Do you believe in God?

[dylansan]

"Some subjective experiences can be interpreted wrongly, therefore all subjective experiences are the same and can be interpreted wrongly." Etc.

"Subjective: existing in the mind;[/COLOR] belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought."

Under what circumstances is a person incapable of interpreting something wrongly? A person experiences something. They make a subjective judgement on that experience. By what method or test can that person determine whether their subjective judgement is in line with reality? The only data that the person can use to evaluate their judgement is what they experience. The truth is not fed directly into their brains for them to compare with their judgements. And if it was, they would not know it was the truth unless that information told them that. (I think you agree with me to this point) But how can they judge if that truth is actually true, and not just a subjective judgement? Do you see where this gets circular?

I'm talking about an experience with the one true God, a transcendental experience. This is not ordinary subjectivity, so please stop trying to analyze it by that model. You again are not understanding that you cannot limit God to the human mind. The human mind is not all there is to the story.

If by ordinary subjectivity you mean actual subjectivity maybe. If something can't be interpreted wrongly, it isn't an interpretation. And thus it isn't subjective. This is where you're defining things that don't make sense. You're trying to claim that some subjectivity isn't subjective, and then claiming it's "common sense." I think not.

The human mind is not all there is to the story, but it's all any of us actually have to make decisions and judgements about the truth. You said yourself that you're not God. You do not inherently know the truth from fiction, and yet you're claiming you figured out what the truth is because a source of ultimate truth told you. Well how did you first determine that this was ultimate truth before you knew what the truth was? I'm not talking about God anymore, I'm talking about your method of distinguishing truth from fiction, AKA how you personally made your decisions.

No, he wasn't. It might have been funny to you, but the tone of responses toward me has drastically changed, and he in fact called my logic "bizarro". It was not obvious how I should interpret that, and I actually feel that your interpretation is wrong. Either way, it would be an honest mistake and things have clearly turned less friendly toward me in this thread.

For the record, I called your logic bizarro. But you seem to have no problem telling us your reasoning is "common sense" as if we're all to thick to understand anything. Not to mention write off an enitre argument as rubbish without a second thought to explain why.

Things are turning less friendly because you're making more and more radical claims. We're not being mean, we just expect you to provide more reasoning behind your arguments, rather than claims. It seems lately you've been responding more with "You don't understand God" than "here's a clarification of my reasoning for you." You may think that's a satisfactory answer but it adds nothing to your argument. Telling us that we have to get to know God is meaningless when the whole point of this argument is that you can't know God through subjective experiences.

You choose to respond to what I write, just like I choose to respond to what others have written here. It's not like I came into a thread full of one-line declarations of whether people believe in God or not. The argument was ongoing for quite a while, hence the very long thread length.

We respond to what you write because you make claims that require evidence. Saying you believe in God does not require evidence (though we may ask why you believe, we won't demand proof). Saying God exists and claiming you know with absolute certainty. That is a large claim, and if you didn't want people to call you on it, you shouldn't have posted it. You're free to post what you want just like I'm free to post what I want. But I'm not complaining about who responds to me or not, because I can defend my claims and arguments.

I'm really starting to not appreciate the so-called 'objective' people interpreting things for their own purposes to present me in a false light. What I have just pointed out is common sense, and I shouldn't have even had to respond to it. People here are less interested in objective logic concerning a paradoxical subject and are simply stooping lower and lower with their retorts.

You've been interpreting the word subjective with a definition that isn't even compatible with the word for most of this discussion. You see us as getting lower with our retorts, but I see you as playing the oppression card and claiming that everyone's out to make you look bad. Neither has anything to do with our arguments, so lets focus on that shall we?

I have given you proof, you have just subjectively misjudged it.

You have not given me proof, just what you have subjectively misjudged as proof. If you think your statement has more merit in this argument than mine, you're just not understanding anything I'm saying.

And this is the paradox of God... "by faith alone." I don't pretend to be able to reform God's plan in a text-only environment on the internet. Spirituality is innately personal, and none of you will come to know God except through His own personal dealings with you. He will open the door for you, but that is not enough. Love means nothing if it is not set in contrast to evil. Doing the right thing is worthless without the option of doing the wrong thing. Robots are objective because they are programmed, but human beings are subjective, designed that way by a God who also operates subjectively. Free will gives our choices value, and coincidentally "the path is narrow".

We are just complex robots. We act according to our inputs just as they do, but we have a much more complicated method of interpreting those inputs which results both in better and worse outputs. We have feelings and emotions, all caused by wiring and chemicals in the brain. We also make miscalculations. We aren't calculators, and our brains are not programmed to calculate precise responses to simple equations. Every decision we make is based on tons and tons of data that we've acquired over our lifetimes, some of which has been altered, or partially deleted, or completely scrambled as we age.

And we are all programmed differently, which means one person's response to an experience may be completely different from another person's. We are subjective absolutely. And I'm baffled as to why you think you're one of few people who managed to use your subjective, constantly changing, partially genetically determined, chemically altered, time sensitive, incredibly delicate sponge of a brain to determine absolute, precise, perfect, objective truth from just the experiences you've had in only your short existence on Earth.

If anything is common sense, it's that this is literally unbelievable.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

^This man. He puts into words what I cannot.

And we are all programmed differently, which means one person's response to an experience may be completely different from another person's. We are subjective absolutely. And I'm baffled as to why you think you're one of few people who managed to use your subjective, constantly changing, partially genetically determined, chemically altered, time sensitive, incredibly delicate sponge of a brain to determine absolute, precise, perfect, objective truth from just the experiences you've had in only your short existence on Earth.

If anything is common sense, it's that this is literally unbelievable.

Honestly, this really does show the very apparent flaw in your argument, and though it has been said numerous times (worded differently of course), you always brush it off..

 

[Azuremen]

I'm sorry that what you experienced was not actually God, or that if it was, something may need more time, etc. I also seem to remember that you are pretty young; not that I am so old, but give it time.

How old are you, since you seem to think age has something to do with discovering God...

I really do find it astounding that you tell us how the solution to God is subjective and unique to a person, and yet tell me I didn't find God so to speak. Apparently you are able to judge my life experiences without even knowing me.

I gave "God" time. I also have experienced more than my fair share of major life events that tend to bring on finding God, including watching my mother slowly die from cancer as a child and watching my father die in front of me as an adult. The fact that you feel I need to give it some time is laughable, given you are making assumptions upon assumptions in this thread and falling back on grossly circular logic.

Claiming Biblical scholars addressed all the issues in the Bible is also absurd, or else we wouldn't have the numerous versions of it, several of which are wildly used depending on the denomination you go with.

Further, we can go on who has the proper version of the Truth - Judaism, with their pre-Christ mindset? Christians, with him being the Messiah? Or Islam, with Jesus being simply another prophet and Muhammad was the final messenger of God? Fairly certain many of followers of each would tell you, adamantly, that they have indeed experienced God. Are you going to tell me they haven't really, yet you have? And that doesn't even touch on the many, many other faiths with followers that have found serenity within those - are they also wrong?

 

[Sach]

How old are you, since you seem to think age has something to do with discovering God...

In all cases it requires an amount of time.

I really do find it astounding that you tell us how the solution to God is subjective and unique to a person, and yet tell me I didn't find God so to speak. Apparently you are able to judge my life experiences without even knowing me.

I am a music teacher. If one of my students spells a chord incorrectly, then they just did. They came to the wrong conclusion. It's not offensive for me to point this out. If you had experienced the one God of the universe, we would not be having this discussion, or, in the case that you did but are not yet ready to do what is required to be able to walk with Him, something else may still yet need to take place. This is also not offensive, it's just how it is.


And most importantly - Well first, there is no 'solution' to God. That is important to make clear.

Additionally, the only way to God, for any person that has ever existed or will exist, is by faith alone. I have never suggested anything different. This is one of the clearest tenets that He has ordained.

I gave "God" time. I also have experienced more than my fair share of major life events that tend to bring on finding God, including watching my mother slowly die from cancer as a child and watching my father die in front of me as an adult.

And my mother is the survivor of breast cancer, two strokes, and an aneurysm. I lost my aunt last year to cancer. I lost another aunt to a drunk driver, etc. The amount of time is not dependent on the number of tragic events.

The fact that you feel I need to give it some time is laughable

It's only laughable to you because you are holding God to the standard of time by which you think He should operate. You think you know better. As do the majority of people in this thread.


1 Cor 3:18 - "Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise."

Claiming Biblical scholars addressed all the issues in the Bible is also absurd, or else we wouldn't have the numerous versions of it, several of which are wildly used depending on the denomination you go with.

Numerous versions does not imply what you are suggesting.

"A leaf fell slowly from a tree to the cold morning ground".

"A leaf fell and drifted slowly from the tree in the morning, and came to rest on the ground which was cool."


That is not hypocrisy.


And the existence of denominations is condemnable. It's very clear and easy to see that they exist because man wants his own way. There is only one church of God, and it is not about denomination. It is about Christ alone.

You want circular reasoning? Look at how you use the folly of a number of churches to inform your understanding of what 'church' is, yet you haven't actually experienced the truth of the matter.


To choose a denomination is an error. It sets yourself against your fellow man, even if only subtly in some cases. People choosing to worship in a 'style' speaks to the existence of their own preferences, not about God's character. Some churches promote "Buddy Jesus", some promote "By Fear of Judgment", etc. To focus on one aspect of God's character or history within the bible, just to get people through the door, is a condemnable practice as well. The truth must be taught complete, but first the truth must be even taught at all.

Further, we can go on who has the proper version of the Truth - Judaism, with their pre-Christ mindset? Christians, with him being the Messiah? Or Islam, with Jesus being simply another prophet and Muhammad was the final messenger of God? Fairly certain many of followers of each would tell you, adamantly, that they have indeed experienced God.

The proper version of the truth has been underlined. That is not an arrogant statement. Truth is simply authoritarian. It is as if you have presented me a host of mathematical scenarios by which there is only one correct answer. Only 1+0=1 will work in this case.

Are you going to tell me they haven't really, yet you have? And that doesn't even touch on the many, many other faiths with followers that have found serenity within those - are they also wrong?

Yes, that is precisely it. But I am not the only one who has experienced the one true God. I am only one of many millions, so this is not solely about me, as you would so readily like to suggest.


Yes, the others are also wrong. Knowing God is not about serenity. A relationship with the one true God doesn't suddenly keep your family members from dying, or keep tragedies from happening. It doesn't make you happy all the time. You misunderstand what it is. It's not about 'you' in that particular sense.

 

[Exorcet]

Thanks for not including the rest of the sentence.

There was no reason to. If there is even a possibility that one might confuse an experience for God, you're admitting that you can't be sure that you know God. I don't understand how you can't see that.

The whole thing that you're pushing here is nothing new to me. I used to think the same. If the mind is imperfect, how could someone know God? God must simply make them know through his perfection! However, even if true, that doesn't prevent someone from confusing a hallucination/dream/shadow/etc with God.

Truth only works one way, which means there are literally millions of false gods out there. In fact, all you people do in this thread is stroke your own egos about how many of these Gods are false based on your reasons of objectivity, yet when I tell someone the same thing I'm suddenly a religious oppressor.

All Gods are on equal footing, at least through the "evidence" that I've seen in this thread. There is no ego stroking, there is only logic. Again, I have no reason to fear God or shun away from his purpose, if he's there. Even if his rules were completely arbitrary, it would only make sense to follow them if it steered one clear of hell. The problem is, God's own religion is full of holes, inconsistency, and a lack of logic. There is no reason to follow it. It's the same for pretty much every religion. There aren't many non Christian theists arguing though.

Your authority is misplaced.

It's on the same level as yours. You have your experience, I have mine. Neither of us knows if reality as we see it is real. We need to accept that.

You are again trying to limit God within the confines of your inadequate understanding.

Where? This isn't even about God. It's about people. People are imperfect. You even seemed to agree that people can mistake something that isn't God for God (see above), but then you go and steadfastly claim to know what you know is truth. It's a complete contradiction.

On the other hand, you just agreed that if God (absolute truth) tells me so, I will know it. We are in agreement.

No surprise there.

Not really, because God is true whether people choose to acknowledge Him or not.

That's only true if God exists. If you said that God would exist, if he did exist, whether people acknowledge him or not, you would have had something.

There are many things that I know to be true

Only in the sense that you know you experienced things that you interpreted in a specific way. You really don't know that much at all. Again, something we all have to deal with as human beings.

"Some subjective experiences can be interpreted wrongly, therefore all subjective experiences are the same and can be interpreted wrongly."

That logic is just as bad as the logic you're using. No one would take such a stance. At the very least, no one has.

I'm talking about an experience with the one true God, a transcendental experience. This is not ordinary subjectivity, so please stop trying to analyze it by that model. You again are not understanding that you cannot limit God to the human mind. The human mind is not all there is to the story.

Yes, of course there is more out there than the mind, possibly. But the mind is the only way for us to access most of reality (and I'm using most and not all to be open to the chance that God is there). The mind is also imperfect and can very easily provide false information.

Do you or do you not think that someone can have an experience that they think is God and think is perfectly and completely good, but be wrong? This is probably the most important thing to bring up. If you don't feel like answering my post in its entirety, please answer this first. The second most important question is, does God have to exist?

No, he wasn't. It might have been funny to you, but the tone of responses toward me has drastically changed

When? I don't recall this happening. I do admit that your recent arguments have left me baffled, but whether I agree with you or not does not influence my attitude towards you as a person.

people interpreting things for their own purposes

Which is? If purpose equates to killing time on a forum, debating logically to the best of one's ability, or seeking the truth, then I agree. But then I'm not really interpreting things (outside of my mind interpreting things, which is the only way I can take in reality of course).

I have given you proof, you have just subjectively misjudged it.

No you gave us what you thought was proof and we told you why it wasn't. Apparently didn't like that and then went on claiming to be right no matter what. Now of course, you could even be right, though I doubt that you would know for sure. However, you've not even began to come up with a good way of convincing anyone else that you're right except for people who already agree with you.

And this is the paradox of God... "by faith alone."

This only applies if God exists and the Bible is right. If we use some really really basic math, a 33% chance. If we use better math, I only see that number take a nose dive.

I don't pretend to be able to reform God's plan in a text-only environment on the internet. Spirituality is innately personal, and none of you will come to know God except through His own personal dealings with you. He will open the door for you, but that is not enough. Love means nothing if it is not set in contrast to evil. Doing the right thing is worthless without the option of doing the wrong thing. Robots are objective because they are programmed, but human beings are subjective, designed that way by a God who also operates subjectively. Free will gives our choices value, and coincidentally "the path is narrow".

Well, then God is terrible at his job. Love means nothing without evil? So if we were all happy in Eden (which was God original plan?) life would be meaningless and we'd all not feel the love we had for each other, or the love from God? I can very easily imagine a world with love that lacks evil and love is in no way weakened in that world.

Also if doing the right thing is worthless without the option of doing wrong, isn't God worthless? Unless he did do wrong (see the Bible), but then he's not all that good.

Also, if God's plan is for us to meet him through faith alone, he's a terrible leader/architect/whatever. People don't work on faith, because doing so is stupid. If this is God's plan he's just toying with us. Give us the ability to reason to figure out that we must live by reason, and then damn us all if use reason. It's one thing to say that there is a God, but another to say it's the Christian (or Islamic, or Jewish, or Hindu, or ancient Greek, or ...) God(s).

In all cases it requires an amount of time.

From the post above. Then what happens to all the infants who die before baptism etc? They have not had nearly as much time as everyone here, plus they still carry original sin (for no reason I might add).

 

[Sach]

Sorry I can't entertain you all day, but I must be off to actually accomplish things. This discussion will go on for hours and hours.



"By faith alone", not by this thread.



Edit: Actually, there is one part that bugged me, and in particular I don't appreciate your approach to the discussion. You present about the most inaccurate reproductions of the formerly discussed things in this thread, and it becomes tiresome correcting them.

There was no reason to [include the rest of the sentence and not present me in a false light]. If there is even a possibility that one might confuse an experience for God, you're admitting that you can't be sure that you know God. I don't understand how you can't see that.

No, what I said is that it's possible to confuse a non-God experience for an experience with God, but as evidenced here, it will not hold up. The character of God on the other hand, does not change, despite what Niky may think he has figured out. You don't know God because you haven't yet experienced Him.


And you ask me too many questions that God has answered Himself in the bible. Read it for yourself. Example: "What happens to infants who haven't had enough time?"

 

[Exorcet]

what I said is that it's possible to confuse a non-God experience for an experience with God

Which is exactly what I said. I guess I did not word it properly.

You don't know God because you haven't yet experienced Him.

Going by what you said one quote above, you don't know if you know God because the experience that you consider God could have been a non-God experience that you misinterpreted.

And you ask me too many questions that God has answered Himself in the bible. Read it for yourself. Example: "What happens to infants who haven't had enough time?"

I asked this because you're the one who brought up needing time to know God. You didn't even give a time frame. It's been a while since I read the Bible, so I don't know if such a time is specified in there, or anywhere else in Christianity though.

I'm sure that the Bible says something that is interpreted in such a way to show that young children who have died don't suffer, but then if's that's the case, why bring up time by itself? There must be more to it than time when trying to know God.

 

[Sach]

Which is exactly what I said. I guess I did not word it properly.


Going by what you said one quote above, you don't know if you know God because the experience that you consider God could have been a non-God experience that you misinterpreted.

No, because on the one hand you have a non-experience, but on the other you have a legitimate experience. They are different and will thus be interpreted differently. One is the source of all truth, after all.

I asked this because you're the one who brought up needing time to know God. You didn't even give a time frame. It's been a while since I read the Bible, so I don't know if such a time is specified in there, or anywhere else in Christianity though.

The time is relevant to the person, and the time is "in God's time", however silly you think that sounds. Ultimately, the window of time lasts for as long as you are alive.

I'm sure that the Bible says something that is interpreted in such a way to show that young children who have died don't suffer, but then if's that's the case, why bring up time by itself? There must be more to it than time when trying to know God.

Because the time in the bible, referring to sin, deals with accountability.

 

[homeforsummer]

And my mother is the survivor of breast cancer, two strokes, and an aneurysm. I lost my aunt last year to cancer. I lost another aunt to a drunk driver, etc. The amount of time is not dependent on the number of tragic events.

I think you're missing his point. The point Azuremen was making describes the sort of scenarios which often turn people to God.

Time has nothing to do with it. If neither tragedy has been enough to encourage him to find God, what exactly do you think would convince him? It certainly wouldn't be time - God's or otherwise - so why bring it up?

Or perhaps, some people just have a mechanism to allow them to get on with life without believing there has to be somewhere better afterwards, or that personal losses are simply God's will?

 

[Sach]

I think you're missing his point. The point Azuremen was making describes the sort of scenarios which often turn people to God.

Time has nothing to do with it. If neither tragedy has been enough to encourage him to find God, what exactly do you think would convince him? It certainly wouldn't be time - God's or otherwise - so why bring it up?

Because we are born as sinners, an amount of living (time) is required before we choose (or not) to return to God through confession and repentance. That is why it is relevant. And what brings him to faith is what God chooses, so I can't answer that part of the question. For some it may be a tragedy, for others something completely different. It is between themselves and God.

Or perhaps, some people just have a mechanism to allow them to get on with life without believing there has to be somewhere better afterwards, or that personal losses are simply God's will?

Some do. However, "getting on with life" is not the point of knowing God.

 

[dylansan]

No, because on the one hand you have a non-experience, but on the other you have a legitimate experience. They are different and will thus be interpreted differently. One is the source of all truth, after all.

You said it's possible for someone to have an experience that seems like absolute truth but isn't. This requires the person to interpret it the same way they would interpret the truth, or else it wouldn't be possible to confuse on for the other.

The ability to confuse is a quality of the person, not the truth itself. The only way the truth is "impossible to be confused" is if there is no other possible experience which can seem like the truth. Which you already said is not the case.

 

[homeforsummer]

Because we are born as sinners, an amount of living (time) is required before we choose (or not) to return to God through confession and repentance. That is why it is relevant. And what brings him to faith is what God chooses, so I can't answer that part of the question. For some it may be a tragedy, for others something completely different. It is between themselves and God.

Oh yeah, original sin. That thing we're all unavoidably born with (presumably, from the Christian's perspective, whichever religion we subscribe to - if at all) in an event that happened after the seven days of creation... that has no proof.

If there's one concept I believe in less than any other, it's original sin. And since I don't believe it exists, I don't have it. And since I don't have it, I've no reason to confess and repent. And no reason to turn to God to do so.

In fact, I'd go as far as saying original sin is the single most ridiculous aspect of any religion anywhere in the world.

The most innocent child, born next in a line of generations of people who've done nothing but good in this world, is still a dirty sinner in the eyes of the lord, and must confess each week to find themselves a place in heaven.

What a load of tosh.

Some do. However, "getting on with life" is not the point of knowing God.

And yet people supposedly turn to God in their darkest hour. I suspect losing both your parents is a low point in your life, yet it wasn't enough to turn Azure into a believer.

 

[DK]

The most innocent child, born next in a line of generations of people who've done nothing but good in this world, is still a dirty sinner in the eyes of the lord, and must confess each week to find themselves a place in heaven.

It's a good thing the justice system doesn't operate on the same principle.

 

[Sach]

Oh yeah, original sin. That thing we're all unavoidably born with (presumably, from the Christian's perspective, whichever religion we subscribe to - if at all) in an event that happened after the seven days of creation... that has no proof.

Once again, the 'objective' reasoner subjectively interprets one part of scripture to suit their own cynical purposes.

Psalm 90:4 - For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

The most innocent child, born next in a line of generations of people who've done nothing but good in this world, is still a dirty sinner in the eyes of the lord, and must confess each week to find themselves a place in heaven.

What a load of tosh.

Unfortunate that you have misquoted the bible. Nowhere does it suggest such a thing. A person is required to repent after they have reached accountability, as determined by God.

And yet people supposedly turn to God in their darkest hour. I suspect losing both your parents is a low point in your life, yet it wasn't enough to turn Azure into a believer.

My cousin lost her mother to a drunk driver, and her father to a heart attack in the same year, when she was 18, yet her faith grew.



You all try to write off what I'm saying as subjective 'tosh', yet you provide subjective 'toshy' examples for why you have no faith yourselves.

 

[dylansan]

Please respond to my posts Sach. You've made contradictions and I expect you to defend them.

 

[homeforsummer]

Once again, the 'objective' reasoner subjectively interprets one part of scripture to suit their own cynical purposes.

Psalm 90:4 - For a thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by, or like a watch in the night.

How convenient. That still doesn't offer any proof of Adam and Eve whatsoever. It's just a random psalm in a book with little basis in reality.

You say "objective" like it's a bad thing... rather than, y'know, the entirely subjective subject that is religion. Since as a species we have plenty of proof that the world didn't happen as it's written in the old testament, I see no reason to believe in it. I'm not "interpreting" anything.

Unfortunate that you have misquoted the bible. Nowhere does it suggest such a thing. A person is required to repent after they have reached accountability, as determined by God.

Irrelevant. You can still do no wrong but reach the "age of accountability" and immediately have to repent for all the stuff you've not done.

You all try to write off what I'm saying as subjective 'tosh', yet you provide subjective 'toshy' examples for why you have no faith yourselves.

Nowhere did I say that what you're saying is tosh. In fact, the only thing I called tosh was original sin - and I still stand by that. It's ridiculous, you've still not explained whether it applies to everyone - including those of different faiths and different creation stories - and if so, why should it apply to non-believers or those with other religions?

I have no faith because I don't need it. I enjoy my life (something TankAss apparently assumes isn't possible without a God to believe in), I'm a good person, I give to charity - I just don't see the point of believing in a fictitious being to achieve fulfillment.

 

[Sach]

Please respond to my posts Sach. You've made contradictions and I expect you to defend them.

You expect? Where has this gone now? And do you not realize that it's one against the many here? I don't have all day to spend on this stuff, especially when it's spent correcting everything you have misinterpreted about what I said.


But again, I've grown tired of the intentional disregarding of my responses in their entirety. If you think you can 'expect' anything of me, then I expect respect first.


I will not go through your entire reply, because I'm also tired of the cynical behaviour going on here. You cannot refute positions of transcendentiality with finite systems, and as such you simply resort to the gutter. Stop using a monkey wrench to try and write a symphony. I'm tired of repeating this.

"Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought."

Words are merely devices that attempt to encapsulate the essence of things that are beyond the words themselves. An experience with God is not the same as any other ordinary subjective experience. It involves something else.

I'm tired of repeating myself.


Here's another example...

Under what circumstances is a person incapable of interpreting something wrongly?

When they really experience God, the source of all absolute truth, and not something else. I have said this numerous times.

A person experiences something. They make a subjective judgement on that experience. By what method or test can that person determine whether their subjective judgement is in line with reality?

It must be weighed against the conviction of the Holy Spirit. I have said this numerous times. The Holy Spirit is an instrument required in this instance that you will not have without faith and God's presence in your life. Whether you think it sounds silly or not, it is your own folly then.

The only data that the person can use to evaluate their judgement is what they experience.

Stop trying to limit transcendental experiences.


I'm tired of repeating myself.

The human mind is not all there is to the story, but it's all any of us actually have to make decisions and judgements about the truth. You said yourself that you're not God. You do not inherently know the truth from fiction, and yet you're claiming you figured out what the truth is because a source of ultimate truth told you. Well how did you first determine that this was ultimate truth before you knew what the truth was?

Please read what I have posted in this very response. I'm tired of repeating myself.

I'm not talking about God anymore, I'm talking about your method of distinguishing truth from fiction, AKA how you personally made your decisions.

So what you are saying is that you want me to take God out of the equation and still tell you how I know about God... ok.

For the record, I called your logic bizarro. But you seem to have no problem telling us your reasoning is "common sense" as if we're all to thick to understand anything. Not to mention write off an enitre argument as rubbish without a second thought to explain why.

No, I did explain it. Please stop doing this.

Things are turning less friendly because you're making more and more radical claims. We're not being mean, we just expect you to provide more reasoning behind your arguments, rather than claims.

Cynical is a more appropriate word. God is radical, I will not apologize for this. He is above your reasoning, stop expecting Him to conform to your own limited observations and you will not find it so offensive.

It seems lately you've been responding more with "You don't understand God" than "here's a clarification of my reasoning for you."

I have clarified everything. You simply reject the answer. I do what I can, the rest is up to you.

You may think that's a satisfactory answer but it adds nothing to your argument.

Not a single one of you has provided evidence here that suggests God does not exist. The answer is "by faith alone", not "by the wrong kind of evidence presented on a racing forum."

Telling us that we have to get to know God is meaningless when the whole point of this argument is that you can't know God through subjective experiences.

You know Him through transcendental experiences. I'm tired of repeating myself. Stop accusing me of saying otherwise. "Subjective" is the word you all want to use, so I use it, but I also clarify that God is involved, which adds an anomaly to the equation.


I'm tired of repeating myself.

We respond to what you write because you make claims that require evidence. Saying you believe in God does not require evidence (though we may ask why you believe, we won't demand proof).

I have provided evidence, you have simply rejected it in error. I made this exact statement a page ago. I'm tired of repeating myself.

Saying God exists and claiming you know with absolute certainty. That is a large claim, and if you didn't want people to call you on it, you shouldn't have posted it.

I have no problem with questions, I'm just tired of answering the same ones over and over.

You're free to post what you want just like I'm free to post what I want. But I'm not complaining about who responds to me or not, because I can defend my claims and arguments.

My claims are defended.

You've been interpreting the word subjective with a definition that isn't even compatible with the word for most of this discussion.

God is involved. I'm tired of repeating myself.

You see us as getting lower with our retorts, but I see you as playing the oppression card and claiming that everyone's out to make you look bad.

A false assumption. You have done nothing to damage the credibility of my claims. If anything, I am more assured of my position now through addressing the same things, over and over.

We are just complex robots.

False, we are not objective.

If anything is common sense, it's that this is literally unbelievable.

It's common sense that something unworldly would not be popular in the world.


You call me irrational, yet I don't expect something as radical as God to fit the mold of the ordinary, as you do.

 

[Sach]

How convenient. That still doesn't offer any proof of Adam and Eve whatsoever. It's just a random psalm in a book with little basis in reality.

False. It is not random, and is based on God's presence in reality.

You say "objective" like it's a bad thing... rather than, y'know, the entirely subjective subject that is religion.

I'm totally fine with objectivity. However I am not so irrational to attempt to use it to define the transcendental, or to address a God who is non-objective Himself.

Irrelevant. You can still do no wrong but reach the "age of accountability" and immediately have to repent for all the stuff you've not done.

If you have sinned, then you have sinned. If God is to be just, then sin must be accounted for, otherwise He would cease to be just. I'm sorry that you have a problem with the scenario which you are not able to change.

Nowhere did I say that what you're saying is tosh. In fact, the only thing I called tosh was original sin - and I still stand by that. It's ridiculous, you've still not explained whether it applies to everyone -

What part of "all are born into sin" does not imply "everyone"?

and if so, why should it apply to non-believers or those with other religions?

Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

I have no faith because I don't need it. I enjoy my life

Faith is not about "enjoying your life" and is therefore not required to do so.

I'm a good person, I give to charity - I just don't see the point of believing in a fictitious being to achieve fulfillment.

Ephesians 2:8 - For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God— not by works, so that no one can boast.

 

[Liquid]

When they really experience God, the source of all absolute truth, and not something else. I have said this numerous times.

What we're getting at is how are you absolutely and unequivocally sure that what you have experienced is the absolute truth and how does that compare to those who have experienced the absolute truths of Ra, Neptune or Odin?

Cynical is a more appropriate word. God is radical, I will not apologize for this. He is above your reasoning, stop expecting Him to conform to your own limited observations and you will not find it so offensive.

Again, we're enquiring how, given that God is above all of our reasoning, you are so sure that you have understood his will or not, if humans are unable to comprehend his will?

I have provided evidence, you have simply rejected it in error. I made this exact statement a page ago. I'm tired of repeating myself.

You're fully entitled to believe what you want to believe, but what you have presented is anecdotal, apocryphal evidence that cannot be falsified, and therefore cannot be trusted. If "Well if you don't get it, you won't get it" is your counter-argument, the other people in this thread will simply continue to challenge you for lack of tangible support.

My claims are defended

As you are entitled to do so. And as we are entitled to ask about, and vice versa.

False. It is not random, and is based on God's presence in reality.

His presence is not felt if he is intangible and unreachable through conventional methods.

If you have sinned, then you have sinned. If God is to be just, then sin must be accounted for, otherwise He would cease to be just. I'm sorry that you have a problem with the scenario which you are not able to change.

It's the fact that we're born sinned by default that is quite an arrogant thing for us to understand. And didn't Jesus die for our sins already anyway?

Romans 1:20 - For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

Nice of the psalm writers to include indigeonous people of lands that weren't discovered at the time.

Faith is not about "enjoying your life" and is therefore not required to do so.

Users like TankAss seem to indicate that without faith it is not possible to enjoy one's life. We merely let people like that know that that is simply not true.

 

[Azuremen]

I am a music teacher. If one of my students spells a chord incorrectly, then they just did. They came to the wrong conclusion. It's not offensive for me to point this out. If you had experienced the one God of the universe, we would not be having this discussion, or, in the case that you did but are not yet ready to do what is required to be able to walk with Him, something else may still yet need to take place. This is also not offensive, it's just how it is.

Just so you know, a chord has an objective correct - you can mathematically describe a chord as series of functions and generate it precisely each time. It is reproducible by many if they are given proper instructions.

You yourself continually mention the subjective with God, so please argue within the rules you've created for yourself. God is not an objective truth by your own words - do not use telling someone they are false on an objective standard is the same as telling them their Faith is false.

Yes, the others are also wrong. Knowing God is not about serenity. A relationship with the one true God doesn't suddenly keep your family members from dying, or keep tragedies from happening. It doesn't make you happy all the time. You misunderstand what it is. It's not about 'you' in that particular sense.

So why are their experiences invalidated by your experiences? And I am saying your, because how do you know Jim down the street has "really" experienced the One True God? You honestly don't, because, as you've said many times in this thread, the proof of God is subjective.

You can repeatedly say it isn't arrogant statement to proclaim you've found the Truth when all these others, who would tell you they have found it, have not. It doesn't change the fact it is profoundly arrogant.

Numerous versions does not imply what you are suggesting.

I wasn't talking about hypocrisy between various versions, but internal contractions within single versions of the Bible.

Which begs to question, which version do you use?

And your thoughts on Baptism. Apparently you believe in original Sin, which is just laughable in my mind and part of why I stopped having faith.

Honestly, I'm not sure why I am trying to talk to you. I understand your argument quite clearly at this point, which is effectively - "you are all wrong because you've not experienced what I've experienced." You try to pull it away from being about you by claiming millions of others have experienced, but by your own statements, many under various denominations have also not found God, and as it is all subjective, you truly have no way to verify it.

In short "I'm right because I'm right." You're claims of evidence are subjective experiences and a book that has been rewritten many, many times by many, many people in many, many languages.

People like you are what make atheists mock theists, because you are are arrogant in your attitude of having the Truth.

And yet people supposedly turn to God in their darkest hour. I suspect losing both your parents is a low point in your life, yet it wasn't enough to turn Azure into a believer.

It actually turned me away from God. Not because I expected him to save my father or anything, but because the notion that my father, a great man, would possibly not be saved because he himself had stopped believing in Christ and all that non-sense. And quite likely he stopped believing because his parents and his wife (my mother) died in about 3 years time.

Made me realize if the Christian God exists, he is rather narcissistic himself, demanding arbitrary things in order to qualify as a "proper" person.

 

[Dapper]

The thing I find annoying about many atheist, and it seems like the ones who stand up for atheism and vehemently oppose religion are the worst offenders, is that they won't concede to the fact there are things humans do not understand, in other words, that there are things that are unexplainable.

In contrast, the thing I find annoying about religios zealots is that they won't concede to the fact that biblical scripture tries to explain things that humans have objectively explained and they hold on to the scripture that erroneously tries to explain what has been objectively explained as if it is truth.

 

[Sach]

What we're getting at is how are you absolutely and unequivocally sure that what you have experienced is the absolute truth and how does that compare to those who have experienced the absolute truths of Ra, Neptune or Odin?

Because God >>> Because Jesus >>> Because Holy Spirit

Again, we're enquiring how, given that God is above all of our reasoning, you are so sure that you have understood his will or not, if humans are unable to comprehend his will?

^^^

You're fully entitled to believe what you want to believe, but what you have presented is anecdotal, apocryphal evidence that cannot be falsified, and therefore cannot be trusted. If "Well if you don't get it, you won't get it" is your counter-argument, the other people in this thread will simply continue to challenge you for lack of tangible support.

Funny thing is, no one here has provided a shred of tangible evidence to go against God.

Again, you're trying to compose a symphony using a monkey wrench.

His presence is not felt if he is intangible and unreachable through conventional methods.

Because faith >>> Because Holy Spirit >>> Because Repentance >>> Because Jesus

It's the fact that we're born sinned by default that is quite an arrogant thing for us to understand. And didn't Jesus die for our sins already anyway?

It's not arrogant. God did not do it to us, we chose it. And Jesus's atonement has no value if it is not accepted through a life of faith.

Nice of the psalm writers to include indigeonous people of lands that weren't discovered at the time.

Ok.

Users like TankAss seem to indicate that without faith it is not possible to enjoy one's life. We merely let people like that know that that is simply not true.

You are doing more than "merely" that.

 

[Sach]

Just so you know, a chord has an objective correct - you can mathematically describe a chord as series of functions and generate it precisely each time. It is reproducible by many if they are given proper instructions.

You yourself continually mention the subjective with God, so please argue within the rules you've created for yourself. God is not an objective truth by your own words - do not use telling someone they are false on an objective standard is the same as telling them their Faith is false.

Correction: I mention the subjective + God + Holy Spririt, those are the rules. God is the source of all truth, and His will trumps anything in existence. All of existence submits to Him, including objectivity, etc.

So why are their experiences invalidated by your experiences? And I am saying your, because how do you know Jim down the street has "really" experienced the One True God? You honestly don't, because, as you've said many times in this thread, the proof of God is subjective.

Because Holy Spirit. Sounds absurd, but it just is.


1 John 4:1 - Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.


Testing involves prayer and the Holy Spirit. Confirmation is achieved through the addition of these things.

You can repeatedly say it isn't arrogant statement to proclaim you've found the Truth when all these others, who would tell you they have found it, have not. It doesn't change the fact it is profoundly arrogant.

Truth is authoritarian, which may or may not seem convenient, or non-arrogant.

I wasn't talking about hypocrisy between various versions, but internal contractions within single versions of the Bible.

Which begs to question, which version do you use?

I have read many - NIV, NLT, KJ... etc., for the purpose of comparing the translations myself.

And your thoughts on Baptism. Apparently you believe in original Sin, which is just laughable in my mind and part of why I stopped having faith.

That is not evidence of anything except your own choices.

Honestly, I'm not sure why I am trying to talk to you. I understand your argument quite clearly at this point, which is effectively - "you are all wrong because you've not experienced what I've experienced." You try to pull it away from being about you by claiming millions of others have experienced, but by your own statements, many under various denominations have also not found God, and as it is all subjective, you truly have no way to verify it.

No, if I go into a church where a pastor is boasting about himself, preaching legalism, or preaching anything outside of the teachings of Jesus, I know straight away that it is a false teaching. I have the ability to verify it according to scripture, according to the character of God, according to Jesus's teaching, and by the conviction of the Holy Spirit. You are mistaken.

In short "I'm right because I'm right." You're claims of evidence are subjective experiences and a book that has been rewritten many, many times by many, many people in many, many languages.

You are simply wrong. You are making a mere claim here yourself.

People like you are what make atheists mock theists, because you are are arrogant in your attitude of having the Truth.

The problem is that you find it arrogant for any person to have faith, one that claims to worship the One God, the One Truth, the Life, and the Way. You want me to carry my faith with doubt, otherwise I must be arrogant. Jesus did not say that other Gods are correct, He said that they are false. They are not to be considered.




You also think I am arrogant simply for looking at the idea of God from the logical perspective that science and objective reasoning are limited when addressing the issue. You all disbelieve because you hold the idea of a God to these standards, in error. You say on the one hand, "Of course science doesn't address God". Yet you turn around and present scientific reasons for why you don't believe in God.

If I am being honest, the atheist behaviour here is just as typical.

It actually turned me away from God. Not because I expected him to save my father or anything, but because the notion that my father, a great man, would possibly not be saved because he himself had stopped believing in Christ and all that non-sense. And quite likely he stopped believing because his parents and his wife (my mother) died in about 3 years time.

I am sorry to hear that, however God is God and judgment rests with Him. If your father was to be saved he could still have been saved whether anyone said differently or not. That is up to God when we die, not the interpretations of those remaining on Earth.

Made me realize if the Christian God exists, he is rather narcissistic himself, demanding arbitrary things in order to qualify as a "proper" person.

By faith alone, not by arbitrary things. And He is an authority figure which our sinful nature is hostile toward, yes.

 

[TheDrummingKING]

The problem is that you find it arrogant for any person to have faith, one that claims to worship the One God, the One Truth, the Life, and the Way. You want me to carry my faith with doubt, otherwise I must be arrogant. Jesus did not say that other Gods are correct, He said that they are false. They are not to be considered.

And if another religion says the same thing about your god, they would feel the same way. That doesn't make them correct, and it doesn't make you correct (in knowing that your god is the one true god). Like others have said, you stating that you know it is the truth "because it is" comes off as arrogance.

 

[Liquid]

Because God >>> Because Jesus >>> Because Holy Spirit

That conforms to Azuremen's 'Aliens' parody. And it doesn't address this point:

how does that [your experience(s) of God] compare to those who have experienced the absolute truths of Ra, Neptune or Odin?

Genuinely interested how theists who have seen 'absolute truth' compare those experiences with those who have experienced the 'absolute truth' of totally different Gods. Those who believed in Zeus, Saturn and Petbe were as absolutely certain and as convinced as you and everybody else.

 

[Sach]

And if another religion says the same thing about your god, they would feel the same way. That doesn't make them correct, and it doesn't make you correct (in knowing that your god is the one true god).

It makes it inconvenient that there are so many religions and that Jesus is the one true son of the living God, yes.

Those who believed in Zeus, Saturn and Petbe were as absolutely certain and as convinced as you and everybody else.

You don't know that for certain.

 

[Liquid]

You don't know that for certain.

So are you suggesting that they were doing it for the lulz or what?

 

[Azuremen]

Correction: I mention the subjective + God + Holy Spririt, those are the rules. God is the source of all truth, and His will trumps anything in existence. All of existence submits to Him, including objectivity, etc.

Why?

Because God.

Testing involves prayer and the Holy Spirit. Confirmation is achieved through the addition of these things.

I've done these very things. As I said before, I was quite convinced I had found God and Holy Spirit and all that jazz. My conviction was strong and I was adamant.

I have read many - NIV, NLT, KJ... etc., for the purpose of comparing the translations myself.

Revisions are not the same as translations, as they are all more or less derived from the same translation.

If you want to check the validity of a translation, you'd have to find different translations derived from the original work, which has been lost for some time last I checked. Assuming you can even call it an original work, being a compilation of stories.

That is not evidence of anything except your own choices.

You didn't answer the question at all.

How do you, personally, feel about baptism?

No, if I go into a church where a pastor is boasting about himself, preaching legalism, or preaching anything outside of the teachings of Jesus, I know straight away that it is a false teaching. I have the ability to verify it according to scripture, according to the character of God, according to Jesus's teaching, and by the conviction of the Holy Spirit. You are mistaken.

Verify it against scripture that was written by men in similar positions in the past.

Basically, checking the words of one man again the words of another man, and his interpretation of the Bible.

You are simply wrong. You are making a mere claim here yourself.

Please, tell me where I am wrong?

The problem is that you find it arrogant for any person to have faith, one that claims to worship the One God, the One Truth, the Life, and the Way. You want me to carry my faith with doubt, otherwise I must be arrogant. Jesus did not say that other Gods are correct, He said that they are false. They are not to be considered.

I don't find it arrogant for a person to have Faith at all. I've never said that either.

What I find arrogant is for a person to claim everyone else is just wrong, despite their emotions, feelings, and souls telling them otherwise. The arrogance comes from you thinking you have found a better answer or Truth while they are mistaken.

You have repeatedly said, in short, "everyone else is wrong besides myself and those that agree with me."

I am sorry to hear that, however God is God and judgment rests with Him. If your father was to be saved he could still have been saved whether anyone said differently or not. That is up to God when we die, not the interpretations of those remaining on Earth.

That isn't what I said, but okay. You have a profound talent for not answering questions or statements presented in the pieces you quote, or even addressing beyond the slightest.

EDIT:

You don't know that for certain.

And you do?

 

[dylansan]

You don't know that for certain.

I don't think you are as convinced as you claim you are. I think you're making all of this up.

 

[Sach]

Because God.

Agreed.

I've done these very things. As I said before, I was quite convinced I had found God and Holy Spirit and all that jazz. My conviction was strong and I was adamant.

Your life is not over, your time is not up.

You didn't answer the question at all.

How do you, personally, feel about baptism?

It is required, and ordained.

Verify it against scripture that was written by men in similar positions in the past.

"Similar positions" is rather vague. And I also said that other things were used to verify it, in addition.

What I find arrogant is for a person to claim everyone else is just wrong, despite their emotions, feelings, and souls telling them otherwise. The arrogance comes from you thinking you have found a better answer or Truth while they are mistaken.

It's not about a better answer, it's about the one that is the truth - not convenient for many.

You have repeatedly said, in short, "everyone else is wrong besides myself and those that agree with me."

If you do not acknowledge Jesus as the Son of God and that you yourself are a sinful person who requires God's intervention, then yes, you are wrong.

And you do?

I know the one and true God, which reveals some detail about what these men were following, but not all of the details.

I don't think you are as convinced as you claim you are. I think you're making all of this up.

Ok.