Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And remember, the premise, the ops question,Pretend this is a philosophy forum and someone made a thread asking a question.
I think it's a valid question from a position of any given skeptic.
I really don't buy the oversimplified answers like "If he didn't leave then Holy Spirit wouldn't come", Or "He left because the mission to spread the Gospel had to be fulfilled", or to "Prepare a place", again neither make a lot of sense in a scope what Christianity is and what it expects.
The question is whether this world is better if Jesus is there for all to be able to experience apart from some "feeling" or a book narrative? It wouldn't make Christianity to be so doubtable. Every Thomas out there could visit a 2000 year old dude with holes in his hands and believe.
Why leave without a trace, and except leave the world with a story and a promise of hope.
It seems like a good excuse to mask the reason as to why Jesus is not here. "Well, he was here, but you've missed him by about 2000 years, BUT he's coming back soon... so just wait and read this book about him".
Perhaps there are other reasonable explanations, but what would these be? What do you think?
Do you know how many men have CLAIMED to be speaking for God, yet they are speaking perversely, they are opposed to God, they reject Jesus, and their only motive is to kill, to steal and to destroy ?You said that your God curses those who listen to the words of men. You said that men are wicked and untrustworthy. YOU said these things. Yet you accept the word of men when they wrote the bible.
So what's with the Darwinism then?Abosulutely. I want to believe as many true things as possible.
There is no difference between what you have described and a delusion. How would you know?
If the Bible was merely the words of men, why would anyone bother with it? The fact that it is the Word of God and is treated as such by millions speaks for itself.Yet you accept the word of men when they wrote the bible.
At first glance, this seems like a good argument.Suggesting that a Christian's personal, spiritual experience is a "delusion" is certainly not a new suggestion.
That suggestion hardly explains how Christianity has survived for around 2,000 years however. Surely a mere delusion would have died out long ago.
At first glance, this seems like a good argument.
But then again, there are several delusions that have not died out in the last 2000 years, and even more.
So, some other criteria is required to differentiate ekklesia from non-ekklesia; God's People from those who are not God's People.....
OR not?
Around the world, people 'outside' have been able to tell the difference just watching.
They don't need any thing more than they can see
to tell the difference between lights and non-lights in the world. ... a mystery? or purposeful deception or delusion upon themselves who cannot see ?
According to which authority ?Okay, what delusions are you referring to?
Apparently not. "Objective" evidence only applies to object-based reality. What were you thinking?So fake answers to false assertions.
Got it.
What is the difference between a delusion made up of space, time, and matter, and a delusion made up in the mind?There is no difference between what you have described and a delusion. How would you know?
According to which authority ?
I understand your question, but I don't understand you. What authority do you acceptYou stated that certain delusions have continued for 2,000 years or even more, so I am just asking which delusions you see referring too.
Claiming that a Christian's personal, spiritual experience is a "delusion" is certainly not a new suggestion.
That suggestion hardly explains how Christianity has survived for around 2,000 years however. Surely a mere delusion would have died out long ago.
Michael, can you help me out and let me know what exactly does that mean in terms of our human experience?
Can you give me a real life example where holy spirit worked to help you through a decision... I just want to understand what exactly you are talking about.
I understand your question, but I don't understand you. What authority do you accept
or what authority did you make your statements in one quote >
(1) When a Christian's personal spiritual experience is called a delusion, is that ever right ? If so , by what authority ?
(2) How did Christianity survive for around 2,000 years ? (this is awkward: "animals have survived also, for well over 2000 years; yet many are extinct, and many more near extinction, while some have thrived .... .... Did those that survived have anything 'better' than those that went extinct ? Or was it just that those that man decided to kill are the ones that went extinct - nothing better nor worse about them ?
(3) If 10 people are deluded, or 10,000, or 10,000,000 , who decides they are the ones deluded ?
i.e. what authority did you use yourself to know or to decide who is deluded and who is not?
Or have you ever in your life seen the difference ? If you saw the difference, then "how" did you see the difference?
Another was to ask this, maybe simplest is >
Do you HONESTLY believe that mankind has not been under delusions for over 2000 years?
If that is what you honestly believe,
then what would it take to change your mind ?
Yes, I know that - it was clear you did not say who is nor who was deluded at any time. I brought out that there have been people deluded (even for 2000 years).Excuse me?
I think you need to go back and re-read my original comment. You seem to have completely misunderstood me. I never said ANYONE was "deluded", I was responding to the suggestion someone else made that there is no difference between a personal, spiritual experience and what some may call a delusion.
I have no idea why you interpreted my comment as accusing someone of being deluded, or inferring that I know enough to say when someone is or isn't deluded, because I said no such thing.
Claiming that a Christian's personal, spiritual experience is a "delusion" is certainly not a new suggestion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?