Your video, Patrice O'Neal - Black People Taking White People's Side..., has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Holeeeee shit... he did that in front of Patrice Oneal?
The balls on this guy... Louis CK has to be magic. Think about it, could ANYone else pull this off?

@vaire2ube, I'm glad you brought up Patrice O'Neal, because he is a perfect example of the disingenuousness of the "It's just comedy, folks" defense. There is plenty of evidence that O'Neal was a bona fide misogynist, with genuinely toxic views about women. But because he usually expressed those views humorously, any criticism was met with something like "God, can't you take a joke, you humorless feminazi?"

I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. Hateful views don't get a pass just because they're followed by a punchline. Good (and even some not-so-good) comedians don't just tell jokes, they convey ideas, and those ideas should be subject to scrutiny just as they would be if they came from Rachel Maddow or Charles Krauthammer. To treat comedy otherwise, to treat it as if it is just light entertainment that shouldn't be taken seriously, is to trivialize it. And the trivialization of comedy is precisely what the greats -- Bruce, Pryor, Carlin -- fought against. To anyone who loves the artform of comedy, the phrase "just a joke" should be anathema.

Patrice O'Neal was a very funny man, but he was also a bigot. His funniness does not excuse his bigotry in the slightest. And Tosh doesn't even have that figleaf. His act is shot through with causal misogyny and disregard for the valid concerns of rape victims. Look, that woman shouldn't have heckled him in the middle of the act. But his response was hugely dickish. Especially given the fact that she had just voiced strong sentiments against rape jokes, which in the mind of most considerate human beings would have triggered a little alarm to the effect of "Maybe she reacts so strongly to rape jokes because she is a rape victim."

>> ^brycewi19:

I think I saw her crack a smile when he said donkey-punch.


From now on, portrait photographers everywhere will replace "say cheese" with "say donkey punch", how can you not smile when saying donkey punch, unless maybe, you're a member of PETA.
George Carlin once made a case for the idea that just about anything can be joked about, even rape, he then presented us with the image of Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd, and I totally lost it.

"Weak atheism", which is what most atheists profess, is a lack of beliefs. Full stop. It is not a claim about anything. It is a lack of a claim about anything. Not only is there therefore no burden of proof, but there's no logical possibility of proof. Specifically, I don't have to prove that God doesn't exist because I never claim he doesn't. I simply claim, "For now, I don't know of and I don't believe in any god." I can also fairly say, "I doubt the Biblical God exists". I don't have to provide proof of that either since it's just my own best educated guess, not something I'm claiming is a fact. My doubt is based on facts, but these facts don't lead to the conclusive determination that the Biblical God doesn't exist. So I pass it to you then to tell me which atheist claim of mine you would like proof of.

"Strong atheism", on the other hand, is a theistic position that there absolutely is no God of any kind. To me, this is as ridiculous as any other absolutist claims about deities.

To say you lack belief is an autobiographical statement about your psychology. It has nothing to do with the question of Gods existence. Atheism, by definition, is a denial of any deity. When you describe your beliefs, you aren't talking about atheism, you are talking about agnosticism. You are saying you don't know. The problem, and confusion begins when you take that a step further, and say you don't believe in God because you don't know. That doesn't logically follow. Does it make any logical sense to say that because I don't know if apple pie tastes any good, I don't believe it tastes good? Does it make sense to say that because I don't know if Howard is left handed, that I don't believe he is left handed? If not, then why does it make logical sense to say that because I don't know if God exists, that I don't believe He exists?

If you really didn't know, you wouldn't believe *or* disbelieve in God. You would be neutral to the existence of God. You are not clearly neutral, since you are taking a negative position on God, and a negative position has a burden of proof.

I'm going to explain why your test doesn't prove that you are necessarily right. If a human fully gives their mind to any religion, they will feel that that religion's god is doing whatever that religion believes that god does. In other words, I could do the same "test" with Islam, Judaism, Buddhism or Voodoo and in all cases I would feel a spiritual high of one sort or other. You say I would feel it more with Jesus, yet the Imam I pass on the way to the train station keeps telling me I'll feel it most with Allah and the teachings of Mohammed. Jews tend not to proselytize, so they don't tell me anything, but if I asked them what would happen if I converted and devoted myself to Judaism, they'd tell me very similar things too. I've seen them in spiritual highs reading the Torah. It's awesome to behold. Ancient Romans and Greeks had different takes on what gods were, but certainly felt they had personal relationships with them and had numinous experiences as a result.

Your premise is faulty for a number of reasons. First, you presume that all spiritual experience is a trick of the mind, based on the fact that you had a break with reality and believed in something that wasn't true. I've given you an alternative explanation to your theory, which is that most people who claim to be having a genuine spiritual experience are having that experience. The question is, is it from a genuine source or are they being deliberately deceived?

You also presume that the reason people believe is because it makes them feel good. If all it were was a spiritual high, I wouldn't believe it either. My faith isn't based on feelings, it is based on the action of God in my life. Many times I did not have the feelings, but God provided the evidence. God is omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient, and there are certain things only He can do. God has demonstrated to me beyond any reasonable doubt that He is an absolute control of reality, down to the very atom, down to the mircosecond.

What I am saying to you is, God will provide the evidence that will convince your skeptical mind. He will provide the undeniable evidence that you could not interpret away. When you encounter the living God, you will walk away utterly changed, in every conceivable way, forever.

Ask Jesus to throw you a bone. Say to Him, Jesus, if you are real I will serve you. Please show me evidence that you are who you say you are. If you are sincere about serving Him, I have no doubt He will respond. He said knock and the door will open.

>> ^messenger:

You may feel you have a responsibility to spread what you believe to
be true.

I am commanded by God to do so. It's not optional.

That's all fine and dandy, and I have no problem with that.

Okay..cool.

Going to people who do not agree with you, and have made up their
mind, and telling them they're wrong for believing what you cannot
prove to be certainly true is again an intolerance and disrespectful
view of other people.

Again, I am commanded by God to do so. Although, in this case, I didn't start the conversation about God.

You do NOT have definitive proof, no matter how
much you think you do. You don't. Period.

That's your opinion.
Go ahead and try to
convince them.

You can't argue someone into faith. Only God is capable of changing someones heart.

There's nothing immoral about that. It is immoral to
claim moral superiority and tell people they don't have valid opinions
because they don't share yours.

Would it be immoral to tell a rapist that raping people is wrong?

Do you get why it's wrong for an atheist to berate you for believing
in a god when you cannot prove with empirical evidence he definitely
exists? It's not right. You know why? Because they can't prove with
certainty god doesn't exist either

It doesn't really bother me. I agree though, it would be nice if more atheists would acknowledge their burden of proof.

So, respect each other's beliefs, agree to disagree, and follow the Golden Rule for interacting with others in discussion:

Don't be douchey!

Everyone is entitled to their own beliefs; God gives everyone freedom to believe whatever they want. I also see everyone in the image of God. Neither am I interested in arguing; I prefer as little drama as possible.

Why is it wrong for you to believe an atheist has no valid viewpoint
on spirituality? It's really darn simple. First, you equated
spirituality to being right or wrong.

Then, you said he had no valid opinion about it. If you're equating spirituality to morality and ethics, then why do most atheists believe in the idea of right vs
wrong? They have ethics and morality, and theirs isn't subordinate to
yours just because you believe in the existence of God.

Even beyond that, it's absurd. If I don't believe in the role of gov't
in our lives, does that render all my opinions about gov't useless and
always wrong? Since you're all about religion, does that mean all
your thoughts about science are completely invalid? Of course not.

I think you completely misunderstood what I was saying. Rather than drag it out, I am just going to let this drop. I fully acknowledge atheists have valid opinions on morality and ethics.

Why are my religious views irrelevant? It's really simple. I'm not
debating which of our religions is the correct one. I'm debating how
to appropriately discuss religion, morality, and ethics with others.
You are not the final arbiter of truth. Neither am I. Neither is
messenger. We're all struggling to find more truth. Yours isn't more
valid because you're Christian.

Since you're preaching at me about how I should conduct myself, I think it's only fair that you share what you believe in. I think it's relevent, in that context, to see if your behavior lines up to the stanards of conduct of your faith.

You're also not an atheist, yet you seem to know exactly what their
beliefs are about morality. Instead of trying to argue your side,
here's a totally wild idea - why don't you take a little time and
understand where they're coming from before you spout ignorant crap
about what they believe? I'm sure you don't appreciate when people
spout crap about you that isn't true. IE, why don't you use the
Christian Golden Rule?

As a previous unbeliever and skeptic, I am very familiar with what atheists believe and why. Not only from a personal standpoint, but due to the fact that they tell me exactly what they believe all the time. You're really working overtime trying to make a mountain out of a molehill (and not responding to the substance of the conversation), when the point of fact is, there is nothing wrong with my sharing what I believe. If you can tell me I am wrong, I can say that I am right. But I am not even saying that. I am saying God is right, and I believe Him.

You can stop spouting your religious views to justify your utter
disrespect for others and their beliefs. I didn't read a single word
of it. Quite frankly, you're pissing me off, and I would suggest you
re-evaluate how you discuss this topic with others using that tone.
I'm enlightened enough to not hold your douchebaggery against other
devout Christians who are more respectful of others. More often than
not, it's not convincing people to see it your way. It's causing an
irrational recalcitrance against your views. If you truly are a
believer of god and trying to change people's minds to a view like
your own, this isn't the way to do it. Jesus didn't act like a
petulant 5 year old know it all.

What have I said that is so terrible? I'm far from perfect but your accusations are ringing a little hollow. You could try putting away the strawmen and ad homs and actually engage the substance of the conversation. Do you think messanger needs you to defend him? He and I are in familiar territory. Honestly, I am sorry if I have been rude in any way. Though, how is it that you chastise someone about being respectful when you yourself are being disrespectful, anyway? I'm not sure I understand that dynamic.


>> ^heropsycho:

You may feel you have a responsibility to spread what you believe to be true. That's all fine and dandy, and I have no problem with that. Going to people who do not agree with you, and have made up their mind, and telling them they're wrong for believing what you cannot prove to be certainly true is again an intolerance and disrespectful view of other people. You do NOT have definitive proof, no matter how much you think you do. You don't. Period. Go ahead and try to convince them. There's nothing immoral about that. It is immoral to claim moral superiority and tell people they don't have valid opinions because they don't share yours.

Do you get why it's wrong for an atheist to berate you for believing in a god when you cannot prove with empirical evidence he definitely exists? It's not right. You know why? Because they can't prove with certainty god doesn't exist either. So, respect each other's beliefs, agree to disagree, and follow the Golden Rule for interacting with others in discussion:

Don't be douchey!

Why is it wrong for you to believe an atheist has no valid viewpoint on spirituality? It's really darn simple. First, you equated spirituality to being right or wrong. Then, you said he had no valid opinion about it. If you're equating spirituality to morality and ethics, then why do most atheists believe in the idea of right vs wrong? They have ethics and morality, and theirs isn't subordinate to yours just because you believe in the existence of God.

Even beyond that, it's absurd. If I don't believe in the role of gov't in our lives, does that render all my opinions about gov't useless and always wrong? Since you're all about religion, does that mean all your thoughts about science are completely invalid? Of course not.

Why are my religious views irrelevant? It's really simple. I'm not debating which of our religions is the correct one. I'm debating how to appropriately discuss religion, morality, and ethics with others. You are not the final arbiter of truth. Neither am I. Neither is messenger. We're all struggling to find more truth. Yours isn't more valid because you're Christian.

You're also not an atheist, yet you seem to know exactly what their beliefs are about morality. Instead of trying to argue your side, here's a totally wild idea - why don't you take a little time and understand where they're coming from before you spout ignorant crap about what they believe? I'm sure you don't appreciate when people spout crap about you that isn't true. IE, why don't you use the Christian Golden Rule?

You can stop spouting your religious views to justify your utter disrespect for others and their beliefs. I didn't read a single word of it. Quite frankly, you're pissing me off, and I would suggest you re-evaluate how you discuss this topic with others using that tone. I'm enlightened enough to not hold your douchebaggery against other devout Christians who are more respectful of others. More often than not, it's not convincing people to see it your way. It's causing an irrational recalcitrance against your views. If you truly are a believer of god and trying to change people's minds to a view like your own, this isn't the way to do it. Jesus didn't act like a petulant 5 year old know it all.

>> ^shinyblurry:

Dude, you can have spiritual insights and be an atheist. But you're also doing what many other religious people do that gives religion a bad name - presume that spirituality is synonymous with morality. It's not the same thing. Most atheists have a code or morality.
A spiritual atheist is a contradiction in terms, although I have actually met some. What insight could someone who is unaware they have a spirit offer? That would be like a blind person commenting on the beauty of a sunset.
Everyone has the internal witness of their own conscience to tell them right from wrong. I never said atheists cannot be moral. However, God has given specific revelation of a moral law that He expects everyone to follow.
I'm not getting into my personal religious beliefs with you. Quite frankly they are irrelevant.
How can we have an intellectually honest conversation about personal religious beliefs if you won't say what yours are?
For the record, you don't have definitive proof an omnipotent being revealed to you the absolute truth. You may believe you do, but you don't. Believe it all you want, strongly believe in it. That doesn't bother me, but you have no definitive proof for certain that God exists, let alone revealed to you the exact truth of his nature, etc. etc. etc.
Yes, it is very arrogant to think you have this knowledge. It's not arrogant of me to say that. You have no slam dunk evidence prove he has revealed this to you, or even if he exists. That's why it's called faith. I feel god has visited me in my lifetime to reveal truth, but I don't dare go around telling people that he most certainly did, and his truth is my beliefs, and therefore I know the truth and anyone who contradicts me is wrong. That's quite frankly repugnant and shows a total disrespect for others and their beliefs that haven't a thing to do with you.
Do you know much about Christianity? I have been commanded by God to preach the gospel and to let people know that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. That is my responsibility, and one day, we will all stand before Him, and we will have to give account for everything that we have done and said, every idle word. This includes what we did and didn't do. I have trouble understanding how you can know that I interpret the world through Christian theism yet fail to understand why I follow it to its logical conclusion, IE, obeying the will of God.
The gospel is a scandal to people because it convicts them of their sin and reveals the eternal destiny that they face without Jesus Christ. It is also the good news, that God sent His only begotten Son, who through His sacrifice on the cross, paid the price for our sins, and that God will forgive your sins and give you eternal life if you turn from them and trust in Jesus as your Lord and Savior.
I'm sorry but it isn't arrogant to tell someone that they are wrong, when they actually are wrong. In this case, if you saw someone walking into a burning building, would you not warn them not to go in there? That is exactly what I am doing, and whether you believe it is credible or not is not the issue. You're violating your own standard of conduct by telling me I am wrong, which is arrogant by your own definition. Neither can everything be definitively proven. You don't have any definitive proof that there are other minds, or that reality isn't an illusion. You cannot prove either conclusion with empirical evidence. Is it arrogant to say that you exist?
God has specifically said that He has given a general revelation of Himself in the Creation, in the things He has made, to everyone, so that no man has any excuse for not knowing there is a God. That is the revelation you have received. He has also given us a special revelation of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. When you speak of definitive proof, what you are really talking about is knowing Jesus Christ personally. Well, that is what I am telling you. You can know Him today, if you prayed to Him and asked Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior. That is how He told us to know Him, and God will supply the proof. Your refusal to do that is like trying to find an octopus in the desert, and when you don't find any, declaring that there aren't any. There is only one way to know God, and if you don't go that route, you won't know anything about Him. That is why you believe you can know nothing for certain, because you have been given no certain knowledge about who God is.
>> ^heropsycho:

Dude, you can have spiritual insights and be an atheist. But you're also doing what many other religious people do that gives religion a bad name - presume that spirituality is synonymous with morality. It's not the same thing. Most atheists have a code or morality.

A spiritual atheist is a contradiction in terms, although I have actually met some. What insight could someone who is unaware they have a spirit offer? That would be like a blind person commenting on the beauty of a sunset.

Everyone has the internal witness of their own conscience to tell them right from wrong. I never said atheists cannot be moral. However, God has given specific revelation of a moral law that He expects everyone to follow.

I'm not getting into my personal religious beliefs with you. Quite frankly they are irrelevant.

How can we have an intellectually honest conversation about personal religious beliefs if you won't say what yours are?

For the record, you don't have definitive proof an omnipotent being revealed to you the absolute truth. You may believe you do, but you don't. Believe it all you want, strongly believe in it. That doesn't bother me, but you have no definitive proof for certain that God exists, let alone revealed to you the exact truth of his nature, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, it is very arrogant to think you have this knowledge. It's not arrogant of me to say that. You have no slam dunk evidence prove he has revealed this to you, or even if he exists. That's why it's called faith. I feel god has visited me in my lifetime to reveal truth, but I don't dare go around telling people that he most certainly did, and his truth is my beliefs, and therefore I know the truth and anyone who contradicts me is wrong. That's quite frankly repugnant and shows a total disrespect for others and their beliefs that haven't a thing to do with you.

Do you know much about Christianity? I have been commanded by God to preach the gospel and to let people know that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life. That is my responsibility, and one day, we will all stand before Him, and we will have to give account for everything that we have done and said, every idle word. This includes what we did *and* didn't do. I have trouble understanding how you can know that I interpret the world through Christian theism yet fail to understand why I follow it to its logical conclusion, IE, obeying the will of God.

The gospel is a scandal to people because it convicts them of their sin and reveals the eternal destiny that they face without Jesus Christ. It is also the good news, that God sent His only begotten Son, who through His sacrifice on the cross, paid the price for our sins, and that God will forgive your sins and give you eternal life if you turn from them and trust in Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

I'm sorry but it isn't arrogant to tell someone that they are wrong, when they actually are wrong. In this case, if you saw someone walking into a burning building, would you not warn them not to go in there? That is exactly what I am doing, and whether you believe it is credible or not is not the issue. You're violating your own standard of conduct by telling me I am wrong, which is arrogant by your own definition. Neither can everything be definitively proven. You don't have any definitive proof that there are other minds, or that reality isn't an illusion. You cannot prove either conclusion with empirical evidence. Is it arrogant to say that you exist?

God has specifically said that He has given a general revelation of Himself in the Creation, in the things He has made, to everyone, so that no man has any excuse for not knowing there is a God. That is the revelation you have received. He has also given us a special revelation of Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. When you speak of definitive proof, what you are really talking about is knowing Jesus Christ personally. Well, that is what I am telling you. You can know Him today, if you prayed to Him and asked Him to come into your life as Lord and Savior. That is how He told us to know Him, and God will supply the proof. Your refusal to do that is like trying to find an octopus in the desert, and when you don't find any, declaring that there aren't any. There is only one way to know God, and if you don't go that route, you won't know anything about Him. That is why you believe you can know nothing for certain, because you have been given no certain knowledge about who God is.

>> ^heropsycho:

Dude, you can have spiritual insights and be an atheist. But you're also doing what many other religious people do that gives religion a bad name - presume that spirituality is synonymous with morality. It's not the same thing. Most atheists have a code or morality.

I'm not getting into my personal religious beliefs with you. Quite frankly they are irrelevant.

For the record, you don't have definitive proof an omnipotent being revealed to you the absolute truth. You may believe you do, but you don't. Believe it all you want, strongly believe in it. That doesn't bother me, but you have no definitive proof for certain that God exists, let alone revealed to you the exact truth of his nature, etc. etc. etc.

Yes, it is very arrogant to think you have this knowledge. It's not arrogant of me to say that. You have no slam dunk evidence prove he has revealed this to you, or even if he exists. That's why it's called faith. I feel god has visited me in my lifetime to reveal truth, but I don't dare go around telling people that he most certainly did, and his truth is my beliefs, and therefore I know the truth and anyone who contradicts me is wrong. That's quite frankly repugnant and shows a total disrespect for others and their beliefs that haven't a thing to do with you.

>> ^shinyblurry:

You do not have a monopoly on spirituality or spiritual insight. You assume that your spirituality gives you the complete truth, and you jumped the shark to certainty of your beliefs. I don't have a problem with you believing you're correct. That's sorta why you came to that conclusion. It's the part where you're certain, and deny the mere possibility you could be wrong when debating others, and have the audacity to tell other people they have no spiritual insight.
Messenger is an atheist; by definition he knows nothing about the spirit. Further he explicitly denies that there is any such thing. Even if I wasn't certain about what I believe, what I said would still be factual.
Jesus said He is the way, the truth and the life. He had the audacity not just to say He is right, but that He is truth itself. I believe Him and agree. If I had doubts about who Jesus is, I wouldn't follow Him. A Christian makes an audacious decision; that Jesus is the living God.
That's garbage, and the exact point I was making to Messenger when he assumed your religion was controlling your mind. It's this kind of thing that gives some religious people and atheists who refuse to acknowledge there's a possibility of a god a bad name.
Do you believe there is a God?
It doesn't depend on the question. There's a ton of things loaded into the question. What are you defining as god? Who are you defining as Jesus? What does it mean to be the "Son of God"? Etc. etc. etc. There are different ways to answer those questions, and depending on those answers, it radically changes what the meaning is of a yes or no answer. The different ways you answer it can provide useful insights.
Of course it depends on the question. If I ask, was the Universe created, that has a right answer and a wrong answer. If I ask, what is the Universe, that has many answers. Words have meaning, and if we agree upon those meanings, we can come to a point of fact. If we define God as the Creator of the Universe, and Jesus as the historical person, Jesus of Nazereth, then there clearly is a yes or no answer.
Although it is promising that you believe in absolute truth, you are still trying to make it relative. You are saying there is a truth, but you are also implying that no one can know what it is. If someone did know what it is, would they be arrogant for being certain about it? No. You just seem to believe no one can be certain about it. There are two scenerios in which you could know the truth absolutely: 1. You are an omnipotent being. 2. An omnipotent being reveals the truth to you. I fall under scenerio 2.
And to be honest, these are questions often thrown out there that cause more problems than they help solve. First off, it doesn't necessarily matter if Jesus is truly the son of God or not. Believing it still can provide a useful belief framework to help people make themselves better. Choosing to believe in the principle of "matter can not be created nor destroyed" can provide insights into the world even though we know that's not entirely true.
Regardless, you and your religion are not the final arbiters of spiritual truth. Period. It's conceited to think you are.
It absolutely matters whether Jesus is God because what you believe about Jesus determines where you spend eternity. If Jesus is God, He is the final arbiter of spiritual truth, and it is on His authority as God that I speak that truth. You think it's wrong to be certain of truth, yet absolute truth is exclusive truth. It is simply unreasonable for you to place the limitation of your uncertainty about truth upon others. If God came to you and gave you absolute and undeniable revelation, would you be wishy-washy about whether you believe it or not? Can you admit to yourself that God, if He wanted to, could give absolute revelation of the truth to anyone? If you can admit that, and you know that I believe that He has given such revelation, then you shouldn't be surprised that I claim to know what it is with certainty. That is exactly what you would expect from someone who has encountered the living God.
>> ^heropsycho:

Bad definition, unless by "knows nothing about the spirit", you mean, "doesn't believe in the same spirit I believe in." I have my own insight into my own experiences with spirituality. So far, they have not led me to necessarily believe in anything supernatural. That makes me a "weak atheist". Would you really respect my insights into "the spirit" more if they had led me to be as fervent as you, but about Taoist Buddhism?

What spirit do you believe in if you don't believe in anything supernatural?

False. I have never anywhere stated that there is no creator being, or even that a God doesn't exist. I have stated that God as described in the Bible -- if words have meaning -- cannot exist as such because the set of descriptions are internally inconsistent. Because they contradict each other, they therefore preclude any such entity's existence -- again, if words have meaning. Now, it's possible that there is a God who is described in the Bible, but only if the descriptions there are somewhat inaccurate, which would cast doubt on the Bible's authenticity as God's word, but then it's possible God, for his own reasons, wanted a flawed book to be his voice.

Words do have meaning, and I would suggest, considering the content of our previous conversations, that your conclusion is based on the many misconceptions and misunderstandings you have about scripture. To the point:

"The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned"

Without the Holy Spirit, you are incapable of understanding scripture. Like you, I once had a number of things picked out in the bible which I believed were contradictory or demonstrated that God is not who He says He is. I thought I had a solid case, but to my surprise my case was only founded on my own ignorance..once the Holy Spirit opened my eyes, I saw how shallow my conclusions were, and I also saw the answers were always there, I just didn't see them.

I will also note that these objections are always concerning the Old Testament, a lot of which applied only to Israel and not to Christianity. Instead of considering the words of Jesus on their own merit, skeptics try to do an end run around Him and undermine the OT so they can dismiss Him entirely. This to me represents the intellectual bankruptcy of the skeptics typical argumentation against Christianity. Skeptics never once consider that the obvious goodness, wisdom and purity of Jesus Christ is actually living proof that they've completely misunderstood the God of the Old Testament. They never consider it from that angle, and try to apply their understanding the other way.

But you don't fall under scenario 2. You just believe you fall under scenario 2. For you to be correct, you would have to know that an omnipotent being is what is revealing something to you. Nobody, not you, not us, can be certain that you are right about that. I can think of two ways you could be wrong: 1) you may suffer from a relatively common mental defect that causes people to be absolutely convinced they are communicating with a superior being; and 2) you are being contacted by a superior being, but you as a human are in no position verify that it is an omnipotent being, as any being significantly superior to you would appear omnipotent to you. In a nutshell, humans don't have perfect understanding of anything except systems they created themselves, such as mathematics and formal logic, so you can't testify that your understanding of your experience is perfect.

About 1), as I've said to you elsewhere on the Sift, I'm not suggesting it to be mean or insulting. It's a common condition, and people of all spiritual stances suffer from it, and they all believe they're communicating with a real entity. If their accounts were consistent, then there'd appear to be something to it, but they're not. People who have these conditions don't even gravitate to the same religion, if any religion at all. For you to say you are right to the exclusion of all those other people who are equally convicted is arrogant. The same applies to your following arguments:

Actually, statistically, it would be the people who are unaware that there is a supernatural reality who would be considered defective. There is no evidence that your scenerio is true, it is actually only your confirmation bias at work; you had an issue where you believed something was going on which wasn't true, and then you unjustifiably extrapolated that to everyone elses spiritual experience. That just doesn't follow.

I'll elaborate on the other issue in the last paragraph.

This part, I get, but what I say above still stands. If one had no other evidence other than an experience like yours, it would make perfect sense for one to believe they had contact with the real God, and that what they were interpreting was exactly true. But there's other evidence: other people have had very similar experiences, often associated with mental injury (falling off a horse and going blind, for the most famous example), and they have come to a wide variety of conclusions based on their own (human) interpretation of the experience. This, to a rational person, should suggest that you may not be right, and that is enough.

What I know and you don't know is that most everyone who claims to be speaking to a real entity actually is speaking to one. There are superior beings, fallen angels, whose only purpose is to convince people, usually with supernatural signs and evidence, that anything but Jesus Christ is the truth. They have invented uncounted false religions, cults, spiritual systems, philosophies, etc, to blind human beings to the light of Christ. The people who believe in them are not just deluded, they are deceived.

"In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God"

Again, I used to be the same way. I believed anyone advocating for supernatural claims had a screw loose. It seems that way on the outside, looking in. It isn't anything which you will understand or believe until God opens your eyes to see.

Is it possible that a superior being could fool quite a bit of the planet? Sure. Satan and his minions are doing just that. Is it possible we're all plugged into the matrix? Sure. Is it possible the Universe started five seconds ago and all of our memories are false? Sure. This is where my presupposition comes in. I presuppose that God created reality, and that it is not inherently deceptive; that we can know what the truth is. I believe my presupposition is well justified by a preponderance of evidence, not the least of which is my personal relationship with Jesus Christ.

How can you test my claim? Give your life to Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and God will provide you undeniable evidence of His existence. Draw near to God and He will draw near to you.

>> ^messenger:

You do not have a monopoly on spirituality or spiritual insight. You assume that your spirituality gives you the complete truth, and you jumped the shark to certainty of your beliefs. I don't have a problem with you believing you're correct. That's sorta why you came to that conclusion. It's the part where you're certain, and deny the mere possibility you could be wrong when debating others, and have the audacity to tell other people they have no spiritual insight.

Messenger is an atheist; by definition he knows nothing about the spirit. Further he explicitly denies that there is any such thing. Even if I wasn't certain about what I believe, what I said would still be factual.

Jesus said He is the way, the truth and the life. He had the audacity not just to say He is right, but that He is truth itself. I believe Him and agree. If I had doubts about who Jesus is, I wouldn't follow Him. A Christian makes an audacious decision; that Jesus is the living God.

That's garbage, and the exact point I was making to Messenger when he assumed your religion was controlling your mind. It's this kind of thing that gives some religious people and atheists who refuse to acknowledge there's a possibility of a god a bad name.

Do you believe there is a God?

It doesn't depend on the question. There's a ton of things loaded into the question. What are you defining as god? Who are you defining as Jesus? What does it mean to be the "Son of God"? Etc. etc. etc. There are different ways to answer those questions, and depending on those answers, it radically changes what the meaning is of a yes or no answer. The different ways you answer it can provide useful insights.

Of course it depends on the question. If I ask, was the Universe created, that has a right answer and a wrong answer. If I ask, what is the Universe, that has many answers. Words have meaning, and if we agree upon those meanings, we can come to a point of fact. If we define God as the Creator of the Universe, and Jesus as the historical person, Jesus of Nazereth, then there clearly is a yes or no answer.

Although it is promising that you believe in absolute truth, you are still trying to make it relative. You are saying there is a truth, but you are also implying that no one can know what it is. If someone did know what it is, would they be arrogant for being certain about it? No. You just seem to believe no one can be certain about it. There are two scenerios in which you could know the truth absolutely: 1. You are an omnipotent being. 2. An omnipotent being reveals the truth to you. I fall under scenerio 2.

And to be honest, these are questions often thrown out there that cause more problems than they help solve. First off, it doesn't necessarily matter if Jesus is truly the son of God or not. Believing it still can provide a useful belief framework to help people make themselves better. Choosing to believe in the principle of "matter can not be created nor destroyed" can provide insights into the world even though we know that's not entirely true.

Regardless, you and your religion are not the final arbiters of spiritual truth. Period. It's conceited to think you are.

It absolutely matters whether Jesus is God because what you believe about Jesus determines where you spend eternity. If Jesus is God, He is the final arbiter of spiritual truth, and it is on His authority as God that I speak that truth. You think it's wrong to be certain of truth, yet absolute truth is exclusive truth. It is simply unreasonable for you to place the limitation of your uncertainty about truth upon others. If God came to you and gave you absolute and undeniable revelation, would you be wishy-washy about whether you believe it or not? Can you admit to yourself that God, if He wanted to, could give absolute revelation of the truth to anyone? If you can admit that, and you know that I believe that He has given such revelation, then you shouldn't be surprised that I claim to know what it is with certainty. That is exactly what you would expect from someone who has encountered the living God.

>> ^heropsycho:

You do not have a monopoly on spirituality or spiritual insight. You assume that your spirituality gives you the complete truth, and you jumped the shark to certainty of your beliefs. I don't have a problem with you believing you're correct. That's sorta why you came to that conclusion. It's the part where you're certain, and deny the mere possibility you could be wrong when debating others, and have the audacity to tell other people they have no spiritual insight.

That's garbage, and the exact point I was making to Messenger when he assumed your religion was controlling your mind. It's this kind of thing that gives some religious people and atheists who refuse to acknowledge there's a possibility of a god a bad name.

It doesn't depend on the question. There's a ton of things loaded into the question. What are you defining as god? Who are you defining as Jesus? What does it mean to be the "Son of God"? Etc. etc. etc. There are different ways to answer those questions, and depending on those answers, it radically changes what the meaning is of a yes or no answer. The different ways you answer it can provide useful insights.

And to be honest, these are questions often thrown out there that cause more problems than they help solve. First off, it doesn't necessarily matter if Jesus is truly the son of God or not. Believing it still can provide a useful belief framework to help people make themselves better. Choosing to believe in the principle of "matter can not be created nor destroyed" can provide insights into the world even though we know that's not entirely true.

Regardless, you and your religion are not the final arbiters of spiritual truth. Period. It's conceited to think you are.

>> ^shinyblurry:

If that's the way you want to see it. Messenger stated that he didn't think fornication was "wrong sex"..that he knew what it was and wasn't..and I said he doesn't know that because he has no insight into spiritual matters. What you think is "garbage" is simply a statement of fact from the Christian perspective...

It depends on the question. If you ask, what is life, you can have many answers, none of which captures the entire truth. On the question of whether Jesus is God, there is a right answer and a wrong answer.

Don't bother patronizing me to gain an ally because I defended you, and then turn around and spew that garbage to other people. That kind of crap is what gives religious people a bad name.

If that's the way you want to see it. Messenger stated that he didn't think fornication was "wrong sex"..that he knew what it was and wasn't..and I said he doesn't know that because he has no insight into spiritual matters. What you think is "garbage" is simply a statement of fact from the Christian perspective.

Truth is absolute, but no one has to be right. It is entirely possible that each viewpoint catches a specific aspect of the truth without the ability to capture it in its entirety, and some viewpoints may not capture any of the truth, and some actually warp the truth. That is in fact what insights from varying points of view do.

It depends on the question. If you ask, what is life, you can have many answers, none of which captures the entire truth. On the question of whether Jesus is God, there is a right answer and a wrong answer.

>> ^heropsycho:
Would have been nice had you not posted to messenger...
"You don't know what wrong sex is, because you have no insight into spiritual matters."
Seriously?!
SERIOUSLY?!?!
Don't bother patronizing me to gain an ally because I defended you, and then turn around and spew that garbage to other people. That kind of crap is what gives religious people a bad name.
"Yet truth isn't relative, it is absolute. It isn't your truth and my truth; there is a truth and someone is right and someone is wrong about it."
Truth is absolute, but no one has to be right. It is entirely possible that each viewpoint catches a specific aspect of the truth without the ability to capture it in its entirety, and some viewpoints may not capture any of the truth, and some actually warp the truth. That is in fact what insights from varying points of view do.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I realize you don't agree with my viewpoint but I thank you for interjecting and putting the spotlight on some of this emptry rhetoric. Personally, I have been on both sides of the fence; I started out as an agnostic. I am in control of what I believe, and I am well aware of what others believe and why; I used to believe the same things for the same reasons. The reason I believe Jesus is God is because He has supernaturally changed my life. What scripture describes will happen has happened to me.
What we are talking about are worldviews, and every worldview is founded upon presuppositions. A worldview is the lens through which you fundamentally perceive and understand reality. Everyone has a worldview. My worldview is Christian theism, whereas many here have an atheistic worldview, rooted in naturalistic materialism. Their God (what explains everything) tends to be science (they like to say its omnipotent), not realizing that science can't even be done without the presupposition of the uniformity of nature. If more people realized what their philosophical presuppositions are, or even that they have presuppositions in the first place, we could have a much better dialogue on these subjects.
>> ^heropsycho:
I'm certainly not siding with him in this. But understand this...
We all eventually choose mental frameworks to help us understand the world. He chose a religious framework. You chose a different one. He's in control of his own mind, just as you are in control of your own. As far as I'm concerned, a choice of framework is not a moral choice. The choice to try to be better and get to the truth is a moral choice. People take different paths to get there. Some people completely discard frameworks and adopt others as they progress. I have no problem with any of that. If you're not making a choice to understand the truth, then I have a problem with it. He's choosing to use a religious framework to get to it. Rock on.
>> ^messenger:
Your religion is controlling your mind.

Would have been nice had you not posted to messenger...

"You don't know what wrong sex is, because you have no insight into spiritual matters."

Seriously?!

SERIOUSLY?!?!

Don't bother patronizing me to gain an ally because I defended you, and then turn around and spew that garbage to other people. That kind of crap is what gives religious people a bad name.

"Yet truth isn't relative, it is absolute. It isn't your truth and my truth; there is *a* truth and someone is right and someone is wrong about it."

Truth is absolute, but no one has to be right. It is entirely possible that each viewpoint catches a specific aspect of the truth without the ability to capture it in its entirety, and some viewpoints may not capture any of the truth, and some actually warp the truth. That is in fact what insights from varying points of view do.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I realize you don't agree with my viewpoint but I thank you for interjecting and putting the spotlight on some of this emptry rhetoric. Personally, I have been on both sides of the fence; I started out as an agnostic. I am in control of what I believe, and I am well aware of what others believe and why; I used to believe the same things for the same reasons. The reason I believe Jesus is God is because He has supernaturally changed my life. What scripture describes will happen has happened to me.
What we are talking about are worldviews, and every worldview is founded upon presuppositions. A worldview is the lens through which you fundamentally perceive and understand reality. Everyone has a worldview. My worldview is Christian theism, whereas many here have an atheistic worldview, rooted in naturalistic materialism. Their God (what explains everything) tends to be science (they like to say its omnipotent), not realizing that science can't even be done without the presupposition of the uniformity of nature. If more people realized what their philosophical presuppositions are, or even that they have presuppositions in the first place, we could have a much better dialogue on these subjects.

>> ^heropsycho:
I'm certainly not siding with him in this. But understand this...
We all eventually choose mental frameworks to help us understand the world. He chose a religious framework. You chose a different one. He's in control of his own mind, just as you are in control of your own. As far as I'm concerned, a choice of framework is not a moral choice. The choice to try to be better and get to the truth is a moral choice. People take different paths to get there. Some people completely discard frameworks and adopt others as they progress. I have no problem with any of that. If you're not making a choice to understand the truth, then I have a problem with it. He's choosing to use a religious framework to get to it. Rock on.
>> ^messenger:
Your religion is controlling your mind.

I realize you don't agree with my viewpoint but I thank you for interjecting and putting the spotlight on some of this emptry rhetoric. Personally, I have been on both sides of the fence; I started out as an agnostic. I am in control of what I believe, and I am well aware of what others believe and why; I used to believe the same things for the same reasons. The reason I believe Jesus is God is because He has supernaturally changed my life. What scripture describes will happen has happened to me.

What we are talking about are worldviews, and every worldview is founded upon presuppositions. A worldview is the lens through which you fundamentally perceive and understand reality. Everyone has a worldview. My worldview is Christian theism, whereas many here have an atheistic worldview, rooted in naturalistic materialism. Their God (what explains everything) tends to be science (they like to say its omnipotent), not realizing that science can't even be done without the presupposition of the uniformity of nature. If more people realized what their philosophical presuppositions are, or even that they have presuppositions in the first place, we could have a much better dialogue on these subjects.



>> ^heropsycho:
I'm certainly not siding with him in this. But understand this...
We all eventually choose mental frameworks to help us understand the world. He chose a religious framework. You chose a different one. He's in control of his own mind, just as you are in control of your own. As far as I'm concerned, a choice of framework is not a moral choice. The choice to try to be better and get to the truth is a moral choice. People take different paths to get there. Some people completely discard frameworks and adopt others as they progress. I have no problem with any of that. If you're not making a choice to understand the truth, then I have a problem with it. He's choosing to use a religious framework to get to it. Rock on.
>> ^messenger:
Your religion is controlling your mind.