Desert wrote:
moda0306 wrote:
Guys I'm really raw today... anything I say should be taken with a grain of salt and some forgiveness
.
And that's different than every other day in what manner?
You really need to go do some serious study regarding the history of the Bible and the Christian religion. There is some really compelling evidence compiled, and you seem to be unaware of all of it.
Step it up, Moda. You're just believing the lowest view possible, slung from the cheap seats of the world. Next thing we know, you'll be watching the 700 club and forwarding conspiracy emails to your younger relatives while you're watching Matlock on your old tube TV. Step it up, get with the times man.
Desert (and Mountaineer),
If there is a compelling book, article, etc on the actual evidence that the divine aspects of either Christianity in general or every aspect of the Bible are true, I'd love to see it. I'd preferably like a debate, but the last one I read was not very persuasive. The articles posted here, Mountaineer, I'm sorry to say, are hardly persuasive. Those letters build arguments for positions very poorly, IMO.
Also, if there is so much evidence, why isn't that evidence used more often in debate? It seems like you want ME to go out and find the evidence that YOU should be providing as a person making an assertion that you want me to believe.
But for the most part, I don't know what you want from me...
You are just believing the lowest view possible, slung from the cheap seats of the world.
What does this even mean? I only believe things to the degree I can observe them, or that others either use a scientific process or logical process to conclude, and state those processes openly for others to review.
This is the only process we have unless we are to believe some other sort of subjective experience we are having. I am having no such experience telling me of God's existence. All I have is various other people making what appear to me to be arbitrary statements about divine reality. Some are Christians. Some are Muslims. Some are Scientologists. There are others. They aren't using logic or reason. They aren't using empirical evidence. They aren't using the scientific method. They're just telling me things.
Is that the lowest view? What cheap seats are you talking about? I really don't know what you mean. Can you give me a better view on how I should interpret reality? If I accept statements as true that haven't used an objective method of proof, aren't I opening myself up to a massive amount of arbitrary statements that I all of a sudden have to put my faith in?
I don't get what you mean with the rest. Get with the times? Conspiracy theories?
Mountaineer, you asked me about presuppositions I hold that make me certain. I'm not certain of much. My presuppositions are that logic and the scientific method should be used to discover the truth, or at least organize our thoughts on the nature of reality.
I am not certain that there is no God.
I am not certain that Jesus is not the son of God.
I'm not certain that the Bible isn't the 100% true Word of God.
I am not certain that following Christ is not the path to a heaven.
I'm not certain that there is no hell.
There are a TON of other things I'm not certain of. All I have is objective, material reality, as well as my own subjective feelings and experiences that either align or don't align with that objective reality, to determine what is real. I can't just accept every possible reality as actually being so. I need a system for deciding what is most likely real and relevant.
Perhaps all of material reality is one big myth and this all means nothing. Perhaps the Bible is true.
But I'm not arguing with God unless the Bible is the actual Word of God. So far, human beings are the only ones presenting the Bible to me as reality. God hasn't revealed his existence to me in a clear manner, much less overtly made the argument to me that the Bible is His Word.
If you think anything I'm saying is way off, please set me straight. But remember, anything you say to me will probably ring somewhat hollow unless it follows a certain logical path, offers solid empirical evidence that leads to its conclusions, or at least just explains your subjective experience as subjective. To clarify just a tad more... Simply stating unproven non-empirical religious assertions doesn't help me ascertain reality anymore than telling me that there's unicorns in another galaxy's planet frolicking around. I hope you understand why I can't just go through life believing everything that is stated to me as truth. I have to have a system of telling truth from fiction. My system is logic and the scientific method. I think it works pretty well.
Your statement just struck me as "illogical" and I was trying to understand where you were coming from. I agree, those on the fringes of the bell curve can be problematic, but they also make life interesting; and if you reduce the fringes, there will always be new fringes by definition - what to do about them? How would you view your statement about who should be let in to the US if you were here 200 years ago? If differently than you answer it now, why is that? What has changed? God is still God and always has been and always will be ... it seems to me it is He you wish to argue with, not those of us who just are telling you what He says. If you are over your rawness in a while, I would like to understand more about your view.