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:

I'm surprised no one came up with "Zomg he flew off a motorbike at like 80 kilometers an hour in to a solid metal flying object and didn't instantly explode and break every bone in his body!".

Pedantic whiney bitches, putting the FU in fun for years now.

OT about the video, looking forward to the continuation, I enjoyed it.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Barseps.

I would say something about memory but I don't want to get raged at again.

I'll just leave this here instead.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by luxury_pie.

John, you bastard! (The things about the Giants in OT)

Next year, Niners!

I don't think we like the same kinds of stories, him and I. He paints a very simple idea of the story. Like every story that resonates with us is the 3 little bears. The Homeric tails, while "simple" in terms of a hero's tail, the motivations, situations and characters are so rich and unpredictable at times it kind of ruins the whole talk on stories making little of ourselves. I enjoy this talk, mind you, but it is ironic to me that I think this story is an overly simplistic narrative on...well, the narrative! Les Misérables or The Count of Monte Cristo are rich, dynamic, and full of the complexities of the human tradition. Hell, the Bible is full of twists and turns that one might not expect...They killed the savior in the end, NO WAY! And even more so, the bibles have a very human feel to them in the OT, people fail and don't perform the way "God intended". And it is true that most narratives have some sort of objective guiding them, and the state of real life is much less formally constructed. With that said, though, even though the overall situation of humanity is like orchestrated chaos, they are still trying to carve out the meaningful story for their own life.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by Issykitty.

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
So my understanding of the new overtime rules was that each team got a possession. Is the one exception if you run it in on the first play?

The exception is if a TD is scored.


Ya, I was doing some reading...its if a TD is scored on the opening play, or a any type of score is had by the defense. I think I read something about moon cycles and the galactic core, but those set of rules only come into play when you play on the 3rd Sunday of the winter moon.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

So my understanding of the new overtime rules was that each team got a possession. Is the one exception if you run it in on the first play?


The exception is if a TD is scored.

There is something redeemable about someone who believes in themselves in face of tremendous opposition. Buy it our not, he was 10/21 and his receivers had at least 4 drops in the game. He is also 8-4 with 18 TDs and 6 INTs. That is pretty good and he has dramatically improved over time.

>> ^sixshot:

I still won't buy into the Tebow hype...

* undead
>> ^bareboards2:

Rats. This is dead (can't call it dead, though, since it isn't published. I guess.)
I really wanted to see this pass, too.

You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.

There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.

I am applying immutability to His essential nature, I am not saying God never changes. To say God cannot change is to say that God cannot do anything or be anything. The thought that total changelessness is a prerequisite of perfection is a platonian ideal, not a Christian one. How can perfection be actualized if it is not manifest? Who God is is what always stays the same. He is perfectly good. What God does can change. He manifests that good in many different ways.

About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.

His first covenant was exclusively with the Israelities to create the conditions for the coming of the Messiah. The second covenant was established for the entire world. It takes a student of the bible to understand that the entire OT is about Jesus Christ. Everything that is going on there is preparing the way for the Messiah, and is a picture of His coming. For instance, the story of Abraham and Issac is a picture of the sacrifice the Father made. Consider this video:



Not only a picture, but containing numerous prophecies. When Jesus said "My God My God why have you forsaken Me?".. He wasn't crying out to the Father because He felt abandoned, He was quoting Psalm 22, to let everyone there know He was fulfilling it. If you read it take note that when it was written (600 years before Christ) that crucifixion hadn't been invented yet.

Regarding the Old Testament, you should consider the other side of the coin. You may consider the actions of God the Father harsh, but then you should also consider the actions of the people He was dealing with. Consider the fact that after He brought the jews out of egypt, delivering them from hundreds of years of slavery, and doing non stop miracles in front of them, even personally leading them through the desert, that as soon as Moses disappeared for a few days, they all descended into barbarism and paganism and made golden calfs to worship saying "this is the God that brought us out of Egypt". Even after all that God had done for them, they were ready to betray Him at the drop of a hat. This is why God dealt harshly with them, because it was the only thing they understood, and that even just barely. The people whom you claim genocide (which wasn't genocide, btw..they drove them out, they didn't exterminate them) were given 400 years to repent, and the reason they were being judged because they were so corrupt that they ritually sacrificed their children to demons. We know from history that people who did this kind of thing also engaged in things like cannibalism. They weren't nice people, and even then God gave them 400 years to change.

How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't

Foreknowledge doesn't rule out an emotional response when it happens. It's not easy to watch your children betraying you I am sure.

I'm glad to hear you like Jesus. And He loves you. The thing to understand is that Jesus is the Fathers heart; they are one. You have a negative impression of the Father because you disagree with how He dealt with the israelities, but you should see the other side of it and understand what He did for us through His Son. Christs very words came from Him:

John 12:50

I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

John 8:28

So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am [the one I claim to be] and that I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me.

John 5:19

So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing. For whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.

Christ did not come of His own accord, He came because the Father sent Him. He died on the cross to give us forgiveness for sins and eternal life, which was the Fathers plan all along. God doesn't want to destroy us, He wants to save us, and He was even willing to give His only Son to do it. So if you can understand the OT in that light, maybe you can understand God the Father a little better.

As far as not being active today, God is always working all the time. I see it clearly, but it takes spiritual discernment to notice it. You need the Holy Spirit for that. God is really hiding in plain sight.

>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
Words have meaning.
You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.
There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.
About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.
How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't.

@shinyblurry

Words have meaning.

You can't call God immutable, then show that he can obviously change (have fulfilling relationships, have changing feelings, make decisions to do things), and say we can't understand how he's immutable. You claimed immutability. I didn't. I'm just showing you the logical consequences of the words you're using. After you say words, you can't go back and say you don't know what the words mean, or that they don't mean the same thing when we're talking about God. Again, words have meaning.

There are massive internal inconsistencies in your bible story. "God is immutable" is not a compatible statement with "God has emotional reactions to things people do", or "God has ongoing interactive relationships with people". Yes, taken to it's logical conclusion, God is a frozen thing, which is clearly incompatible with omnipotence, as you pointed out yourself. Either God is not immutable, or significant portions of the bible story are false, including every part where God does anything, feels anything, and especially claims of omni-anything.

About God's supposed immutability. Why would he have two covenants with us if his basic nature never changes? Why would he have one set of rules before Christ, and another set after? Why was he such a warring murderous genocidal badass in the OT, but relatively passive in the NT, and totally absent in daily affairs since then? It seems to me he has changed plenty over the years.

How can God get angry when something happens if he always knew it would happen? Jesus seems to be a completely different dude from God of the OT. I like Jesus. God the father I don't.

So defacing or destroying books is a good thing?

>> ^kceaton1:
I would just remove the whole old testament. Just so everybody knows if they want to do the whole, "...we only use the New Testament now!", we can make sure they're not lying--which I think they usual are (... coughs creationism coughs ...).
To be honestly blunt.
/Good show Sir Ian; it truly bugs me for some reason that they feel compelled to put THAT in all the rooms. Not only does it cheapen it (which is fine and everything), but it's a mockery to everyone that doesn't follow it--which is a large amount of the world's population.
//I know they still use some of the OT, but it's fun to pull strings sometimes