Resurrection Evidence

[the iconoclast]

I clearly directed the post to the person I quoted, though I'm not beyond you commenting if you think there's something worth discussing in what I said

Hey hey you

Well im not hesitant to have a conversation with you my new friend

If i was to say, "have a taste of God and see if he is good". Would you give faith a shot and pursue Him, and seek Him out. So you can find out once and for all if He truly exists?

Cheers

 

[muichimotsu]

Hey hey you

Well im not hesitant to have a conversation with you my new friend

If i was to say, "have a taste of God and see if he is good". Would you give faith a shot and pursue Him, and seek Him out. So you can find out once and for all if He truly exists?

Cheers

If God is such that you can just be casual with it, then it doesn't suggest the entity in question is as serious and important as you claim it to be. Not to mention I feel no desire for such a thing in the first place, any "spiritual" aspects constrained to mindfulness meditation or such, nothing speculative or mystical, relying on mere feelings and being drawn around by the proverbial nose

I was raised Christian, it's not as if I didn't do the conversion and such, but even with the knowledge I have from studying religion and theology in my college years, I don't find it any more compelling, quite the contrary, it's generally just an unpleasant idea that leads to depression, self loathing, moralizing, any fulfillment someone has not remotely caused by "God", but merely correlated to it by inference.

 

[cvanwey]

Please excuse me.

1. I would like you to please explain to me, why do accept one thing but reject the other? - Please provide your reason with a detailed explanation.

Please dont be shy and do not ignore answering. Thank you in advance.

I'll do you one better

Post #303:

Please understand [my own personal criteria for historical reporting].

- Any/all historical reports have to be acknowledged as fallible.
- Reported sources, which stem from a particular bias - (politically or socially), tend to lend less plausible 'objective' credibility.
- Reported events, which defy the laws of physics, tend to lend less plausible credibility.
- Hearsay is usually less reliable than first hand reports.
- Such events supported by relevant concrete relics add to the possible veracity...
- Claimed events are independently corroborated, via eyewitness attestation.
- Eyewitness attestations are reported contemporarily.
- Original source documents are preserved, where applicable.

Maybe others, but this is all I can recall off the top of my head...

Reason - a cause, explanation, or justification for an action or event.

To reason - the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgements logically.

The Holy Spirit confirms this truth of Jesus.

3. What you think about my reply?

Evidence - the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

4. Eye witness account and the Bible. What do you think about this reply?

I wont ignore questions if you do not, please answer the original substance ie -

I would like you to please explain to me, why do accept one thing but reject the other? - Please provide your reason with a detailed explanation. I have numbered the questions. It started off as one and now it has grown to 4.

Failure to answer may seem suspect.

I trust post #303 will suffice?

Now, getting to your reason/justification (for) a resurrection. I too agree that eyewitness attestation might be one of the only ways to 'validate' a claimed one time event in the past.

So, seeing that we might agree on a major component to the validation process for such an event, and now taking into account (my) given criteria for evaluating past claimed events, via direct/first-hand eyewitness attestation, do you now wish to explore your claim regarding such an event?

 

[the iconoclast]

I'll do you one better

Post #303:

Hey hey

Love it, lets see what you got for me.

- Any/all historical reports have to be acknowledged as fallible.

Why do they need to be acknowledged as fallible?

- Reported sources, which stem from a particular bias - (politically or socially), tend to lend less plausible 'objective' credibility.

Why is this so?

- Reported events, which defy the laws of physics, tend to lend less plausible credibility.

Why is this so?

- Hearsay is usually less reliable than first hand reports.

I agree in a limited form. What hearsay do you disagree with in particular?

- Such events supported by relevant concrete relics add to the possible veracity...

Does archeology convince you?

- Claimed events are independently corroborated, via eyewitness attestation.

You might as well throw out much of history there. Are the Gospels considered an eye witness? If not, why not?

- Eyewitness attestations are reported contemporarily.

Wow, you have set such a standard for yourself.

So what would you need here to accept that Jesus is your salvation?

- Original source documents are preserved, where applicable.

Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate.

What say you?

Maybe others, but this is all I can recall off the top of my head...

All good, it just opens up even more questions.

I trust post #303 will suffice?

Not really but i will play where the ball lands.

Now, getting to your reason/justification (for) a resurrection. I too agree that eyewitness attestation might be one of the only ways to 'validate' a claimed one time event in the past.

Why or how can you justify?

So, seeing that we might agree on a major component to the validation process for such an event, and now taking into account (my) given criteria for evaluating past claimed events, via direct/first-hand eyewitness attestation, do you now wish to explore your claim regarding such an event?

How should i proceed? What is needed here?




1. I would like you to please explain to me, why do accept one thing but reject the other? -

Are you suggesting you accept one and reject the other because you accept eye witness testimony?

2. Explain to me why there is required extra evidence for the claims that He rose from the dead 3 days later?

You seemed to ignore this question. Please address it?


You ignored this one.

Icon - "The Holy Spirit confirms this truth of Jesus."
3. What you think about my reply?


You gave an answer to this one.

4. Eye witness account and the Bible. What do you think about this reply?

Cvanwey - "we might agree on a major component to the validation process for such an event."

So you will accept the bible is an eye witness account?

Cheers but id start answering questions. All you do is make more questions appear.

It started with 1. Then your last reply produced 4. Now 11 have been included.

We are now at 3 questions you seem to ignore and 11 new ones.

That is 14 questions we are up to. Please do not ignore them or that will set a precedent where i do not have to acknowledge your questions.

Cheers and i look forward to depth from you. I would assume that you given things of this nature much thought?

Cheers my dear

Ps
Next post I choose red. The colour of the blood of Jesus.

 

[the iconoclast]

If God is such that you can just be casual with it, then it doesn't suggest the entity in question is as serious and important as you claim it to be.

Hey hey

My dear that is not an example of sound logic.

Not to mention I feel no desire for such a thing in the first place, any "spiritual"

What would make you desire to seek what is spiritual?

aspects constrained to mindfulness meditation or such, nothing speculative or mystical, relying on mere feelings and being drawn around by the proverbial nose

What are you drawn around? What have you got that makes you so convinced that there is no use?

I was raised Christian, it's not as if I didn't do the conversion and such, but even with the knowledge I have from studying religion and theology in my college years,

As a Christian, what did you do for God? Did you seek Him out with all your heart and all you mind?

Did you open your heart to God and admit He is your salvation?

Did you love Him?

Did you give yourself to God as a covenant?

What was being a Christian to you, back then?

I don't find it any more compelling, quite the contrary, it's generally just an unpleasant idea that leads to depression, self loathing, moralizing, any fulfillment someone has not remotely caused by "God", but merely correlated to it by inference.

Why did you feel these things? Give me a detailed explanation with much depth?

What, how and why will do nicely.

Cheers my dear

 

[muichimotsu]

My dear that is not an example of sound logic.

You presented God as something you could just "try", the fault is in your framing of the entity in question and why I should just sample it like a new flavor of ice cream

What would make you desire to seek what is spiritual?

Much of that depends on what you even define as spiritual. Me introspecting about my self in some sense could be said to be spiritual, but generally it's not defined that way, so it becomes such that I don't find it compelling in the first place anymore than a desire to do recreational drugs

What are you drawn around? What have you got that makes you so convinced that there is no use?

I'm not drawn around, I have feelings and I respond to them tempered with reason. I see no use, I'm not convinced there is absolutely no use, that's not what I said

As a Christian, what did you do for God? Did you seek Him out with all your heart and all you mind?

Did you open your heart to God and admit He is your salvation?

Did you love Him?

Did you give yourself to God as a covenant?

What was being a Christian to you, back then?

I was really just pushed into it, but even with knowledge and understanding I have now, I see no reason to engage with Christianity as true, because I find the ideas within it generally abhorrent, particularly the focus on an external source of meaning and generally regarding this life as utterly pointless except as it glorifies the entity from which we derive meaning, generally a misanthropic self loathing worldview I want no part of and see no real improvement in people that cannot be attributed to incidental aspects of Christianity that aren't unique to it

Why did you feel these things? Give me a detailed explanation with much depth?

What, how and why will do nicely.

Maybe if you asked more specific questions than just why, as if my explanation will satisfy you in the first place rather than potentially just play into you think I was never really open to such things. What are you asking about in particular that I wasn't feeling? I never found a need to pray because I didn't feel the desire to find an external solution to my problems of that nature rather than asking others for assistance and getting some reliable response

I studied religion in college and continue to investigate it as a phenomenon, but I'm still nowhere closer to being convinced of the truth of any supernatural entities, events, etc because I don't find the conclusion that particular things are evidence convincing. But more fundamental to that is the incoherency of religious/spiritual claims in the first place, no consistency and not even a critical examination of it that doesn't tend to engage in cognitive dissonance to ignore contradictions within the supposedly thorough system they believe in.

God is the worst offender in the transcendent nature, yet it supposedly intervenes, created the world, cares about humanity, but is supposed to be a perfect entity, so it creates a logical contradiction in the qualities possessed.

 

[cvanwey]

Why do they need to be acknowledged as fallible?

Before we proceed, you asked for [my criteria]. Moving forward...

The claim(s) needs to be fallible and/or falsifiable. Remember, I stated this is all I can think of off the top of my head... Rarely is someone pressed for their detailed criteria of discerning something being 'true/false'. It's a work in progress. Please bare with me

Going back to the above, if it is not acknowledged, then you can assert whatever you want, and all we can do, on the receiving end, is shrug our shoulders. Further, if the assertion is 'true', simply because it says so, then I gather I do not need to explain how this is circular.

Why is this so?

Let me return your question with yet another pointed question(s)... Would you agree that the later Bible writers were already believers? Would you also agree, that we do not seem have located any contemporary accounts, of seeing a man claiming He is the Messiah, and claiming He returned from the dead, as black/white historical conjecture? Meaning, they neither believed/disbelieved, but merely reported/recorded seen events - ( a man making this claim). Would you also agree that the only accounts we have, of a Man rising from His grave, is from the later Bible/Gospel accounts themselves?

If so, this means plausible bias

Why is this so?

Your trustworthy best friend tells you he went to the store and was mugged on the way there. You might believe him without further inquiry.

Your same trustworthy best friend tells you he floated up to the top of the Empire State building with no aid of any kind. I trust you would not accept this claim without (more) evidence.

I agree in a limited form. What hearsay do you disagree with in particular?

Before I answer, let me clarify something for you.

I'm going to grant you some 'givens', without any contest

Jesus was born. Jesus preached. Jesus died on a cross.

Moving forward, the accounts in the Bible are basically hearsay for anything which defies physics. Again, you could argue then I MUST disregard all events from antiquity. But please understand. We do not even have any secured reports of such miracles outside the Bible itself. The Bible was likely written from bias. You could argue that the Bible writers wrote from bias, because they receive direct witness to the events, which causes their bias. But, this is clearly not true. The Gospels were written later, likely not from eyewitness attestations directly. Hence, from hearsay or presupposition.

Does archeology convince you?

Depends on the situation. And also depends on the type of found 'findings.' But it seems to me one criteria which could/can help support the claim. See below...

You might as well throw out much of history there.

No. Like I stated above. I will blindly accept that Jesus lived and dies. Just like I do with 'Alexander the Great'. But the claims which defy the laws of physics need more for me.

Are the Gospels considered an eye witness? If not, why not?

Likely not.

eyewitness - "a person who has personally seen something happen and so can give a first-hand description of it"

We do not know who wrote the Gospels?

Wow, you have set such a standard for yourself.

So what would you need here to accept that Jesus is your salvation?

I would first need evidence undergoing such criteria listed above, that He rose from the dead after being dead for three days. Can you produce any specifics to support as such? Generalizations of stating 'the Bible' and 'eyewitnesses', is not specific.

Jesus in the Antiquities, found in Book 18, states that Jesus was the Messiah and a wise teacher who was crucified by Pilate.

What say you?

Again, I will blindly accept He was born, preached, and died. Seems little bias would stand to loose/gain much from such a claim. However, 'conformation' of Him being a Messiah, is a resurrection claim. Do we have any attestations, outside of bias, proclaiming as such; that they saw a man/being simply claiming to have risen from the dead after 3 days? And hopefully a least few of them? Or do we instead only have the Bible, likely written from later people whom already believed it? Which is hearsay... "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor." Or, "the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law."

It's the difference between consulting two historical references...

The first stating Jesus returned from the dead and proved He was the Messiah. Versus the second historical reference, which states I was minding my own business, and a man claiming to be the Messiah contacted me. I did not know what to think, but it was interesting.

Or maybe...

The first reports that Jesus was born at this time, and some people believed He was more than a man. Verses the second, which states Jesus was born, and is our Messiah.

Why or how can you justify?

I'll give you an example....

Jesus returns from the dead. Hands out Bibles, written in a way no one has even yet seen (type written, other etc...). They are also indestructible. He hands them out to many people across the globe. This would raise MAJOR pause for me

1. Concrete relic
2. Original source documents preserved
3. Global reports of having the same document, written by an agent outside current capable technology

etc....

But instead, God's choice is to let things unfold the way every other claimed event goes down in history. Relies upon faith instead, as the lynch pin.

How should i proceed? What is needed here?

What'za got? Any specifics?

Are you suggesting you accept one and reject the other because you accept eye witness testimony?

Please see above

2. Explain to me why there is required extra evidence for the claims that He rose from the dead 3 days later?

You seemed to ignore this question. Please address it?

No, I did not ignore it. But I'll play your game

It defies the laws of physics. Outside the Gospel accounts, which are likely written from the classic definition of hearsay, do we have actual eyewitness attestation of a man claiming He is the Messiah, after rising from the dead three days later?

Icon - "The Holy Spirit confirms this truth of Jesus."
3. What you think about my reply?

You appear to have presented a mere assertion. The onus is on you to support this claim. Again, what'za got specifically?

4. Eye witness account and the Bible. What do you think about this reply?

Not much. Please demonstrate these eyewitnesses?

 

[the iconoclast]

Before we proceed, you asked for [my criteria]. Moving forward...

Hey hey and thank you for replying

I did.

The claim(s) needs to be fallible and/or falsifiable. Remember, I stated this is all I can think of off the top of my head... Rarely is someone pressed for their detailed criteria of discerning something being 'true/false'. It's a work in progress. Please bare with me

I will bare with you however you still havent answered the question with an explanation.

Why do they need to be acknowledged as fallible? Please explain giving examples and context as to why?

Going back to the above, if it is not acknowledged, then you can assert whatever you want, and all we can do, on the receiving end, is shrug our shoulders.

Why can i assert what ever i want? Why do tou think i would choose to do so?

To find out if something is true should you not seek and find out?

Further, if the assertion is 'true', simply because it says so, then I gather I do not need to explain how this is circular.

Explain to me how this is circular?

Circular argument - a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Let me return your question with yet another pointed question(s)...

Cool.

Would you agree that the later Bible writers were already believers?

A belief or knowledge in something your reporting does not mean you were wrong, lying or fabricated things.

You seem to be attacking the credibility of something because the author who saw it or believes it, wrote it.

You seem to be implying - with speculation and assumption - that there is bias. If i saw a comet - you didnt - and reported on it why am i less trustworthy?

Would you also agree, that we do not seem have located any contemporary accounts, of seeing a man claiming He is the Messiah, and claiming He returned from the dead, as black/white historical conjecture?

Within a few decades of his lifetime, he is mentioned by Jewish and Roman historians, as well as by dozens of Christian writings.

Josephus made a reference to James, the brother of “Jesus, the so-called Christ”.

What say you?

Meaning, they neither believed/disbelieved, but merely reported/recorded seen events - ( a man making this claim).

This is still speculation. What point are you trying to make?

Would you also agree that the only accounts we have, of a Man rising from His grave, is from the later Bible/Gospel accounts themselves?

Seems there was never any debate in the ancient world about whether Jesus of Nazareth was a historical figure. In the earliest literature of the Jewish Rabbis, Jesus was denounced as the illegitimate child of Mary and a sorcerer. Among pagans, the satirist Lucian and philosopher Celsus dismissed Jesus as a scoundrel, but we know of no one in the ancient world who questioned whether Jesus lived.

Now the resurrected Jesus was only witnessed by the disciples and the empty tomb by 2 women.

Why should you and i doubt these eyewitnesses?

If so, this means plausible bias.

Notice your inclusion of if so, what ifs do not make sound logic. What this is a matter of is trust; do we accept that this happened and are we willing to make a leap of faith.

From the accounts of the Gospels, even the discples refused to believe Jesus when He told them what was in store for Him. God/Jesus had a plan which only became perceived once Jesus presented Himself.

"Belief bias is the tendency to judge the strength of arguments based on the plausibility of their conclusion rather than how strongly they support that conclusion.

Apparantly, a person is more likely to accept an argument that supports a conclusion that aligns with his values, beliefs and prior knowledge, while rejecting counter arguments to the conclusion."

The whole faith thing is to accept Jesus into your heart and you will receive the Holy Spirit.

Why reason do you have not trust these eyewitnesses?

Your trustworthy best friend tells you he went to the store and was mugged on the way there. You might believe him without further inquiry.

Fictitious and hypothetical situations are never good examples to compare to real and true life situations. True life can sometimes be more bizarre than fiction and fantastic in nature.

This example assumes how i will react to a hypothetical situation and is quite vague in its conditions. You do not know me and what i would do.

Your same trustworthy best friend tells you he floated up to the top of the Empire State building with no aid of any kind. I trust you would not accept this claim without (more) evidence.

I love these setups. We may trust our friend when he talks of the believable but not when he talks of things which can not possibly happen. Notice your use of the word trust, i did!

Ill throw it back to you. Jesus is reconciliation between you, us and God. What further evidence do you need?

Before I answer, let me clarify something for you.


I'm going to grant you some 'givens', without any contest



Jesus was born. Jesus preached. Jesus died on a cross.


Moving forward, the accounts in the Bible are basically hearsay for anything which defies physics.

Hearsay - information received from other people which cannot be substantiated; rumour.

History - the whole series of past events connected with a particular person or thing.

Report - give a spoken or written account of something that one has observed, heard, done, or investigated.

News - newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent events.

Truth - the quality or state of being true.

Lie - an intentionally false statement.

What do you refer to that defies physics?

Again, you could argue then I MUST disregard all events from antiquity.

Im aware of such a point as i already made it. It comes down to trust.

But please understand. We do not even have any secured reports of such miracles outside the Bible itself.

What miracles do you refer to and why is that such a thing to cause disbelief?

The Bible was likely written from bias.

Notice your use of word likely. It would appear the matter is not concluded successfully. The use of the word likely show doubt. What doubt could there be that this is in fact truth?

You could argue that the Bible writers wrote from bias, because they receive direct witness to the events, which causes their bias.

Ok then, argue away? I want to see how you present such an argument?

But, this is clearly not true.

The Gospels were written later, likely not from eyewitness attestations directly. Hence, from hearsay or presupposition.

I beg to differ. What evidence do you have to back up your claim?

Love the words "likely not".

Depends on the situation. And also depends on the type of found 'findings.' But it seems to me one criteria which could/can help support the claim. See below...

Ill throw something at you and see if it sticks

Pontius Pilate’s Name Is Found on 2,000-Year-Old Ring

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...BRAB&usg=AOvVaw2ExTM8pnHANUQ6tPNbogv-&ampcf=1

This was the 2nd time pontius pilate's name has finally appeared. Does this help strengthen the Gospel narrative?

No. Like I stated above. I will blindly accept that Jesus lived and dies. Just like I do with 'Alexander the Great'.

You seem to be a man of 'science'.

Why do you blindly accept the Jesus and alexander lived? What beneift is it to you?

But the claims which defy the laws of physics need more for me.

Are the law of physics 100% certain to happen?

Are you familar with all the laws of physics?

Likely not.


eyewitness - "a person who has personally seen something happen and so can give a first-hand description of it"


We do not know who wrote the Gospels?

So if we do not know who wrote them then we cannot confirm they are not eyewitnessed. Correct?

Comes back to trust. Notice how i keep using the word trust, it will eventually all come down to that. As this discussion unfolds, you will see.

I would first need evidence undergoing such criteria listed above, that He rose from the dead after being dead for three days. Can you produce any specifics to support as such?

It was 2000 years ago. I do not know where He rose and i can only go by what the Gospels say. I trust it is the truth.

I read the Gospels, accepted with all my heart that Jesus is who He says He is. I was given the Holy Spirit and had experiences with God.

I gave 'myself' to God. You havent really given me what evidence you would accept.

Ill ask again.

So what would you need here to accept that Jesus is your salvation?

Generalizations of stating 'the Bible' and 'eyewitnesses', is not specific.

What more specifics do you need? So far setups, what ifs and speculation do not help your arguement.

What do you need to accept God into heart?

Again, I will blindly accept He was born, preached, and died. Seems little bias would stand to loose/gain much from such a claim.

So you will blindly accept this, i assume you mean there is little to loose or gain from such an acceptance. Well it brings you one step further, you accept the historical existance of Jesus. Now its a matter of if you believe what He says?

However, 'conformation' of Him being a Messiah, is a resurrection claim. Do we have any attestations, outside of bias, proclaiming as such; that they saw a man/being simply claiming to have risen from the dead after 3 days?

Why do you need such things?

Why do you need this outside ruling?

Ill throw this at you. You blindly accept that Jesus existed - little to loose or gain. Would you loose little and gain little by seeking Him out?

And hopefully a least few of them?

Why?

Or do we instead only have the Bible, likely written from later people whom already believed it?

Notice your word likely. Why is it a problem that someone who reports something and believes?

Would it be better for someone to disbelieve and report? How about believe and not report?

What is the earliest manuscript for the nt?

Which is hearsay... "information received from other people that one cannot adequately substantiate; rumor." Or, "the report of another person's words by a witness, which is usually disallowed as evidence in a court of law.

I disagree with your assessment. I call it news.

The last component of managing rumors is credibility. Rumors are often spread by sources that are not credible. A rumor itself is not credible unless it is proven to be true. That is why people say to never trust the tabloids.

Now you have to tell me why why the source os not credible?

Why us it credible to blindly believe Jesus existed yet the sources are not credible?

We have awoken a contradiction in your reasoning.

It's the difference between consulting two historical references...

The first stating Jesus returned from the dead and proved He was the Messiah. Versus the second historical reference, which states I was minding my own business, and a man claiming to be the Messiah contacted me. I did not know what to think, but it was interesting.

What 2 historical references do you refer to that justify this statement?

When someone makes a claim, one can either accept, reject or go and find out the info to form a decision.

What would you do to confirm this claim or reject it?

Or maybe...

The first reports that Jesus was born at this time, and some people believed He was more than a man. Verses the second, which states Jesus was born, and is our Messiah.

I confused here. They both technically mean the same thing?

I'll give you an example....

Jesus returns from the dead.

Resurrected.

Hands out Bibles, written in a way no one has even yet seen (type written, other etc...). They are also indestructible. He hands them out to many people across the globe. This would raise MAJOR pause for me

So you will appeal to the extreme. That scenerio will never happen.

What is something else that would raise a major pause to you?

1. Concrete relic

Relic - an object surviving from an earlier time, especially one of historical interest.

What do you have in mind?

 

[the iconoclast]

2. Original source documents preserved

Lets check this out.

What do you mean here?

3. Global reports of having the same document, written by an agent outside current capable technology

Why good will this do for you?

How will this make it more reliable?

But instead, God's choice is to let things unfold the every other claimed event goes down in history. Relies upon faith instead, as the lynch pin.

What other claims rely on faith - similar to Christian faith?

Why is faith a bad thing?

Is faith not trust?

What'za got? Any specifics?

Cvan - "do you now wish to explore your claim regarding such an event."

Cvan - "What'za got? Any specifics?


I believe it happened according to the NT. What do you want me to do here, repeat scripture or speculate?

Whatever my response is must be catered towards you.

Please see above

So you accept that alexander existed because there is relics, original sources and people outside of his circle that reported him?

Give specifics and examples.

Why is not alexander the great hearsay?

What would you call it, news, reporting or gossip?

No, I did not ignore it. But I'll play your game

Yeah you did. You ignore much. What about my question re archeology? Anyways i let you off as the questions keep on coming.

It defies the laws of physics. Outside the Gospel accounts,

What do you know about physics that makes this defy them? What law of physics is defied?

which are likely written from the classic definition of hearsay,

What is the classic definition of hearsay?

Why cant this be the 'classic' defintion of news?

do we have actual eyewitness attestation of a man claiming He is the Messiah, after rising from the dead three days later?

The Bible - which you believe is not credible.

This looks like a major thing for you ie whether the Bible is credible or not.

This should probably be our center point.

Why should i not trust the authors of the NT?

You appear to have presented a mere assertion. The onus is on you to support this claim. Again, what'za got specifically?

ill give you my testimony.

I was in church many years ago, i was with 2 older ladies, we were praying together and i was having 'hands laid on me'. These women were Spirit filled.

All of a sudden i went into a vision. I had my eyes closed, slumped forward and in deep prayed. I was in a fixed state. I found myself soaring like a bird above the vast land. I could feel the wind and a sense of altitude - im scared of heights so i practically froze.

After what felt like minutes a mustered up the strength to look around and started to gain some form of comfort. I noticed an active volcano in the distance but did not think too much about it - dude im flying!!!

I started to realise i was heading straight for this spewing volcano and started to become concerned. I couldnt move my body or redirect my trajectory, I was trying to toss my body and do what ever i could. No good!

Just as i was about to hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus' (save me). Instantly i stopped yards from the lava, i can remember the sensation of heat and a sense of fatigue and relief. I was pulled up - like a beam or like invisible hands - and put back into the sky and continued to fly.

Once i started to fly again the 2nd last thing i saw, where hills amongst mountain tips with someform of ruins or old buildings.

Then suddenly 'my screen' was burned and i was presented with new surroundings. I saw 3 silhouettes of human like figures but the 2 outside ones were overlaped with the middle one - which was larger than the other 2.

There was fire everywhere. It seemed though i was standing in this fire with the 3. I could hear the crackle and sizzle of fire, all i could do was stare at the silhouette in front of me. I dont think i even blinked, it was speechless and frozen.

Then the fire started to simmer down and i 'came to'. The ladies looked concerned, their eyes were wide open with a look of shock. They asked me what happened and am i ok. I told them what happened casually and went back into the congression.

I was changed, i felt completely different in my mind. It felt like i had something in my heart and i knew how to orientate my heart to God.

I was given the Holy Spirit!!!

Now i know that you will say personal experience are not verifiable proof but indulge me, what do you think about this?

Not much. Please demonstrate these eyewitnesses?

How can i demonstrate eyewitnesses to you?

Ps see my reply on trust and the nt. I need you to perform, i need more from you then what you are willing to give.

 

[the iconoclast]

You presented God as something you could just "try",the fault is in your framing of the entity in question and why I should just sample it like a new flavor of ice cream

Hey hey

Why cant you try God and sample Him like a new flavour of ice cream?

What do you know about the nature of God - - - that im missing?

Much of that depends on what you even define as spiritual.

Ill go by what the dictionary says.

Spiritual - relating to religion or religious belief.

Me introspecting about my self in some sense could be said to be spiritual, but generally it's not defined that way, so it becomes such that I don't find it compelling in the first place anymore than a desire to do recreational drugs

You did not answer the question and seem to have gotten distracted.

What would make you desire to seek what is spiritual?

You know what you wont accept, do you knw what you would accept? That is the core of this question. Not drugs or how you define the word spiritual.

I'm not drawn around, I have feelings and I respond to them tempered with reason. I see no use, I'm not convinced there is absolutely no use, that's not what I said

What is it about reason that makes it such an authority to you?

Why are you not absolutely convinced that there is no use? Why?

I was really just pushed into it, but even with knowledge and understanding I have now, I see no reason to engage with Christianity as true,

Fair enough. What would you say if i made a statement such as 'I received the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ'.

What would you say?

because I find the ideas within it generally abhorrent, particularly the focus on an external source of meaning and generally regarding this life as utterly pointless except as it glorifies the entity from which we derive meaning,

Where is this in scripture?

What references do you have to back up such a notion?

generally a misanthropic self loathing worldview I want no part of and see no real improvement in people that cannot be attributed to incidental aspects of Christianity that aren't unique to it

Sorry this part is quite confused to me. Could you re word this statement?

Maybe if you asked more specific questions than just why, as if my explanation will satisfy you in the first place rather than potentially just play into you think I was never really open to such things.

What are you asking about in particular that I wasn't feeling?

You said - "I don't find it any more compelling, quite the contrary, it's generally just an unpleasant idea that leads to depression, self loathing, moralizing, any fulfillment someone has not remotely caused by "God", but merely correlated to it by inference."

I asked - " Why did you feel these things? Give me a detailed explanation with much depth?

What, how and why will do nicely."

I dont know how to get more specific then asking why do you feel these feelings.

How about this.

Why is it an unpleasant idea that leads to
depression, self loathing, moralizing, etc?

I never found a need to pray because I didn't feel the desire to find an external solution to my problems of that nature rather than asking others for assistance and getting some reliable response

Have you ever considered that prayer is communication with God rather than someone who can grant you wishes?

I always pray and found a need for it. What you think?

I studied religion in college

Why did you?

and continue to investigate it as a phenomenon,

Wait a minute.

Phenomenon - a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.

Why did you use that word?

Does God exist its just the explanation is not clear to you?

but I'm still nowhere closer to being convinced of the truth of any supernatural entities, events,

What have you done to seek out the truth - so as to be systematic and methodical?

What would you have to do to seek out God and be certain He does or does not exist?

etc because I don't find the conclusion that particular things are evidence convincing. But more fundamental to that is the incoherency of religious/spiritual claims in the first place, no consistency and not even a critical examination of it that doesn't tend to engage in cognitive dissonance to ignore contradictions within the supposedly thorough system they believe in.

What incoherence do you refer to?

What is not consistent?

What critical examination should be performed?

What contradictions should i be aware of?

What does cognitive dissonance have to do with your answer?

God is the worst offender in the transcendent nature, yet it supposedly intervenes, created the world, cares about humanity, but is supposed to be a perfect entity, so it creates a logical contradiction in the qualities possessed.

I disagree. How is a logical contradiction applied here?

Cheers

Ps you did not reply to my post to you
Jan 13
Post 232
Page 12
"Do religious discussions here make you want to be Christian?"

Please do not ignore that post.

 

[cvanwey]

My turn

ill give you my testimony.

Great. This is what I was waiting for.

I was in church many years ago, i was with 2 older ladies, we were praying together and i was having 'hands laid on me'. These women were Spirit filled.

Wait? How do you know they were 'spirit filled'?

All of a sudden i went into a vision. I had my eyes closed, slumped forward and in deep prayed. I was in a fixed state. I found myself soaring like a bird above the vast land. I could feel the wind and a sense of altitude - im scared of heights so i practically froze.

Okay, an unfalsifiable claim. Great

After what felt like minutes a mustered up the strength to look around and started to gain some form of comfort. I noticed an active volcano in the distance but did not think too much about it - dude im flying!!!

More unfalsifiable claims. Great.

I started to realise i was heading straight for this spewing volcano and started to become concerned. I couldnt move my body or redirect my trajectory, I was trying to toss my body and do what ever i could. No good!

Just as i was about to hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus' (save me). Instantly i stopped yards from the lava, i can remember the sensation of heat and a sense of fatigue and relief. I was pulled up - like a beam or like invisible hands - and put back into the sky and continued to fly.

Once i started to fly again the 2nd last thing i saw, where hills amongst mountain tips with someform of ruins or old buildings.

Then suddenly 'my screen' was burned and i was presented with new surroundings. I saw 3 silhouettes of human like figures but the 2 outside ones were overlaped with the middle one - which was larger than the other 2.

There was fire everywhere. It seemed though i was standing in this fire with the 3. I could hear the crackle and sizzle of fire, all i could do was stare at the silhouette in front of me. I dont think i even blinked, it was speechless and frozen.

Then the fire started to simmer down and i 'came to'. The ladies looked concerned, their eyes were wide open with a look of shock. They asked me what happened and am i ok. I told them what happened casually and went back into the congression.

More of the same.

What would you have to say about all testimonials, whom also claim such contact, while praying to an opposing entity? Are only the Christian claims 'true'? Or, do you accept them all as valid? Meaning, all testimonies are told in earnest, but maybe some/all are mistaken about the 'source'?

I was changed, i felt completely different in my mind. It felt like i had something in my heart and i knew how to orientate my heart to God.

Well, I prayed for 30+ years, in all sorts of ways, and never felt anything other than me speaking to myself. Hence, did God pass over me? Or, am I too inept to realize His contact? Or maybe, there exists no God actually listening?

I was given the Holy Spirit!!!

If I thought this truly happened to me as well, I might think the same thing as you?

Now i know that you will say personal experience are not verifiable proof but indulge me, what do you think about this?

Simple. You believe and trust you received contact from your presupposed God. But what about all the ones whom claim the same, in earnest, while praying to a differing God?

Further, you trust/believe this God exists, hence, you are likely going to already believe all such tales, as told in the Bible

Now indulge me. I prayed for 30 years, and did not experience anything remotely close.

 

[the iconoclast]

My turn



Great. This is what I was waiting for.



Wait? How do you know they were 'spirit filled'?



Okay, an unfalsifiable claim. Great



More unfalsifiable claims. Great.



More of the same.

What would you have to say about all testimonials, whom also claim such contact, while praying to an opposing entity? Are only the Christian claims 'true'? Or, do you accept them all as valid? Meaning, all testimonies are told in earnest, but maybe some/all are mistaken about the 'source'?



Well, I prayed for 30+ years, in all sorts of ways, and never felt anything other than me speaking to myself. Hence, did God pass over me? Or, am I too inept to realize His contact? Or maybe, there exists no God actually listening?



If I thought this truly happened to me as well, I might think the same thing as you?



Simple. You believe and trust you received contact from your presupposed God. But what about all the ones whom claim the same, in earnest, while praying to a differing God?

Further, you trust/believe this God exists, hence, you are likely going to already believe all such tales, as told in the Bible

Now indulge me. I prayed for 30 years, and did not experience anything remotely close.

Hey hey cvanwey

Hopefully this isnt your only reply, its seems to be lacking and there is much that you seem to ignore.

Are you willing to reply to my whole post, instead of choosing what you want to pay attention to?

Cheers

 

[muichimotsu]

Hey hey

Why cant you try God and sample Him like a new flavour of ice cream?

What do you know about the nature of God - - - that im missing?

I don't claim to know anything about God and I don't think it's comparable to ice cream, because ice cream is demonstrable, tangible, etc, God is conceptual at best in experience of it

Ill go by what the dictionary says.

Spiritual - relating to religion or religious belief.

That generally just obfuscates, because spirit is used esoterically in Christianity to not mean what the dictionary claims, so you're not exactly helping

You did not answer the question and seem to have gotten distracted.

What would make you desire to seek what is spiritual?

You know what you wont accept, do you knw what you would accept? That is the core of this question. Not drugs or how you define the word spiritual.

I would accept something that's consistent in a sense that isn't subject to my mistaken methodology or such from confirmation bias. God being able to "answer" prayers in a way that covers all the bases is not consistent, it's unfalsifiable.

I don't seek spiritual things because they generally are not of real benefit to me in any sense and are generally also such that they become speculative and not substantive in any meaningful manner

What is it about reason that makes it such an authority to you?

Why are you not absolutely convinced that there is no use? Why?

Because reason is self correcting and acknowledges limits rather than just relying on plausibility and credulity, which allows you to believe anything, it's unreliable.

I'm not absolutely convinced because I'm not possessing of absolute knowledge, simple

Fair enough. What would you say if i made a statement such as 'I received the Holy Spirit through faith in Jesus Christ'.

What would you say?

I'd say you had an experience you attribute to the Holy Spirit, but I doubt you can demonstrate it it a way that isn't reducible to your experiences and interpretation of them rather than something that can be investigated in a falsifiable sense that would show this experience to be a mistaken understanding of something that is more natural in essence (self deception, etc)

Where is this in scripture?

What references do you have to back up such a notion?

Does the bible not refer to us as vessels and use metaphors that make us effectively objects, separating the wheat from the chaff, etc? I don't have the time to find the references, but honestly, if you think that we are supposed to be meaningful in ourselves, that would contradict the idea 1) that we are in God's image and 2) that we are meant to relate to God for life to have meaning, both of which make us means rather than ends in ourselves

Sorry this part is quite confused to me. Could you re word this statement?

Christianity, in my assessment, does not encourage actual self esteem, only esteem in relation to obeying someone that then praises and/or rewards you. It's borderline abusive in the situation where God says that you will go to hell unless you obey its commands and then presents it like they're thinking about your benefits rather than what will ultimately be about its benefit as people praise it

You said - "I don't find it any more compelling, quite the contrary, it's generally just an unpleasant idea that leads to depression, self loathing, moralizing, any fulfillment someone has not remotely caused by "God", but merely correlated to it by inference."

I asked - " Why did you feel these things? Give me a detailed explanation with much depth?

What, how and why will do nicely."

I dont know how to get more specific then asking why do you feel these feelings.

How about this.

Why is it an unpleasant idea that leads to
depression, self loathing, moralizing, etc?

Because, as I pointed out, and you seemed to just resort to deflecting and denial, Christianity does not say we are valuable in ourselves, but are only valuable because of being contingent on a creator deity that wants us to worship it and relate to it on a personal level. God's commands are seen as more important than any consideration of human suffering, because the latter is finite and can be justified as working towards God's commands and plan, making us means, rather than ends

Have you ever considered that prayer is communication with God rather than someone who can grant you wishes?

I always pray and found a need for it. What you think?

I don't feel a need to commune with an external force that I cannot reliably consider is actually communicating with me, like a friend through chat that isn't chatting in a way uncharacteristic of them, or, if possible, face to face or through written communication

Why did you?

Because I found it interesting in understanding human thought better and enriched my understanding, even if I really didn't have a faith in which to have more investment for that study.

Wait a minute.

Phenomenon - a fact or situation that is observed to exist or happen, especially one whose cause or explanation is in question.

Why did you use that word?

Does God exist its just the explanation is not clear to you?

God is a phenomenon in that people ascribe such things to it that we don't necessarily need it to explain (nature, etc). A phenomenon in the sociological, psychological sense, is not the same as in the empirical sense

What have you done to seek out the truth - so as to be systematic and methodical?

What would you have to do to seek out God and be certain He does or does not exist?

I've read much in regards to religion and theology and considered it in relation to other things I have studied

You'd have to first demonstrate God as a cogent concept that isn't subject to redefinition due to the spiritual and unfalsifiable nature that comes with an entity that is perfect, etc

What incoherence do you refer to?

What is not consistent?

What critical examination should be performed?

What contradictions should i be aware of?

What does cognitive dissonance have to do with your answer?

If you are taking your experiences and using the Bible as the filter by which to determine what they are, you're not being critical, you're being narrow to a point that would seem to suggest you're confident in the Bible's reliability, which is not demonstrable by your convictions

Cognitive dissonance is holding contradictory beliefs while not necessarily realizing it, such as God existing, but that you also have freewill

I disagree. How is a logical contradiction applied here?

Cheers

A perfect entity should logically have no reason to create and certainly not human emotions in the sense of love and desire for relationship, because it would be self sufficient.

 

[cvanwey]

Hey hey cvanwey

Hopefully this isnt your only reply, its seems to be lacking and there is much that you seem to ignore.

Are you willing to reply to my whole post, instead of choosing what you want to pay attention to?

Cheers

You stated it all boils down to 'trust'. You stated you 'believe' it happened. Fine. I don't. Based upon the way you answered all of the above, it would appear we could 'argue/debate/other' until the cows come home. You already believe Jesus has contacted you personally.

Based upon your response, I am now following you down your provided path. I now ask you again:

Many people claim they have been contacted by 'god(s)/other', just like you. Many of these people are earnest in stating they received contact, while praying to an opposing entity/other. Thus, I ask you again.

How do you know your god contact was the real-deal, while all the ones whom claim they received contact from an opposing god(s)/other, are mistaken?

 

[the iconoclast]

You stated it all boils down to 'trust'. You stated you 'believe' it happened. Fine. I don't. Based upon the way you answered all of the above, it would appear we could 'argue/debate/other' until the cows come home. You already believe Jesus has contacted you personally.

Based upon your response, I am now following you down your provided path. I now ask you again:

Hey hey my dear

I find it unfair that you completely ignored my post and find it suspect that you were not willing to defend your own position. It shows little respect for me and the effort i put it.

You do not want to defend your position. Then you have the audacity to try and put it back on me with the statement 'i now ask you again'.

Home work for you.

1. What logical faalacy is committed when you avoid having to engage with critical questions by turning it back on the questioner?

Anyways i forgive you. If you dont like the setup of the chess pieces and want a reset, all you had to do was ask.

I still wanna play ball and will accommodate this unfortunate turn of events.

Many people claim they have been contacted by 'god(s)/other', just like you.

Actually what i claim is that; i heard about Jesus and what He offered. I wanted what was on offer. I asked for it with 100% faith and was given the gift of the Holy Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit i have a relationship with God.

Many people have done such a thing and have gotten the gift. Just like me.

Many of these people are earnest in stating they received contact, while praying to an opposing entity/other. Thus, I ask you again.

Thus you ask me again.

How do you know your god contact was the real-deal, while all the ones whom claim they received contact from an opposing god(s)/other, are mistaken?

I will not shy away from your question but i need more context.

2. Is your question; since there are competing religion's, how do i know i got the right one when others have declared they are in contact with other Gods?

3. I want to be on the same page. Do you have an example of such a situation - where someone is in contact with another God - so we can compare?

Cheers. Lets see how you play now

 

[the iconoclast]

I don't claim to know anything about God

Hey hey you

Uninformed - "not having or showing awareness or understanding of the facts."

Fact (noun 3) - "used to refer to a particular situation under discussion."

Then you have made it even easier for me. You are debating me about a subject you have no knowledge of.

and I don't think it's comparable to ice cream, because ice cream is demonstrable, tangible, etc, God is conceptual at best in experience of it

Demonstrable - "clearly apparent or capable of being logically proved."

Ill choose the opposite of tangible - intangible.

Intangible - "unable to be touched; not having physical presence."

Conceptual - "relating to or based on mental concepts."

How is God based on mental concepts? How do you know this for certain if you are uninformed about the nature of God?

I agree that God is intangible in touch. Intangible does not eliminate the fact that something happened or something exists.

Customer service is intangible. Ice cream is tangible. I can try both cannot i not?

Ps God is not like a Bricklayer Who builds a house and then bricks Himself in. Would you build something only to be bound by it?

What do you think about this in relation to the existence of God?

That generally just obfuscates, because spirit is used esoterically in Christianity to not mean what the dictionary claims, so you're not exactly helping

What should the definition of spiritual be to you and i - for use in our discussion?

What does spiritual mean from a Christian pov?

I would accept something that's consistent in a sense that isn't subject to my mistaken methodology

Such as? Got an example?

Ps - pls be careful when you make remarks suggesting you have a mistaken methodology. That says to me you are doubtful of your own reasoning ability and completely harms your credibility.

or such from confirmation bias.

What has confirmation bias got to do with you having an experience?

God being able to "answer" prayers in a way that covers all the bases is not consistent, it's unfalsifiable.

Such as? Got an example?

I don't seek spiritual things because they generally are not of real benefit to me in any sense and

Why are no benefit to you? Please give an example?

are generally also such that they become speculative and not substantive in any meaningful manner

Why is this so?

Because reason is self correcting and

How is reasoning seld correcting?

acknowledges limits rather than just relying on plausibility and credulity, which allows you to believe anything, it's unreliable.

Reason - the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

The human mind forms conclusions. What is it about this process that makes it an authority to you and i?

Do you trust your own process of reasoning or do you trust someone else ability to reason for you?

Atheists trust reason but acknowledge that humans are extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning. You just remarked about having a mistaken methodology and confimation bias.

How do reconcile your trust in reason when humans - like you - make conclusions?

I'm not absolutely convinced because I'm not possessing of absolute knowledge, simple

So how do you confirm something is the case or not the case?

I'd say you had an experience you attribute to the Holy Spirit,

Why cant it be the Holy Spirit? What do you know that i dont?

but I doubt you can demonstrate it it a way that isn't reducible to your experiences and interpretation of them rather than something that can be investigated in a falsifiable sense

Well lets try this out. How would you go about testing such a thing?

I say i have been given the Holy Spirit by accepting Jesus Christ as salvation. How would you - as an investigator of truth and a man of 'science' - seek to find if im lying or telling the truth?

What methods would you use to test for God?

that would show this experience to be a mistaken understanding of something that is more natural in essence (self deception, etc)

Well dont be shy, argue away. Lets see what you got.

Does the bible not refer to us as vessels and use metaphors that make us effectively objects, separating the wheat from the chaff, etc?

You said - "because I find the ideas within it generally abhorrent, particularly the focus on an external source of meaning and generally regarding this life as utterly pointless except as it glorifies the entity from which we derive meaning"

I said - "Where is this in scripture? What references do you have to back up such a notion?"

You say - "Does the bible not refer to us as vessels and use metaphors that make us effectively objects, separating the wheat from the chaff, etc?"

You seem confused and have gotten yourself distracted.

Wanna another shot at it?

I don't have the time to find the references, but honestly, if you think that we are supposed to be meaningful in ourselves,

You said - "because I find the ideas within it generally abhorrent, particularly the focus on an external source of meaning and generally regarding this life as utterly pointless except as it glorifies the entity from which we derive meaning"

I said - "Where is this in scripture? What references do you have to back up such a notion?"

You say - " I don't have the time to find the references, but honestly, if you think that we are supposed to be meaningful in ourselves,"

You have plenty of time to do so and ill patiently wait weeks for it.

Did you not study theology at college? Anyways, i want you to do what you said you can do.

Do it.

that would contradict the idea 1) that we are in God's image and 2)

You have gone right off track. How does what you suggest contradict that you and i are made in God's image?

that we are meant to relate to God for life to have meaning, both of which make us means rather than ends in ourselves

How so? Please explain with more depth and with scripture

I don't feel a need to commune with an external force that I cannot reliably consider is actually communicating with me,

So technically you would lose nothing from trying and proving it to yourself?

What about your afterlife?

like a friend through chat that isn't chatting in a way uncharacteristic of them, or, if possible, face to face or through written communication

Have you considered that God has decreed the way to come to.him and you come to God on His terms, not your own?

Because I found it interesting in understanding human thought better and enriched my understanding, even if I really didn't have a faith in which to have more investment for that study.

What did you learn about human understanding and how did it enrich your life?

God is a phenomenon in that people ascribe such things to it that we don't necessarily need it to explain (nature, etc). A phenomenon in the sociological, psychological sense, is not the same as in the empirical sense

How is a phenomenon in the sociological, psychological sense, not the same as in the empirical sense?

I've read much in regards to religion and theology and considered it in relation to other things I have studied

1. What have you done to seek out the truth - so as to be systematic and methodical? You read about religion and theology.

I wouldnt call it systematic. You didnt follow the criteria of Christian faith. Would you agree that to be absolutely certain you must try it, the way it is prescribed?

What would you have to do to seek out God and be certain He does or does not exist? You didnt really answer this one?

You'd have to first demonstrate God as a cogent concept that isn't subject to redefinition due to the spiritual and unfalsifiable nature that comes with an entity that is perfect, etc

What would be a good start? How could a appease yoir criteria? What is needed? Please give some examples?

If you are taking your experiences and using the Bible as the filter by which to determine what they are, you're not being critical,

My dear, im not a man of 'science'. I dont however disagree with a tried and test result. Ps i accept that we can filter water and i know we human beings are capable of marvelous things.

I heard about Jesus and what He offered. I wanted what was on offer. I asked for it with 100% faith and was given the gift of the Holy Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit i have a relationship with God. Many people have done such a thing and have gotten the gift. Just like me.

I got the truth and im 100% certain.

You assume that i have not asked questions about my faith or have been critical. Once you experience something like i have, you know.

Ill give you my testimony.

I was in church many years ago, i was with 2 older ladies, we were praying together and i was having 'hands laid on me'. These women were Spirit filled.

All of a sudden i went into a vision. I had my eyes closed, slumped forward and in deep prayed. I was in a fixed state. I found myself soaring like a bird above the vast land. I could feel the wind and a sense of altitude - im scared of heights so i practically froze.

After what felt like minutes a mustered up the strength to look around and started to gain some form of comfort. I noticed an active volcano in the distance but did not think too much about it - dude im flying!!!

I started to realise i was heading straight for this spewing volcano and started to become concerned. I couldnt move my body or redirect my trajectory, I was trying to toss my body and do what ever i could. No good!

Just as i was about to hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus' (save me). Instantly i stopped yards from the lava, i can remember the sensation of heat and a sense of fatigue and relief. I was pulled up - like a beam or like invisible hands - and put back into the sky and continued to fly.

Once i started to fly again the 2nd last thing i saw, where hills amongst mountain tips with someform of ruins or old buildings.

Then suddenly 'my screen' was burned and i was presented with new surroundings. I saw 3 silhouettes of human like figures but the 2 outside ones were overlaped with the middle one - which was larger than the other 2.

There was fire everywhere. It seemed though i was standing in this fire with the 3. I could hear the crackle and sizzle of fire, all i could do was stare at the silhouette in front of me. I dont think i even blinked, it was speechless and frozen.

Then the fire started to simmer down and i 'came to'. The ladies looked concerned, their eyes were wide open with a look of shock. They asked me what happened and am i ok. I told them what happened casually and went back into the congression.

I was changed, i felt completely different in my mind. It felt like i had something in my heart and i knew how to orientate my heart to God.

I was given the Holy Spirit!!!

What would you do and how would you think it that happened to you?

you're being narrow to a point that would seem to suggest you're confident in the Bible's reliability, which is not demonstrable by your convictions

I have 100% trust in the Bible.

What is not demonstrable about my convictions?

Cognitive dissonance is holding contradictory beliefs while not necessarily realizing it, such as God existing, but that you also have freewill

How is it a contradiction that God exists yet I have free will?

Do you suggest that God is a puppet master?

Im starting to doubt your knowledge of Christian doctrine. It seems more like you are trying to debate something you have no knowledge of.

A perfect entity should logically have no reason to create and certainly not human emotions in the sense of love and desire for relationship, because it would be self sufficient.

I want you to argue this point. How is this so and why should i listen to you?

Cheers, this discussion is fun and i like you.

 

[cvanwey]

I find it unfair that you completely ignored my post and find it suspect that you were not willing to defend your own position. It shows little respect for me and the effort i put it.

I disagree.

Somewhere berried within one of your responses, you stated you believe and trust. You also stated Jesus contacted you directly, and you provided a story.

THUS, we could go back and forth, arguing the 'veracity' of Biblical passages again and again, to no avail.

I'm going to concede, that my parameters and/or metrics for evaluating 'claimed facts', will have no bearing here for you. I have identified early, with you, that you believe what the Bible attests to, is already true. And I also believe you believe/trust this. Moving forward, I then feel the next logical direction, moving forward with any productivity, is/was as follows.... See below

You do not want to defend your position.

Would likely be a waste of time.... Probably the only way I could 'unconvince' you would be 'proving' you are in the Matrix, or, you were temporarily hallucinating, or maybe other... And I doubt this will happen.

Home work for you.

1. What logical faalacy is committed when you avoid having to engage with critical questions by turning it back on the questioner?

No thanks... Unwarranted and unnecessary...

Anyways i forgive you. If you dont like the setup of the chess pieces and want a reset, all you had to do was ask.

Has nothing to do with 'like/dislike'... Based upon your response, I have experience enough to know further exchange would yield little/no movement, if continuing down the same road.

I still wanna play ball and will accommodate this unfortunate turn of events.

Depending on how you respond here, I might want to continue in this exchange as well

Actually what i claim is that; i heard about Jesus and what He offered. I wanted what was on offer. I asked for it with 100% faith and was given the gift of the Holy Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit i have a relationship with God.

Many people have done such a thing and have gotten the gift. Just like me.

Then I have little more to say, just like the thread I created a year and a half ago 'Knowledge' of Existence

If you 'know' you receive contact, then nothing will sway you otherwise. For [you], 'Jesus is real, and thus the Bible is true.'

2. Is your question; since there are competing religion's, how do i know i got the right one when others have declared they are in contact with other Gods?

Pretty much, I guess. But to elaborate...

You pray to Jesus, and claim contact. Someone else prays to say... Vishnu/Shiva, or other, and claims contact. Or even yet, maybe a 'medium' claims they receive contact from other's dead relatives, as the medium 'summons' them. Say you are all earnest with your claim(s) to contact. You all have complete belief/trust. Are all of you actually 'correct'? How do you verify authenticity?

 

[the iconoclast]

I disagree.


Somewhere berried within one of your responses, you stated you believe and trust. You also stated Jesus contacted you directly, and you provided a story.

Hey hey friend

Fair enough. I did suggest that belief comes down to trust.

There was an action of communicating and or meeting as seen in my testimony, which i recently gave to muichimotsu - if you havent seen yet.

THUS, we could go back and forth, arguing the 'veracity' of Biblical passages again and again, to no avail.

I disagree however i cannot force you to commit to this back and forth.

I'm going to concede, that my parameters and/or metrics for evaluating 'claimed facts', will have no bearing here for you.

Why not?

I have identified early, with you, that you believe what the Bible attests to, is already true. And I also believe you believe/trust this.

Im glad you believe that i trust in the words in the Bible.

Moving forward, I then feel the next logical direction, moving forward with any productivity, is/was as follows.... See below

Would likely be a waste of time.... Probably the only way I could 'unconvince' you would be 'proving' you are in the Matrix, or, you were temporarily hallucinating, or maybe other... And I doubt this will happen.

Dont assume. Seek and you shall find.

No thanks... Unwarranted and unnecessary...

The logical fallacy committed when you avoid having to engage with critical questions by turning it back on the questioner is called tu quoque.

Has nothing to do with 'like/dislike'... Based upon your response, I have experience enough to know further exchange would yield little/no movement, if continuing down the same road.

For you maybe. You dont know what i want out of this frank exchange.

Depending on how you respond here, I might want to continue in this exchange as well

I hope i do not disappoint you.

Then I have little more to say, just like the thread I created a year and a half ago 'Knowledge' of Existence

You have little to say. I have lots to say.

If you 'know' you receive contact, then nothing will sway you otherwise. For [you], 'Jesus is real, and thus the Bible is true.'

Im 100% certain. If you believe otherwise then dont be shy.

Pretty much, I guess. But to elaborate...

You pray to Jesus, and claim contact.

I asked Jesus into my heart and had full faith that He is Who He says He is. I got an experience and had a few other experiences. When you had an experience with the Holy Spirit it is life changing.

Someone else prays to say... Vishnu/Shiva, or other, and claims contact.

Well lets compare. Have you an example of what you are claiming?

Or even yet, maybe a 'medium' claims they receive contact from other's dead relatives, as the medium 'summons' them.

Well lets compare and see. What have you got so we can analyze and examine?

Say you are all earnest with your claim(s) to contact. You all have complete belief/trust. Are all of you actually 'correct'?

Can you show me how the 2 examples compare to my claim?

I would like to examine. Please provide references?

How do you verify authenticity?

Authentic - of undisputed origin and not a copy; genuine.

Genuine - truly what something is said to be; authentic..

You verify if something is 'truly said to be'by proving whether one can get a result. What you think in relation to my testimony.

My testimony in case you want to further examine

I was in church many years ago, i was with 2 older ladies, we were praying together and i was having 'hands laid on me'. These women were Spirit filled.

All of a sudden i went into a vision. I had my eyes closed, slumped forward and in deep prayed. I was in a fixed state. I found myself soaring like a bird above the vast land. I could feel the wind and a sense of altitude - im scared of heights so i practically froze.

After what felt like minutes a mustered up the strength to look around and started to gain some form of comfort. I noticed an active volcano in the distance but did not think too much about it - dude im flying!!!

I started to realise i was heading straight for this spewing volcano and started to become concerned. I couldnt move my body or redirect my trajectory, I was trying to toss my body and do what ever i could. No good!

Just as i was about to hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus' (save me). Instantly i stopped yards from the lava, i can remember the sensation of heat and a sense of fatigue and relief. I was pulled up - like a beam or like invisible hands - and put back into the sky and continued to fly.

Once i started to fly again the 2nd last thing i saw, where hills amongst mountain tips with someform of ruins or old buildings.

Then suddenly 'my screen' was burned and i was presented with new surroundings. I saw 3 silhouettes of human like figures but the 2 outside ones were overlaped with the middle one - which was larger than the other 2.

There was fire everywhere. It seemed though i was standing in this fire with the 3. I could hear the crackle and sizzle of fire, all i could do was stare at the silhouette in front of me. I dont think i even blinked, it was speechless and frozen.

Then the fire started to simmer down and i 'came to'. The ladies looked concerned, their eyes were wide open with a look of shock. They asked me what happened and am i ok. I told them what happened casually and went back into the congression.

I was changed, i felt completely different in my mind. It felt like i had something in my heart and i knew how to orientate my heart to God.

I was given the Holy Spirit!!!

Now i know that you will say personal experience are not verifiable proof but indulge me, what do you think about this?

 

[muichimotsu]

Then you have made it even easier for me. You are debating me about a subject you have no knowledge of.

I don't interpret it as you do, that doesn't mean I lack knowledge on it, it means your perspective is rooted in already being convinced it's true and defending it backwards from how we defend positions, which is finding evidence, rather than taking the claim and finding evidence for that.

Demonstrable - "clearly apparent or capable of being logically proved."

Ill choose the opposite of tangible - intangible.

Intangible - "unable to be touched; not having physical presence."

Conceptual - "relating to or based on mental concepts."

How is God based on mental concepts? How do you know this for certain if you are uninformed about the nature of God?

I agree that God is intangible in touch. Intangible does not eliminate the fact that something happened or something exists.

Customer service is intangible. Ice cream is tangible. I can try both cannot i not?

Ps God is not like a Bricklayer Who builds a house and then bricks Himself in. Would you build something only to be bound by it?

What do you think about this in relation to the existence of God?

God is thought of and is not demonstrable in any tangible sense we have for plenty of other concepts that are also real (a plant, a rock, etc)

I never claimed something being intangible meant it must not exist, but the existence of numbers is conceptual, it doesn't make it nonexistent, it means that its application is important versus merely people's emotional reactions to it, like with God

Customer service is a manifestation of people interacting, it's not meant to be tangible in the way of ice cream, you're making a category error to suggest trying them both means they aren't that different.

I think you're trying to define God in a way that makes it immune to logical criticism, because then you'd be able to undermine the transcendent properties you ascribe to God and the belief would be unwarranted

What should the definition of spiritual be to you and i - for use in our discussion?

What does spiritual mean from a Christian pov?

There isn't a singular Christian POV, that's where you're mistaken in the first place

Such as? Got an example?

Ps - pls be careful when you make remarks suggesting you have a mistaken methodology. That says to me you are doubtful of your own reasoning ability and completely harms your credibility.

I don't have absolute trust in my ability to reason, that does not harm my credibility, it means I'm willing to admit when I made a mistake, your 100% conviction is a sign of delusion, because you're speaking as if nothing could change your mind, which is not the sign of credible reasonable thinking, but indoctrination

What has confirmation bias got to do with you having an experience?

If one is unwilling to consider alternate explanations and just insists on one, that's confirmation bias in regards to the experience

Such as? Got an example?

If God can answer a prayer in a way that is effectively able to cover the negative, positive or a later "fulfillment", like you wanting help with financial difficulties, it means that if you get something good, bad or something good happens later, you can attribute all of them to God's plan

Why are no benefit to you? Please give an example?

If you're going to post things, maybe make sure they're cogent outside of your assessment, you're talking like English isn't remotely your 1st language or are utterly erratic in speech patterns, just constantly asking questions as if the Socratic method will always win out when it comes to you deflecting on answering questions with questions


Why is this so?

How is reasoning seld correcting?

It considers things apart from an initial assessment and thinks that there can be other explanations. I think I see someone as I walk down a dimly lit street, but reason tells me that I may be hallucinating because of the lighting and such, and sure enough, I don't see anyone with a second look.

Reason - the action of thinking about something in a logical, sensible way.

The human mind forms conclusions. What is it about this process that makes it an authority to you and i?

Do you trust your own process of reasoning or do you trust someone else ability to reason for you?

Atheists trust reason but acknowledge that humans are extremely likely to suffer from faulty reasoning. You just remarked about having a mistaken methodology and confimation bias.

How do reconcile your trust in reason when humans - like you - make conclusions?

I don't have 100% trust, that's the difference, you're assuming that atheists have absolute trust rather than trust based on the reliability of reason to point out flawed thinking as a process to analyze. Us making conclusions is not meant to be absolute, you're insinuating intent that isn't there, which isn't helping your case at all, because you're creating a strawman of atheism to tear down

So how do you confirm something is the case or not the case?

Seeking to falsify it by investigation. If I think I saw something, I investigate it repeatedly and, at least provisionally, if it isn't happening, I can conclude I was hallucinating or otherwise mistaken in my assessment

Why cant it be the Holy Spirit? What do you know that i dont?

Why do you think that you can just make an argument from ignorance? I don't take the Holy Spirit seriously as its own entity rather than people attributing experiences they cannot personally explain to such nebulous supernatural forces, you've failed to demonstrate why I should take the Holy Spirit seriously apart from personal testimony, which is demonstrably fallible in itself without further investigation

Well lets try this out. How would you go about testing such a thing?

I say i have been given the Holy Spirit by accepting Jesus Christ as salvation. How would you - as an investigator of truth and a man of 'science' - seek to find if im lying or telling the truth?

What methods would you use to test for God?

I'm not testing for something I don't think is cogent in the first place, I have threads discussing this problem, you're assuming I already have some base understanding of God that isn't subject to any problems of observation or coherency, etc. Burden of proof is on you to show how your concept is anything more than a human conception of things that we want absolute certainty on

And you're making a false dichotomy: you don't have to be lying or telling the truth, you can be mistaken in conveying what you believe to be the truth, you're grossly misunderstanding how reasonable discussions go, instead focusing on rhetoric

You said - "because I find the ideas within it generally abhorrent, particularly the focus on an external source of meaning and generally regarding this life as utterly pointless except as it glorifies the entity from which we derive meaning"

I said - "Where is this in scripture? What references do you have to back up such a notion?"

You say - "Does the bible not refer to us as vessels and use metaphors that make us effectively objects, separating the wheat from the chaff, etc?"

You seem confused and have gotten yourself distracted.

Wanna another shot at it?

If you're making this about scripture, you've already missed the point, because I'm not convinced of the truth in your scripture and if you can't even consider my perspective and remotely induce some verses that I could conceivably reference to, then you've already shut yourself off from discussion except to evangelize

You said - "because I find the ideas within it generally abhorrent, particularly the focus on an external source of meaning and generally regarding this life as utterly pointless except as it glorifies the entity from which we derive meaning"

I said - "Where is this in scripture? What references do you have to back up such a notion?"

You say - " I don't have the time to find the references, but honestly, if you think that we are supposed to be meaningful in ourselves,"

You have plenty of time to do so and ill patiently wait weeks for it.

Did you not study theology at college? Anyways, i want you to do what you said you can do.

Do it.

I don't have the time you think I do, that's another mistaken assessment you make with little information.

Do you have sources from your holy book that would be some source of self esteem to me in relation to God having created me? Or would it be too difficult with something of such importance for you to convey something to which YOU have the burden of proof?

You have gone right off track. How does what you suggest contradict that you and i are made in God's image?

If we are reflections of God, then why are we such poor reflections? It really just gets into the psychological implications that God is a construct for us to pacify our insecurities because of not being 100% certain on things

So technically you would lose nothing from trying and proving it to yourself?

What about your afterlife?

Why do you assume I care about an afterlife which I have no reason to believe exists beyond humans trying to construct some explanation about death to assuage themselves of fears? Again, burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the afterlife is a thing apart from your beliefs in it

Have you considered that God has decreed the way to come to.him and you come to God on His terms, not your own?

Yeah, at least in terms of explanations from Chrsitians like yourself, that's not convincing, that's an appeal to obey authority in itself rather than showing the merit of the so called authority in the first place. Why should I obey your deity at all, even if I granted some nominal existence for the sake of argument?

What did you learn about human understanding and how did it enrich your life?

People can find fulfillment in mystical nonsense and general reduction of existence to supernatural phenomena interacting with the mundane

How is a phenomenon in the sociological, psychological sense, not the same as in the empirical sense?

Empirical entails an ability to measure and study more directly like in the natural sciences, but the term has potentially more broad implications

1. What have you done to seek out the truth - so as to be systematic and methodical? You read about religion and theology.

I wouldnt call it systematic. You didnt follow the criteria of Christian faith. Would you agree that to be absolutely certain you must try it, the way it is prescribed?

What would you have to do to seek out God and be certain He does or does not exist? You didnt really answer this one?

Christian faith is not my criteria and hasn't been, because I'm not convinced it's conveying substantial or even incidental truths that are significant to take it seriously

I'm not certain one way or the other on God's existence, you keep trying to box me in, that's disingenuous argumentation

What would be a good start? How could a appease yoir criteria? What is needed? Please give some examples?

Showing that your God is remotely anything more than human imagination put into applications regarding philosophical questions and desiring certainty on them would be a good start. Showing that your correlations of some incidents in your life that seem bizarre are remotely able to be tied to a cause like God in any sense like how we can demonstrate gravity relative to mass, etc





My dear, im not a man of 'science'. I dont however disagree with a tried and test result. Ps i accept that we can filter water and i know we human beings are capable of marvelous things.

I heard about Jesus and what He offered. I wanted what was on offer. I asked for it with 100% faith and was given the gift of the Holy Spirit. Through the Holy Spirit i have a relationship with God. Many people have done such a thing and have gotten the gift. Just like me.

I got the truth and im 100% certain.

You assume that i have not asked questions about my faith or have been critical. Once you experience something like i have, you know.

No, you're flat out wrong, not everyone responds to the experience you describe in the way that you did, that's not only presumptuous, it's intellectually dishonest to think all humans respond the same way to a general type of stimuli that can be explained by psychological suggestion, hallucination, delusion, etc.

If you're 100% certain, then you cannot say that you question or are critical of your faith now, so even if you were in the past, you're not exercising that critical thought anymore, so you've contradicted yourself

Many people doing something does not lend credence to it when the experience is necessarily subjective and mystical in nature, like your fever dream sequence that I could get if I was on drugs

I was changed, i felt completely different in my mind. It felt like i had something in my heart and i knew how to orientate my heart to God.

I was given the Holy Spirit!!!

What would you do and how would you think it that happened to you?

I would not automatically assume the experience was real in any sense beyond that I experienced it in my mind, I would potentially try similar situations again and see if it happened, but honestly, I'm not going to put stock in an experience of that nature when human imagination creates all kinds of bizarre things

I have 100% trust in the Bible.

What is not demonstrable about my convictions?

That you are just believing in it because you conclude it must be true based on claims within it, which is circular reasoning, appealing to the Bible to prove the bible's claims itself

How is it a contradiction that God exists yet I have free will?

Do you suggest that God is a puppet master?

Im starting to doubt your knowledge of Christian doctrine. It seems more like you are trying to debate something you have no knowledge of.

Not sure if you can claim expertise when you're claiming 100% certainty, an unrealistic standard in itself

I want you to argue this point. How is this so and why should i listen to you?

You don't have to listen to me, that's your decision, don't act like I'm forcing anything, that's strawmanning again

If an entity is perfect, it would have completion in all senses and thus, it would not have emotional needs anymore than it would have physical ones (no need for food, water, etc, no need for connections at all). Are you claiming that perfection somehow means something entirely different that would leave room for some sense of emotion even if completion by its nature would entail covering emotions as much as physical aspects (spatial, temporal, etc)

 

[cvanwey]

If you speak with someone whom believes they have already received contact from the God, for which they believe, then debating veracity within their claimed and asserted holy textbook almost becomes a futile endeavor, from my experience. Hence, the thread I created a while back, posted in the prior reply "Knowledge of Existence".

Why not?

For the reason(s) already explained prior.

The logical fallacy committed when you avoid having to engage with critical questions by turning it back on the questioner is called tu quoque.

I already explained why prior exchange would likely render a futile endeavor. Again, you have 100% trust in the Bible. See below...

You have little to say. I have lots to say.

Sure, but relevancy lends to productivity. See below.

Well lets compare. Have you an example of what you are claiming?

Anecdotal testimonials are a dime a dozen:

https://www.quora.com/How-can-I-connect-with-Lord-Vishnu

"Oh the Lord is very easy to contact. Look inside your soul, it is a reflection of the supreme Lord Vishnu. Now here is the catch: this point will make sense to you only if your karma is pure and your mind open enough to understand it.

Because

The only way the Lord hears, communicates and becomes visible to you, is after you have purified your karma."

My testimony in case you want to further examine

I was in church many years ago, i was with 2 older ladies, we were praying together and i was having 'hands laid on me'. These women were Spirit filled.

All of a sudden i went into a vision. I had my eyes closed, slumped forward and in deep prayed. I was in a fixed state. I found myself soaring like a bird above the vast land. I could feel the wind and a sense of altitude - im scared of heights so i practically froze.

After what felt like minutes a mustered up the strength to look around and started to gain some form of comfort. I noticed an active volcano in the distance but did not think too much about it - dude im flying!!!

I started to realise i was heading straight for this spewing volcano and started to become concerned. I couldnt move my body or redirect my trajectory, I was trying to toss my body and do what ever i could. No good!

Just as i was about to hit the lava i cried out 'Jesus' (save me). Instantly i stopped yards from the lava, i can remember the sensation of heat and a sense of fatigue and relief. I was pulled up - like a beam or like invisible hands - and put back into the sky and continued to fly.

Once i started to fly again the 2nd last thing i saw, where hills amongst mountain tips with someform of ruins or old buildings.

Then suddenly 'my screen' was burned and i was presented with new surroundings. I saw 3 silhouettes of human like figures but the 2 outside ones were overlaped with the middle one - which was larger than the other 2.

There was fire everywhere. It seemed though i was standing in this fire with the 3. I could hear the crackle and sizzle of fire, all i could do was stare at the silhouette in front of me. I dont think i even blinked, it was speechless and frozen.

Then the fire started to simmer down and i 'came to'. The ladies looked concerned, their eyes were wide open with a look of shock. They asked me what happened and am i ok. I told them what happened casually and went back into the congression.

I was changed, i felt completely different in my mind. It felt like i had something in my heart and i knew how to orientate my heart to God.

I was given the Holy Spirit!!!

Now i know that you will say personal experience are not verifiable proof but indulge me, what do you think about this?

I don't doubt your belief in authenticity. Just like I do not doubt the belief and authenticity of others, whom swear to have been contacted from ghosts, spirits, dead relatives, other - from my place of work, from family, from friends, or here. But they are all unfalsifiable.

Hence, if you are working from the a priori that you know the Bible is true, mainly because you have witnessed, first hand, His presence, then we are at odds.

I prayed to the same God for decades, and feel I have not received the same 'response.' Had I received what you claim, maybe I would be 'arguing' for your position.

Therefore, since I do no have 'first hand contact', I'm then left with other 'criteria' of examination.