Ten Contradictions That Christians Can't Stop Making.

[Steve Petersen]

Since I didn't say the Holy Spirit communicates through me, I don't know the purpose of your question. I certainly didn't say I was never wrong, much less that everybody else is and I am not. Where did you get that?

Is there any possibility the HS is NOT communicating TO you?

 

[TBDude65]

But don't you see? When you say God doesn't exist or won't communicate with you because he didn't respond when you thought he should, you have established an artificial time. He didn't do it on your schedule, therefore you conclude he won't do it or he doesn't exist.

Remember my recipe was an open mind which means you don't place any how, where, how, or WHEN on it.

I have established no "artificial" timeframe. I have only concluded what any reasonable person would conclude in the absence of evidence of any claims related to a god (including the possibility of its existence).

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Deuteronomy 22 prescribes the death penalty for rapists, so it is by no means permissible.

Only if she is betrothed to another man. If she isn't, you have to marry her because her father otherwise won't be able to procure a dowry.

So the penalty for raping a bachelorette is that you must marry her. And you pay her father a fine. The compensation for the rape victim? A choice between marrying her rapist or else being an outcast.

Did you miss that part or did you not even read it?

Also...

If you like, consult Numbers 31. Moses complains that the men did not have sex with virgin POWs and that, as a result, a "plague" has been set upon them. Translation: after butchering the fathers and sons of the village, the men contracted venereal diseases upon raping the young widows.

Incidentally, human sacrifice is probably depicted in verse 40. In any case, why did these slave girls have to be virgin? Why execute all POWs except virgin girls? What do you reckon the "plague" was? And if your husband and sons were killed right in front of you, and if a member of the assaulting army took you for sex, would that be rape?

In the ANE, someone who couldn't pay their debts had the option to beg, to starve, or to sell their future labor, and if they were able-bodied, then begging wasn't an option, so it was a choice between starvation and selling themselves into slavery. So slavery in the Bible was an economic advantage for people that allowed them to be sheltered while they paid off their debts much like indentured servitude.

A Hebrew man would be an indentured servant and would be set free on the 7th year.
Exodus 21:2-4 says,

2) “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.”

3) “If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.”

4) “If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.”

Female slaves and foreigner slaves were slaves for life.
Verse 4 above covers my claim about female slaves. Also verses 7 and 8 say,

7) “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”

8) “If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”

Verse 8 lays out how Hebrew female slaves can be taken as sexual property, although it and a couple of the verses after spell out the conditions under which she could be set free. But those conditions are not up to her. So it is slavery for life for women.

For foreigners, Leviticus 25:44-46 says,

44) “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.”

45) “Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.”

46) “And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them fora possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.”




So this "indentured servitude" policy applied to Hebrew men only. Translation: sexist and racist guidelines on slavery.

Do you consider this to be timeless wisdom?

 

[Foxfyre]

Is there any possibility the HS is NOT communicating TO you?

No, I am pretty sure at times the Holy Spirit does find ways to let me know what I need at the time. And he sometimes uses some pretty unlikely people or circumstances as his messenger.

I also have learned, sometimes the hard way, to be sure of who I am listening to.

 

[Foxfyre]

I have established no "artificial" timeframe. I have only concluded what any reasonable person would conclude in the absence of evidence of any claims related to a god (including the possibility of its existence).

I understand and appreciate that. But you are still setting the terms. Only by giving God a chance without setting any terms, limits, restrictions, or qualifications on that will you ever be sure.

 

[Soyeong]

Only if she is betrothed to another man. If she isn't, you have to marry her because her father otherwise won't be able to procure a dowry.

So the penalty for raping a bachelorette is that you must marry her. And you pay her father a fine. The compensation for the rape victim? A choice between marrying her rapist or else being an outcast.

Did you miss that part or did you not even read it?

You are correct that if she were not married, and a man slept with her, then he would have to marry her, however, there is nothing that suggests that it was a rape.

If you like, consult Numbers 31. Moses complains that the men did not have sex with virgin POWs and that, as a result, a "plague" has been set upon them. Translation: after butchering the fathers and sons of the village, the men contracted venereal diseases upon raping the young widows.

You seem to interpret the Bible rather creatively. Nowhere did Moses complain that the men had sex with virgins POWs or that a plague was set upon them, or that they contracted venereal diseases, or that they were raping the young widows.

Incidentally, human sacrifice is probably depicted in verse 40. In any case, why did these slave girls have to be virgin? Why execute all POWs except virgin girls? What do you reckon the "plague" was? And if your husband and sons were killed right in front of you, and if a member of the assaulting army took you for sex, would that be rape?

Verse 40 doesn't say anything about human sacrifice. The plague was something that started and stopped and killed 24,000 people in its wake. It doesn't go into details about what exactly it was, but that does not sound like a venereal disease. Again, nothing is said about taking them for sex.

A Hebrew man would be an indentured servant and would be set free on the 7th year.

Exodus 21:2-4 says,

2) “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.”

3) “If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.”

4) “If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.”

Female slaves and foreigner slaves were slaves for life.
Verse 4 above covers my claim about female slaves. Also verses 7 and 8 say,

7) “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”

8) “If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.”

Verse 8 lays out how Hebrew female slaves can be taken as sexual property, although it and a couple of the verses after spell out the conditions under which she could be set free. But those conditions are not up to her. So it is slavery for life for women.

For foreigners, Leviticus 25:44-46 says,

44) “Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids.”

45) “Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession.”

46) “And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them fora possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.”

It does not say that women were sexual property, but that they were betrothed, so it is speaking about marriage and all the provision that entails, which was to the advantage of the women. Male servants who had it better with their master than on their own also had the option of becoming permanent servants (Exodus 21:6). We live in an individualistic culture where independence and self-reliance are highly valued, but that was not the case for the people living in the ANE. People trying to make it on their own likely would not have survived, while being someone's servant meant that their basic needs would be met, so it was to their advantage, and being set free often translated as the freedom to choose a different master.

So this "indentured servitude" policy applied to Hebrew men only. Translation: sexist and racist guidelines on slavery.

Do you consider this to be timeless wisdom?

And this is why I consider it to be cherry-picking.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

You are correct that if she were not married, and a man slept with her, then he would have to marry her, however, there is nothing that suggests that it was a rape.

Deuteronomy 22:28 in the two main translations:

KJV:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

NIV:
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,


The KJV translates directly and there is no ancient Hebrew word for rape. The ancient people lived in a rape culture and could not envision a society in which rape is not normative.

You seem to interpret the Bible rather creatively. Nowhere did Moses complain that the men had sex with virgins POWs

You misread what I said. I'm saying that Moses was angry because the women that the soldiers raped were not virgins. He thinks that is what caused the plague.

Numbers 31:15-18 is pretty clear. Everything I've said is 100% correct so far. I think that you're just being lazy. I can't keep dealing with you if you won't put in a couple clicks worth of effort.

or that a plague was set upon them, or that they contracted venereal diseases, or that they were raping the young widows.

Well why don't you tell me why they killed the women who were not virgins and kept the virgins for themselves. What were they doing with them, playing checkers? You completely glossed over my question. If their husbands, fathers and sons were slaughtered right in front of them, and the men from the opposing army took them for sex, would that not qualify for rape? In what insane universe is that not rape?

Verse 40 doesn't say anything about human sacrifice.

I think there's enough evidence, but that would require two things: honesty, and an investigation of the text. I think that would be asking too much of you from what I've seen so far.

The plague was something that started and stopped and killed 24,000 people in its wake. It doesn't go into details about what exactly it was, but that does not sound like a venereal disease.

Nothing to do with venereal disease. On an unrelated note, let's kill everyone but the virgins. Right.

Again, nothing is said about taking them for sex.

Yep, we've established that they kept exclusively the virgins because they wanted to have checkers tournaments.

It does not say that women were sexual property, but that they were betrothed, so it is speaking about marriage and all the provision that entails, which was to the advantage of the women. Male servants who had it better with their master than on their own also had the option of becoming permanent servants (Exodus 21:6). We live in an individualistic culture where independence and self-reliance are highly valued, but that was not the case for the people living in the ANE. People trying to make it on their own likely would not have survived, while being someone's servant meant that their basic needs would be met, so it was to their advantage, and being set free often translated as the freedom to choose a different master.



And this is why I consider it to be cherry-picking.

If you bother responding and it's apparent that you haven't read what I took the time to procure here for you, then I'll waste my time talking to someone else who won't listen.

 

[Ron Gurley]

RE: POST#40..."...It took a few years but that eventually led me to realize I was an atheist...."

CHOOSE:.

1 Chronicles 28:9...King David to his wise son upon passing his kingdom
“As for you, my son Solomon,
know the God of your father, and serve Him with a whole heart and a willing mind;
for the Lord searches all hearts, and understands every intent of the thoughts.
If you seek Him, He will let you find Him; BUT
if you forsake Him, He will reject you.

Deuteronomy 30:19
I call heaven and earth to witness against you today,
that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So CHOOSE LIFE in order that you may live, you and your descendants,

John 3:36...John the Baptizer on Jesus: CHOOSE
1. He who believes in the Son has eternal life; (BELIEVER)
BUT
2.he who does not obey (TO BELIEVE IN!) the Son will not see life,
but the wrath of God abides on him.” (UN-BELIEVER)

John 1...CHOOSE!
11 He came to that which was His own, but His own did NOT receive Him.
12 YET to all who DID receive him,
to those who BELIEVED in his name, he gave the right to become "children of God"
13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband’s will, but "born of God"

Revelation 3:20...CHOOSE!
Behold, I stand at the door and knock;
if anyone hears My voice and opens the door,
I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Deuteronomy 22:28 in the two main translations:

KJV:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

NIV:
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,


The KJV translates directly and there is no ancient Hebrew word for rape. The ancient people lived in a rape culture and could not envision a society in which rape is not normative.



You misread what I said. I'm saying that Moses was angry because the women that the soldiers raped were not virgins. He thinks that is what caused the plague.

Numbers 31:15-18 is pretty clear. Everything I've said is 100% correct so far. I think that you're just being lazy. I can't keep dealing with you if you won't put in a couple clicks worth of effort.



Well why don't you tell me why they killed the women who were not virgins and kept the virgins for themselves. What were they doing with them, playing checkers? You completely glossed over my question. If their husbands, fathers and sons were slaughtered right in front of them, and the men from the opposing army took them for sex, would that not qualify for rape? In what insane universe is that not rape?




I think there's enough evidence, but that would require two things: honesty, and an investigation of the text. I think that would be asking too much of you from what I've seen so far.



Nothing to do with venereal disease. On an unrelated note, let's kill everyone but the virgins. Right.



Yep, we've established that they kept exclusively the virgins because they wanted to have checkers tournaments.



If you bother responding and it's apparent that you haven't read what I took the time to procure here for you, then I'll waste my time talking to someone else who won't listen.

...reading this thread makes me realize that either 1) I need to throw away the two dozen books I have on hermeneutics and exegesis, or 2) some people out there have some strange ways of reading texts ... i.e. any kind of texts, including those of the Bible.

2PhiloVoid

 

[Foxfyre]

I don't see it as specifically a contradiction, but I can see how non believers can legitimately criticize Christians for what I call 'proof texting' or plucking this or that verse out of its full context and holding it up as God's law or word for Christians to believe and obey.

If the verse is included in the full context of the translated manuscript, however, it takes on a whole new meaning.

Take Deuteronomy 22 for instance. It is true that there is no Hebrew word for 'rape' to be found in the Old Testament texts--there is such a word now--אונס--but it won't be found in the Bible. Nevertheless, the NIV English translation of the ancient text uses the word as is discerned from the intent of the ancient text or what the passage obviously intended to convey.

We can legitimately debate the propriety/inerrancy/accuracy of the NIV translation just as we can legitimately argue the propriety/inerrancy/accuracy of the KJV translation, but it is safe to say that the translators did not intend to mislead or change the meaning of the ancient text in any way. It is left up to the scholarly experts whether they inadvertently did so.

For me the most glaring lesson to be taken from Deuteronomy 22 is that it is a laundry list summary of various laws as it was understood through the eyes of the ancient ones.

Yet we Christians now pick and choose among laws we wish to hold up as God's law for us here and now while we easily dismiss most or all of the laws on that list. How many of us, for example, demand that there must be four tassels on the cloak/coat that we wear?

You can see how the skeptic or non believer sometimes sees Christians to be either dishonest or irrational in what they choose to consider to be God's law and what they dismiss of the written Law.

 

[Soyeong]

Deuteronomy 22:28 in the two main translations:

KJV:
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

NIV:
If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered,

The KJV translates directly and there is no ancient Hebrew word for rape.

The Hebrew word "tapas" means "to take" or "to hold" and does not in itself imply the use of force, such as when a man takes a woman to be his wife, so translating as "rape" is jumping to an incorrect conclusion. We can clearly see in Deuteronomy 22:25-27 that rape is being discussed with the woman crying out in the country with no one to rescue her and that the penalty is death. And when it is talking about about rape, it used a different Hebrew word "chazaq", which involves the use of strength or force, so the intentional use of "tapas" is clearly talking about a different sort of action that does not involve force. In verses 25-27 is speaks specifically about the man, but in verse 28, it says "if they are found out" which means that they both hold responsibility, which again means that it is not talking about rape.

The ancient people lived in a rape culture and could not envision a society in which rape is not normative.

I do not consider someone who abuses the pulpit to preach feminist ideology to be a credible source, especially in regard to this topic.

You misread what I said. I'm saying that Moses was angry because the women that the soldiers raped were not virgins. He thinks that is what caused the plague.

Numbers 31:15-18 is pretty clear. Everything I've said is 100% correct so far. I think that you're just being lazy. I can't keep dealing with you if you won't put in a couple clicks worth of effort.

I have read the passage in question and it is indeed pretty clear, so I am wondering why you are calling me lazy and whether you have actually read it. Here it is:

Numbers 31:15-18 Moses said to them, “Have you let all the women live? 16 Behold, these, on Balaam's advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

So clearly you're just making stuff up full cloth. Nowhere does it say that Moses was angry because the women that the soldiers raped were not virgins nor it list that as the reason for the plague, but rather it says that Moses was angry because they had let all the women live, who on Balaam's advice had caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of Peor.

Well why don't you tell me why they killed the women who were not virgins and kept the virgins for themselves. What were they doing with them, playing checkers? You completely glossed over my question. If their husbands, fathers and sons were slaughtered right in front of them, and the men from the opposing army took them for sex, would that not qualify for rape? In what insane universe is that not rape?

The issue was that the Midianite women had enticed the Israelites to sexual sin, so the female virgins were spared because they had not participated in the matter. Clearly, they were not spared so that the Israelites could commit further sexual sins, and nowhere does it say that they were taken for sex. Most likely they would eventually become married to Israelite men, but that comes with the full status of being a wife, and any suggestion of rape is pure fantasy on your part.

I think there's enough evidence, but that would require two things: honesty, and an investigation of the text. I think that would be asking too much of you from what I've seen so far.

Numbers 31:40 The persons were 16,000, of which the Lord's tribute was 32 persons.

This is the only verse that you've sited and it does not say anything about human sacrifice, so that is pure fantasy on your part. The Bible very clearly instructs against human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:1-5).

Nothing to do with venereal disease. On an unrelated note, let's kill everyone but the virgins. Right.

Do you know of any venereal diseases that act that way? If the Midianites had contracted diseases of this magnitude before they ran across Israel, then there would likely have been none of them left to come in contact with Israel.

Yep, we've established that they kept exclusively the virgins because they wanted to have checkers tournaments.

Nothing is said about checker tournaments either.

If you bother responding and it's apparent that you haven't read what I took the time to procure here for you, then I'll waste my time talking to someone else who won't listen.

I took the time to read what you wrote, but most of it was made up full cloth with not much of an attempt to understand the text.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The Hebrew word "tapas" means "to take" or "to hold" and does not in itself imply the use of force, such as when a man takes a woman to be his wife, so translating as "rape" is jumping to an incorrect conclusion. We can clearly see in Deuteronomy 22:25-27 that rape is being discussed with the woman crying out in the country with no one to rescue her and that the penalty is death. And when it is talking about about rape, it used a different Hebrew word "chazaq", which involves the use of strength or force, so the intentional use of "tapas" is clearly talking about a different sort of action that does not involve force. In verses 25-27 is speaks specifically about the man, but in verse 28, it says "if they are found out" which means that they both hold responsibility, which again means that it is not talking about rape.

So your position is that the immediately preceding verses cover what to do when a betrothed woman is raped, and then now it is moving on to something else and the Bible has nothing to say about a situation where a bachelorette is raped. How odd.

I do not consider someone who abuses the pulpit to preach feminist ideology to be a credible source, especially in regard to this topic.

Gender equality = abuse of the pulpit. Also odd.

I have read the passage in question and it is indeed pretty clear, so I am wondering why you are calling me lazy and whether you have actually read it. Here it is:

Numbers 31:15-18 Moses said to them, “Have you let all the women live? 16 Behold, these, on Balaam's advice, caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of the Lord. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. 18 But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him keep alive for yourselves.

So clearly you're just making stuff up full cloth. Nowhere does it say that Moses was angry because the women that the soldiers raped were not virgins nor it list that as the reason for the plague, but rather it says that Moses was angry because they had let all the women live, who on Balaam's advice had caused the people of Israel to act treacherously against the Lord in the incident of Peor.



The issue was that the Midianite women had enticed the Israelites to sexual sin, so the female virgins were spared because they had not participated in the matter. Clearly, they were not spared so that the Israelites could commit further sexual sins, and nowhere does it say that they were taken for sex.

And with that you've surrendered your claim that you are both honest and thorough.

"The issue was that the Midianite women had enticed the Israelites to sexual sin, so the female virgins were spared because they had not participated in the matter."

Let's see. So by your logic, the little boys were killed because they also enticed the Israelites to sexual sin? Like always you completely gloss over details to make your point.

The non-virgin girls and young boys were killed for the same reason: because genocide was the mission. The virgins were allowed to live as sex slaves. The lengths you go to just to defend genocidal maniacs is mind boggling. Yeah, they committed genocide but let's just agree they draw the line at rape. Seems perfectly reasonable.

Most likely they would eventually become married to Israelite men, but that comes with the full status of being a wife, and any suggestion of rape is pure fantasy on your part.

Again, glossing over details. These girls saw their family and community get butchered. Yeah, sure, they should have no problem having sex with one of the men responsible. Totally not coercion out of fear. Or is it too much feminist idealism to consider the thoughts and desires of these women?

Numbers 31:40 The persons were 16,000, of which the Lord's tribute was 32 persons.

This is the only verse that you've sited and it does not say anything about human sacrifice, so that is pure fantasy on your part. The Bible very clearly instructs against human sacrifice (Leviticus 20:1-5).

The verse you quoted says that they may not sacrifice their own children to a particular deity. It doesn't say anything about Jehovah. And even if it did, so what? It's still only talking about Hebrew children. We already know the law is racist and favors Hebrews. You didn't even comment on my list of facts showing that their laws on slavery were slanted in favor of Hebrews.

So there's no reason to believe they wouldn't sacrifice these virgins that they considered to be booty. And by the way, I see you made no attempt to explain what it means to be a tribute to the Lord. If you look at the context here, it's pretty clear.

Do you know of any venereal diseases that act that way? If the Midianites had contracted diseases of this magnitude before they ran across Israel, then there would likely have been none of them left to come in contact with Israel.

I haven't even seen where it is said that members died. I'll do additional research on this when you catch up to where I'm at.

Nothing is said about checker tournaments either.

Then why kill the little boys and let the virgin girls live? Everyone knows virgin girls are terrible at checkers. That's why they wanted the virgin girls for themselves, right? So they could win at checkers all day?

I took the time to read what you wrote, but most of it was made up full cloth with not much of an attempt to understand the text.

Seems to be made up, yes, if you completely ignore vital details. I think we're done here. Let me know if you have a change of heart.

 

[TBDude65]

I understand and appreciate that. But you are still setting the terms. Only by giving God a chance without setting any terms, limits, restrictions, or qualifications on that will you ever be sure.

I set no terms, limits, restrictions, or qualifications. So I am not sure you do understand.

 

[Foxfyre]

I set no terms, limits, restrictions, or qualifications. So I am not sure you do understand.

You posted in your own words that because God did not respond when you thought he should have if he was real, you concluded he did not exist. That is setting your terms and expectations for what God must be or how God must act.

 

[TBDude65]

You posted in your own words that because God did not respond when you thought he should have if he was real, you concluded he did not exist. That is setting your terms and expectations for what God must be or how God must act.

1) the only advice I have ever gotten from Christians is to do exactly that
2) you speak as if I said I only did this once or twice. I searched for God for years. What I eventually found was a much more rational explanation
3) I actually didn't just go "huh, god must not be real." It wasn't a simple instantaneous event/conclusion. Once again, this search took years
4) instead of trying to find excuses within my story from bits and pieces, perhaps it would be more respectful to try and understand instead of making assumptions?

 

[Foxfyre]

1) the only advice I have ever gotten from Christians is to do exactly that
2) you speak as if I said I only did this once or twice. I searched for God for years. What I eventually found was a much more rational explanation
3) I actually didn't just go "huh, god must not be real." It wasn't a simple instantaneous event/conclusion. Once again, this search took years
4) instead of trying to find excuses within my story from bits and pieces, perhaps it would be more respectful to try and understand instead of making assumptions?

What assumptions have I made? You said yourself that you gave up on God. I don't care if we are talking seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, to give up on God because he doesn't respond in a manner according to what you consider appropriate or acceptable is making your own rule. It is setting your own limitations on who or what God must be or do to convince you.

That isn't making an assumption. That is restating a fact you have already stated.

I don't mean that critically or as any kind of condemnation. I am stating that you can't do it that way and honestly say you have run an honest experiment. I am simply inviting you to do an honest experiment. Invite God to make himself known with no strings attached--no expectations of what, how, or WHEN he has to do that.

It's hard to do once a mind is made up. But I earnestly recommend it.

 

[TBDude65]

What assumptions have I made? You said yourself that you gave up on God. I don't care if we are talking seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, months, years, to give up on God because he doesn't respond in a manner according to what you consider appropriate or acceptable is making your own rule. It is setting your own limitations on who or what God must be or do to convince you.

That isn't making an assumption. That is restating a fact you have already stated.

I don't mean that critically or as any kind of condemnation. I am stating that you can't do it that way and honestly say you have run an honest experiment. I am simply inviting you to do an honest experiment. Invite God to make himself known with no strings attached--no expectations of what, how, or WHEN he has to do that.

It's hard to do once a mind is made up. But I earnestly recommend it.

What assumptions have I made?
Here is one: "You said yourself that you gave up on God."
No, I didn't. You assumed this.
Another: "...because he doesn't respond in a manner according to what you consider appropriate or acceptable is making your own rule."
At no point did I ever establish any rules for a god.

"That is restating a fact you have already stated."
No, it is you not understanding and making several baseless assumptions.

"I am stating that you can't do it that way and honestly say you have run an honest experiment. I am simply inviting you to do an honest experiment. Invite God to make himself known with no strings attached--no expectations of what, how, or WHEN he has to do that."

You make yet another assumption that the only truthful conclusion from an "honest experiment" is to believe in a god, but you've clearly not considered the alternative.

"It's hard to do once a mind is made up."

Confirmation bias is a genuine problem for most of us. It was what kept me hanging onto my faith for so long.

 

[Foxfyre]

What assumptions have I made?
Here is one: "You said yourself that you gave up on God."
No, I didn't. You assumed this.
Another: "...because he doesn't respond in a manner according to what you consider appropriate or acceptable is making your own rule."
At no point did I ever establish any rules for a god.

"That is restating a fact you have already stated."
No, it is you not understanding and making several baseless assumptions.

"I am stating that you can't do it that way and honestly say you have run an honest experiment. I am simply inviting you to do an honest experiment. Invite God to make himself known with no strings attached--no expectations of what, how, or WHEN he has to do that."

You make yet another assumption that the only truthful conclusion from an "honest experiment" is to believe in a god, but you've clearly not considered the alternative.

"It's hard to do once a mind is made up."

Confirmation bias is a genuine problem for most of us. It was what kept me hanging onto my faith for so long.

You obviously are not understanding what I'm saying here, and I seem to only be annoying you, so I'll back off and wish you a good day at this point.

 

[TBDude65]

You obviously are not understanding what I'm saying here, and I seem to only be annoying you, so I'll back off and wish you a good day at this point.

No, I understand because I get the same schtick from every other Christian who listens to and then questions my story. I don't think you understand that I wasn't a Christian in title only. It might be hard for you to grasp, but I was once a sincere believer who found himself an atheist after years of looking for a better and more complete understanding of God.

 

[quatona]

I don't mean that critically or as any kind of condemnation. I am stating that you can't do it that way and honestly say you have run an honest experiment. I am simply inviting you to do an honest experiment. Invite God to make himself known with no strings attached--no expectations of what, how, or WHEN he has to do that.

Done. No God showed up so far - so I conclude that, should a God exist, he doesn´t have any interest in revealing himself to me, to this point.
Thus, for all practical intents and purposes a God´s existence does not play any part in my views and actions.
That will surely change as soon as a God makes himself known to me.