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:

@shinyblurry
Messenger is an atheist; by definition he knows nothing about the spirit.

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?

Further he explicitly denies that there is any such thing.

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.

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.

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 have suffered from it, and they all believe they're communicating with a real entity [sentence edited for clarity -- I don't mean all spiritual people]. 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:

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.

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.

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:

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.

>> ^lampishthing:

I think that's the difference between Atheism and Agnosticism.
Atheism: belief that there is (are) no God(s).
Agnostic: lack of belief either way.
"Gnostic" is derived from a Greek word meaning knowing (roughly speaking). Theism and Atheism are Gnostic philosophies as they claim to know that there is a God or not. Agnostic is the inverse: not knowing.

Actually you have that wrong. Atheism is not the belief that there are no gods, it's the lack of belief in a god. It's a small but important point. Agnosticism (as you pointed out) is related to knowledge.

Most "atheists" are agnostics atheists, they don't know if there's a good, but they have seen no evidence for one therefore have no reason to believe in one. Very few atheists (even the "hardcore" like Dawkins) will say they know there's no god, simply that it is extremely improbable.

Theists can fall into either camp. There are many agnostic theists, who can't say for sure that there is a good but choose to believe anyway. People like @shinyblurry would claim to be gnostic theists, in that they claim to know there is a god, and consequently believe.

To me, gnosticism (either theistic or atheistic) is an intellectually dishonest position. There is no real evidence (and personal experience doesn't count, I'm afraid) for this existence of god, but by it's very definition an omnipotent being outside the laws of physics could hide his existence from the universe so it's impossible to disprove using science.

Finally, there is one more position that hasn't been mentioned. It's the third axis on the graph. So far, we have belief (considered opinion based on evidence) and knowledge (evidence available), but there is also desire; whether you want god to exist or not. I don't know the positive term for this, but the negative is usually called an "anti-theist", and can be applied to the likes of Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. This is the idea that not only does god probably not exist, it is a good thing that it doesn't. Atheists do not necessarily fall into this camp. Many feel that a benevolent deity would be a nice thing, much like it'd be nice if Santa or the easter bunny existed, but there's simply insufficient evidence for it. Note that anti-theists don't hate theists (other than the ones that any moral person would hate: bigots, child-molesters and so on), they hate the concept of god.

It's even possible to be a theist antitheist ("god's a prick, but he's a powerful prick so I should really obey him") although I'll haven't met any of them. Fictional example would be Riddick

For the record, I am an agnostic atheist anti-theist. I don't know if there's a god, I find it improbable and if he's anything like he's depicted in any of the major religions, I want no part of him.

I appreciate the entire post, however i understand what faith is entirely. I am unable to make that choice. I merely wanted to assure you that there is no faith in not accepting god. Faith is something you need to believe something you can't prove, and i will elaborate on proof below;

I accept that proof to you is a feeling, or your emotional response to what you percieve as god; whether god exists or not, i know that you have no doubts. But you must accept that to anyone else, your proof is equivalent to someone proving 2+2=10 based on their feeling or emotional response to what they percieve as REAL maths.

Faith isn't based on feelings. Some people may serve God because it makes them feel good, but they are the people who fall away in times of trouble. I serve God because He is God, and He has let me know that in an undeniable way. Believe me, God can give you revelation to the extent that you would say "Lord, it is enough".

As i'm sure you're aware, there are many "gods" (many religions) and many people who would say to you "i hope allah touches you one day and you realise the truth" and you reply to them "no no my friend, it is you who needs to be touched and shown the truth; i pray for you". The real crux of the problem is that both of you use exactly the same arguments to justify the existence of different things, and anyone can use the same arguments to justify the existence of anything.

Do you know why there are similarities between Christianity and Islam? Most people don't seem to know this but Islam is exactly the same as Mormonism. There is no difference between Muhammed and Joseph Smith. The only difference is, one came 600 years after Christianity and the other 1800 years. They are both men who spoke with angels and received "new" revelation, which totally contradicts everything in the bible, then wrote new books and claimed it was authoratative over the Old and New Testaments. They're both counterfeit, cultist religions based on Christianity. This is what the bible says about receiving new revelations from angels:

Galatians 1:8

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

2 Corinthians 11:14

And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light

So, when it comes down to it, it is all revolving around the central claim of Christianity, which is that Jesus is God.

Anything at all may be proven true if you accept someone else's "i feel it/i know it" argument, and when presented with this, i must reject it because it can make anything and everything true at once - it can prove that my hair is really green and so i can't trust the evidence of my own eyes. If i can't trust any of my senses, how can i also trust my senses telling me god is real?

It isn't a matter of convincing yourself of anything, it is matter of God giving you revelation that He exists. He gives this revelation to those who dilligently seek Him. Neither is empiricism the measure of reality because there are many things that empiricism cannot prove.

The alternative is to build a logical set of steps and rules (like maths, physics) of undeniable truth; if i have one of something, and one more of that something, i have two of that something. Using this concept i can follow logically to the scientific conclusion; i love truth, and as you can see it requires no faith for me to follow. If the most diverse creature in the universe appeared next to me right now, he would be ONE of those diverse creatures, and even in his language and reference frame he would know that he is ONE, and another of him would make TWO; there is absolutely no faith in this as i'm sure you'll agree. Even god says there is only ONE god. There cannot be TWO or more. Even "god" accepts maths to be universally true. The bible's pages are numbered. The animals went in TWO by TWO. There is no faith involved.

There are things that even science must assume is true, such as the uniformity in nature. Science can't be done without that fundemental assumption. The same goes for the laws of logic. Where do they come from? Where do you get absolute laws from in this ever changing material reality? Where Why is nature uniform? If you are interested in logic you should investigate these questions.

But we could back and forth on this all day. We both know these things to be true, and we both agree on them. But you will say that "when you know, you know". And that is fine by me, i accept that as something that might happen, as we've said before, but i can't let a falsehood be told without challenging it (to my detriment)

What I am saying is that isn't a matter of just knowing, it is a matter of revelation. There are two ways to know something about God. To either be omnipotent yourself, or receive revelation from an omnipotent being. God gives a general revelation in the Creation of His eternal power and Godhead, so that everyone is facing the evidence that God exists, and He also gives a special revelation of His Son Jesus Christ. This is something He would give to you if you sought it out.

>> ^dannym3141:

(This is part two as mentioned in my previous comment)

I’ve read and re-read your arguments over the weekend and for a portion of today. I’ve done a lot of research into what you’ve said and I found something particularly interesting which lead me to a significant question. “Where is all of this guy’s information coming from?”

So I did a little experiment. I did a Google search for all of the quotes that you’ve replied with and can you guess what I found? All of your arguments can be taken nearly verbatim or just reworded from creationist websites. Can you honestly expect anyone to believe that you’ve done your own research or read any real books on the subject of thermodynamics or biological evolution? How can you even take yourself seriously if you haven’t spent the time putting in the work to understand what the source material says for yourself?

The problem with your theory is, I have done the research, and I do know what the source material says. I understand the theory of evolution better than most atheists I have met. I use the quotations because they are hostile witnesses to my position which gives the argument even more force. It doesn't matter where I've gotten them from; that is irrelevent. The evidence I am presenting is what is relevent.

If someone has objections about the bible, would you take them seriously if you discovered that they hadn’t actually read it? No, of course not, so how can you expect to be taken seriously if you haven’t read the source material yourself? It’s just an attempt to try to discredit something that you haven’t actually studied yourself which I find to be a bit on the disingenuous side of things.

Most atheists I've spoken to who criticize the bible haven't actually read it. I've already told you my background so you don't have an argument. I have studied these things.

I know that you’re expecting this because every creationist website prepares creationists for this criticism but you’re idea of how thermodynamics works is entirely misinformed and you won’t know by how much until you do yourself a favor and listen to a course in thermodynamics or read a book on it. If you have iTunes, go to iTunes U and search for thermodynamics, spend 12 hours learning and then you’ll see that classical thermodynamics has nothing to say about biological systems. I suspect that you probably read a lot of articles from the Institute for Creation Research website.

You haven't offered any criticism of my position and you haven't demonstrated any actual knowledge of this subject, except that which is patently false. The laws of thermodynamics apply to everything, including biological systems. Evolutionists attempt to weasel out of that by declaring that they are 'open systems' and thus immune to entropy because of the energy from the sun, but as I showed this does nothing to show where information comes from, so you cannot explain it away.

I've read a lot of science textbooks, and a lot of scientific literature. When I was agnostic, I read volumes and volumes of it, and I stay abreast of the latest discoveries. Your accusations all ring hollow, especially considering you have failed to show you understand the subject on your own.

If that is the case and you do frequent ICR then here is something to think about: (Taken directly from the conclusion to their article “Does Entropy Contradict Evolution”)

“If science is to be based on fact and evidence, rather than metaphysical speculations, then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all. In fact, at least until someone can demonstrate some kind of naturalistic comprehensive biochemical predestinating code and a pre-existing array of energy storage-and-conversion mechanisms controlled by that code to generate increased organized complexity in nature, the entropy law seems to preclude evolution altogether. The marvelously complex universe is not left unexplained and enigmatically mysterious by this conclusion, however. It was created by the omnipotent and omniscient King of Creation! If evolutionists prefer not to believe this truth, they can make that choice, but all the real facts of science - especially the fundamental and universal law of entropy - support it.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that the majority of this article is correct and that the 2nd law does indeed contradict evolution. This final conclusion from the article does something very interesting. It jumps from saying that evolution cannot have happened because it violates the 2nd law to it was created by a god. How the heck are they coming up with that conclusion!? By what evidence can they make that leap let alone make the claim that the creator is both omnipotent AND omniscient? This is my problem with how you are arguing; you are doing the same thing. You are suggesting that the math doesn’t add up and that your answer is better but you aren’t providing the math to suggest why your answer is better; you’re just telling us that it’s the answer.

What you're doing is using a logical fallacy known as a strawman argument. You're absolutely right, that is a terrible argument. That isn't the type of argument I have made. When I brought up thermodynamics, I was responding to this comment:

"The notion of design is for people who cannot understand what it means for systems to assemble from the bottom-up because, to them, it makes more intuitive sense that things are designed from the top down. This is not critical thinking and it betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science."

I showed it was your position that was betraying a fundamental misunderstanding of the findings of science. My argument was rational, well founded, and based on solid evidence, yet you have taken the low road of trying to assasinate my character, or outright say that I don't actually know what I am talking about. Again, it is you who have failed to adaquately demonstrate knowledge of the subject matter. Instead of addressing my argument, you have made the argument about me, as you have admitted to, and that is what is dishonest here.

Whether or not you resonate with that that snippet from their article or not, it illustrates how egger some people are to praise some scientific findings when those findings don’t contradict their beliefs and in the same breath, criticizes other scientific findings which do contradict their beliefs. If you encounter something that seems to contradict what you already believe to be true, it is wise to question whether what you believe to be true is actually true rather than searching for information that confirms what you believe.

It's called confirmation bias. A good example of this is looking at the question of the origin of life and believing it must have evolved despite having no actual evidence that it did.

The thing is that I know that you’re going to say that “science” has an agenda, and it does, but not like you think it does and you’ll never understand that agenda until you actually study it for yourself. You believe that it’s all about disproving god, or maintaining naturalism but it’s not.

Science is an institution run by individuals with individual beliefs and goals. Over 40 percent of biologists, astronomers and mathematicians believe in God. Belief in God is not incompatible with doing good science, nor is science in and of itself something bad. There is however a concerted effort, on the part of evolutionists, to push their version of origins on the rest of us, and they have often used legal means to do so. Evolution is pushed on the public like it is a proven fact and it is not.

You are arguing against a set of misunderstandings that you hold about what you believe the science is saying. Everything that you think you know about these matters is either a straw man, a red-haring or blatant misinformation. It would be very hard to impress on you how exactly that is true without you being educated on the source material. This is why we cannot have a conversation regarding these issues. You will just need to start reading the source material instead of going to interpretive websites; its far more interesting that way anyway.

What you're doing is jumping to a bunch of unfounded conclusions and drawing extremely weak inferences about what I have or haven't done, and then extrapolating that to a bunch of highly prejudiced judgements against me personally, and doing so in a haughty way, as if you are talking to a child. You have completely failed to include anything of substance in this reply. It is all just a sad attempt to write me off without actually addressing any of my arguments. Until you actually address the meat of my reply with a point by point refutation, this entire reply can be chopped up to one gigantic ad hom.

I am sorry to say that I find a degree of intellectual dishonesty in your method of arguing against these ideas by primarily pulling information and quotes from these sources without having done the work yourself. You are representing yourself as personally knowledgeable about the subject when you are doing nothing more than copy and pasting in quotes to support you. Besides this being a type of an argument from authority, it shows to me that you have no regard for the context in which the original quote was written. That is the definition of cherry picking and to me; it makes me think that you are more interested in maintaining your beliefs than being honestly interested in expanding your knowledge.

Or you have completely mischaracterized me, as I have demonstrated. Again, you want so badly for this to be about me. Even if I was doing everything you said I am doing, my arguments, if they were accurate, would still stand. You haven't moved one inch closer to disproving anything I've said. It doesn't matter where I've gotten the information, what matters is if it is correct or not. Regardless, I do understand the subject matter, and demonstrably better than you do thus far.

I don’t expect to change your mind. You seem deeply rooted in creationism and as you’ve said, you believe in the biblical god and that you feel that your life was transformed by him. That is a very powerful feeling, one that is very hard to overcome because it is something personal that you probably relate to. Perhaps you feel that your stability rests on the idea that a god exists and that your view of that god must be the correct one based on your personal experiences; I don’t know. I have nothing more to say other than to suggest that you read the source material so that way you can at least honestly say that you know what you’re talking about.

You aren't going to change anyones mind with this low grade excuse for an argument. This isn't about me, it's about the evidence. You say my evidence is invalid because I don't understand the subject matter, which is fallacious. The evidence is valid whether I understand it or not. However, I do understand it, and the problem here is you have no basis to criticize me because you're the one who hasn't demonstrated any understanding. You have even demonstrated the wrong understanding. However, the difference between you and I is that I will give you enough credit to assume you are a reasonably intelligent person who isn't just pretending to understand it. I am still waiting for you to prove it, however. Your attempt to make this argument about me has failed, because I have shown all of your claims about me to be false, and it is logically fallacious in the first place. If you want to continue, address my arguments directly and prove you actually know something. If my arguments are incorrect, feel free to show me why, at any time.


>> ^IAmTheBlurr:

(This is part two as mentioned in my previous comment)

I’ve read and re-read your arguments over the weekend and for a portion of today. I’ve done a lot of research into what you’ve said and I found something particularly interesting which lead me to a significant question. “Where is all of this guy’s information coming from?”

So I did a little experiment. I did a Google search for all of the quotes that you’ve replied with and can you guess what I found? All of your arguments can be taken nearly verbatim or just reworded from creationist websites. Can you honestly expect anyone to believe that you’ve done your own research or read any real books on the subject of thermodynamics or biological evolution? How can you even take yourself seriously if you haven’t spent the time putting in the work to understand what the source material says for yourself?

If someone has objections about the bible, would you take them seriously if you discovered that they hadn’t actually read it? No, of course not, so how can you expect to be taken seriously if you haven’t read the source material yourself? It’s just an attempt to try to discredit something that you haven’t actually studied yourself which I find to be a bit on the disingenuous side of things.

I know that you’re expecting this because every creationist website prepares creationists for this criticism but you’re idea of how thermodynamics works is entirely misinformed and you won’t know by how much until you do yourself a favor and listen to a course in thermodynamics or read a book on it. If you have iTunes, go to iTunes U and search for thermodynamics, spend 12 hours learning and then you’ll see that classical thermodynamics has nothing to say about biological systems. I suspect that you probably read a lot of articles from the Institute for Creation Research website.

If that is the case and you do frequent ICR then here is something to think about: (Taken directly from the conclusion to their article “Does Entropy Contradict Evolution”)

“If science is to be based on fact and evidence, rather than metaphysical speculations, then entropy does not explain or support evolution at all. In fact, at least until someone can demonstrate some kind of naturalistic comprehensive biochemical predestinating code and a pre-existing array of energy storage-and-conversion mechanisms controlled by that code to generate increased organized complexity in nature, the entropy law seems to preclude evolution altogether. The marvelously complex universe is not left unexplained and enigmatically mysterious by this conclusion, however. It was created by the omnipotent and omniscient King of Creation! If evolutionists prefer not to believe this truth, they can make that choice, but all the real facts of science - especially the fundamental and universal law of entropy - support it.”

Let’s suppose for a moment that the majority of this article is correct and that the 2nd law does indeed contradict evolution. This final conclusion from the article does something very interesting. It jumps from saying that evolution cannot have happened because it violates the 2nd law to it was created by a god. How the heck are they coming up with that conclusion!? By what evidence can they make that leap let alone make the claim that the creator is both omnipotent AND omniscient? This is my problem with how you are arguing; you are doing the same thing. You are suggesting that the math doesn’t add up and that your answer is better but you aren’t providing the math to suggest why your answer is better; you’re just telling us that it’s the answer.

Whether or not you resonate with that that snippet from their article or not, it illustrates how egger some people are to praise some scientific findings when those findings don’t contradict their beliefs and in the same breath, criticizes other scientific findings which do contradict their beliefs. If you encounter something that seems to contradict what you already believe to be true, it is wise to question whether what you believe to be true is actually true rather than searching for information that confirms what you believe.

The thing is that I know that you’re going to say that “science” has an agenda, and it does, but not like you think it does and you’ll never understand that agenda until you actually study it for yourself. You believe that it’s all about disproving god, or maintaining naturalism but it’s not.

You are arguing against a set of misunderstandings that you hold about what you believe the science is saying. Everything that you think you know about these matters is either a straw man, a red-haring or blatant misinformation. It would be very hard to impress on you how exactly that is true without you being educated on the source material. This is why we cannot have a conversation regarding these issues. You will just need to start reading the source material instead of going to interpretive websites; its far more interesting that way anyway.

I am sorry to say that I find a degree of intellectual dishonesty in your method of arguing against these ideas by primarily pulling information and quotes from these sources without having done the work yourself. You are representing yourself as personally knowledgeable about the subject when you are doing nothing more than copy and pasting in quotes to support you. Besides this being a type of an argument from authority, it shows to me that you have no regard for the context in which the original quote was written. That is the definition of cherry picking and to me; it makes me think that you are more interested in maintaining your beliefs than being honestly interested in expanding your knowledge.

I don’t expect to change your mind. You seem deeply rooted in creationism and as you’ve said, you believe in the biblical god and that you feel that your life was transformed by him. That is a very powerful feeling, one that is very hard to overcome because it is something personal that you probably relate to. Perhaps you feel that your stability rests on the idea that a god exists and that your view of that god must be the correct one based on your personal experiences; I don’t know. I have nothing more to say other than to suggest that you read the source material so that way you can at least honestly say that you know what you’re talking about.

>> ^shinyblurry:

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.

A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.

It's impossible for us to say how God perceives His Creation (beyond what He told us). What we do know is that the second person of the Trinity entered time and became a man, and lived 33 years here on Earth. The Father was certainly capable of loving His Son while He was a man, and interacting with Him in this temporal reality. Therefore God is certainly capable of having meaningful relationships with His creatures as well. It says that in Him we live and move and have our being, meaning, that we are intimately connected to God at all times. I would further say that we have no actual idea of what time is, or how it relates to eternal things. What we do know is that it is always 'now'. I have a feeling that the 'now' moment and eternity relate in some way.

Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.

God had perfect love before He Created anything, so He did not create from a lack; He created it out of the abundence of His love.

It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything

His immutability relates to His essential nature, His perfect goodness. His character doesn't change. He is Holy and Just and always will be. This doesn't mean that God cannot have a novel thought or feel anything. Jesus wept, for instance. If you took this bizzare idea of immutability to its logical conclusion, God would be frozen in place and could not do anything at all. Clearly an omnipotent being is essentially unrestricted in His actions. The problem here is we are limited temporal beings trying to imagine what an unlimited eternal being is like. The distance between us and God is far greater than the distance between us and bacteria. This isn't to pass it off as "God is mysterious", because as I've pointed out, your definitions are inconsistant with what we do know. But you have to admit that there is an essential barrier to understanding what it is like to be God, simply because of our finite and subjective nature. How does a being who was born understand eternity? He can't, at least, not without an eternal being explaining it to him.

First you say, "Ian obviously feels threatened by Gods judgement on his lifestyle".

Then you say, "Christians are under a New Covenant and don't follow those laws".

Which is it? Is being gay against the bible, or is it not against the bible?

It was not just a prohibition for israel, it is also for Christians, as detailed in Romans 1:18-32


>> ^messenger:
@shinyblurry
A relationship is something that develops over time. God doesn't exist in a time. God knew exactly what would happen down to the movement of every quantum particle when he created the universe. We're like a book on a shelf to him, and all times and places in the universe are equally accessible to him. He already knows everything, and to him we are unborn, living and dead. A relationship like that doesn't make sense.
Also, why would God create the universe? A relationship involves development and fulfilment on both sides. How is it possible for a perfect being to desire anything or be unfulfilled in any way? Was he lonely and lacked companionship? Was he bored and lacked amusement? Is he a megalomaniac who lacked worshippers? No. God is perfect, and therefore cannot lack anything, and therefore cannot be unfulfilled in any way, and therefore cannot have desires. Nothing we do can fulfil God, unless God is unfulfilled, and therefore requiring something, and therefore imperfect.
It also doesn't make sense that God could have any emotional reactions to anything we do for a couple more reasons. First, he is immutable, unchanging. So not only could we never fulfil God, we couldn't have any effect on him whatsoever, including changing his mood or causing him to make a judgement or anything. That's the definition of immutable. A relationship with him would do nothing to him, just like talking to a rock might make a person feel good, but not affect the rock in any way. The second reason is that if God is at all times, then time doesn't flow in a straight line for him, and therefore causality doesn't exist at all. So, our actions cannot have any effect on God's attitude or mood or judgements or anything.
So, can you explain how God can be perfect, yet be unfulfilled and have desires?

It's a farce to think contemplating how large the universe has nothing to do with the grand design.

The Universe itself is only the tip of the iceberg - it's not nihilism, the truth is we do not know anything at all ; but the journey to continue on the path of real Truth by piecing it together is one of the more beautiful and meaningful aspects of life in a world so closed-minded, fearful & narcissistic. It is all in the eye-of-the beholder but know that no religion knows what the powers that be are... we will probably never even develop the senses to get anywhere close to understanding.

I am speaking to the pale blue dot theory that humanists rejoice in, to wave the size of the Universe around as a magic wand that erases the idea of any absolute truth, especially when it pertains to a belief in God. To say that our perceived insignificance in the face of the deep invalidates the idea that God, if He even exists, could possibly care about what is going on here.

It is to see through everything and thus see nothing at all, which is essentially what nihilism is. You say we can't know anything; well, the obvious question is, how do you know that? I agree, this existence that we have now is only the tip of the iceberg, but in the manner that it is a poor reflection of what is to come. The size of cosmos is infantesimal in comparison to the depths of the mind that created it. It is not the material that is interesting, it is the glory of that one who spoke it into being, to which the cosmos testifies:

The heavens declare the glory of God;

And the firmament shows His handiwork.

Day unto day utters speech,

And night unto night reveals knowledge.

There is no speech nor language

Where their voice is not heard.

Their line has gone out through all the earth,

And their words to the end of the world.

The temporal is only temporary, because time is running out. What we see now is a pale rendition of the actual, eternal reality. We are spiritual beings, and these are just clay vessels, dust and ashes. The things that are seen are all perishing; it is the things that are unseen which are eternal.

I understand atheism, I used to consider myself one. But, I think atheism gives itself too much credit in face of the vastness amount of possibilities / possible impossibilities we will never understand but could maybe to a finite degree, comprehend.

I agree and so does francis collins:

"of all choices, atheism requires the greatest faith, as it demands that ones limited store of human knowledge is sufficient to exclude the possibility of God."

Well, philosopher, what I will say is that the only thing that matters is what the truth is. If you cannot define what the truth is, it is impossible to understand anything at all. And unless you are omnipotent, you cannot know that truth, but one who is omnipotent could reveal it to you. That is the only reason anyone can know what is true, because we heard from the One who was there at the very beginning. Now if you can admit the validity of special revelation, then you are one step closer to understanding where I am coming from.

This guy says it best "It's humongous big." True that, brother. Keep on spacin' out, it's the closest we will get to any sort of truth.

I think this is a lot closer:

If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames,b but have not love, I gain nothing.

Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part, but when perfection comes, the imperfect disappears. When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me. Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.






>> ^shagen454