulting a history professor on a historical event rather than a football coach is bias.
It may appear to be shaky to you, but the fact is millions of Christians have seen the results of their faith in God. If you do not have faith in God, it makes sense that you would see no results. Jesus said that there were people who saw, but did not see, and those who heard, but did not hear. A believer can see God working in his life, while an Atheist can see the same evidence and will not see it.
So these other observers also have to have "feelings", confirmation bias and a similar interpretation of the bible? This to you is a good enough way to detect if a "god" is talking to you? The floodgates are open. According to your way of understanding information, facts and reality, anyone can claim "god" is talking to them and it will be as true as your claims.
Again, you are singling out only one of my points and implying it is the sole basis of discerning the Holy Spirit. While anyone can claim God is talking to them, we can reason whether or not this is true using the points I listed. I think a great example of this is in the Harris vs Craig debate, in the Q&A section afterwards. There was that knucklehead who was obviously lying about God speaking to him in a dream the night before. Anyone who watches that wouldn't think for a second that he was being sincere. Yet how can we prove he was lying? We can't. What did Craig say in response to him? He flat out denied him, called him out for feigning sincerity and refused to answer his question. It took solid faith to do that. While we cannot prove or disprove anyone's claims of God speaking to them, there are many we Christians can easily dismiss, and there are many we can easily accept.
Do I think every message in the Old Testament is one of "good?" The quotations are important, what do you mean by "good?" Good in what way? Good for who? Even for those who believed in the Old Testament, I could say a lot of "bad" things still come their way.