The Power/Reality Of Demons And Supernatural Evil.

No. I'm saying that the evidence is no longer avaialable, so it does not carry the same weight for people today. All we have left is the second-hand, third-hand, etc. watering-down of the actual evidence and no, we certainly can not believe that without corroboration.

And I am saying that is ridiculously spurious reasoning.

If you felt that you had a conversion experience...despite lack of evidence apart from the fact that you were under no other undue influences...and if that inner feeling persisted for the next week...then a month...would you by challenging and doubting it be any better off? I let the feeling continue for many years...to the point that I fed it by attending church and was rewarded with confirmation bias through shared experience with others. As for me personally, I'm open-minded enough to question these things but not strong enough to simply throw them away as if God were simply a science experiment in critical thinking. You always claim that the message alone is important. Doing the message must surely make you feel better about yourself by helping others.

But you haven't pointed out anything ridiculous or spurious about it.Thomas didn't believe the disciples. He waited for the first-hand evidence that they claimed to have seen. Clearly, he thought that hearsay was less reliable than hard evidence. And Jesus didn't rebuke him for his skepticism; rather He offered the hard evidence.Why should we have lower standards than Thomas?

What would that feel like? You're always better off getting to the truth of a matter instead of clinging to a subjective impression.

You don't get it though---I was different. Not simply a bad burrito feeling in the gut. I'm talking 180 degrees different. A totally new awareness. It carried me for...well...forever if you attribute that one event to today. It's a matter of belief. Is Jesus alive in my heart and mind or is it just me and always was and will be me? You don't expect any obligation from God to leave objective evidence unless he planned on blessing everybody with the same gift. Which I don't see as the case.Scripture clearly says that few will be chosen. If He simply let all of the riff raff in the door, heaven would become a giant orgie!

I asked how you would recognize that difference. So why is that awareness not manifest in your understanding here? I keep asking, if Jesus was alive in your heart and mind - whatever that means - how would you know? How would you tell the difference between that and Loki being alive in your heart and mind? Why would the "gift" be given to certain people and not to others? Why would the gift be given mostly to people whose relatives and neighbours had been given the same gift? Why would it be a gift at all and not just standard equipment? Does it?

We know yor position regarding this.But consider: Satan was "like God" in a sense. Yet most dogma has Satan falling. A&E fell only in the sense that they learned to think for themselves before they were ready to graduate. Yes, humans have survived and "grown" for many years, but some would argue that in one important sense we lost our connection to a planned inheritance. We can argue all day whether or not growing up in the sense of growing independent is always a good thing. You really need to explain yourself here. There you go again, falling back on your chosen understanding. If there was no fall, there would be no need for a redeemer. Are you prepared to defend that premise?Anyway, what I wanted to do was once again focus on the Garden Of Eden metaphorical story and see if we can forge solid ground.What is the story meant to teach? Is it teaching limited to the audience for which it was written?If in fact, the "apologists" got it all wrong, why are they all in agreement with each other while you and a few other skeptics remain outliers?

Bringing this line of argument to a faith topic rather than a science one: Perhaps I need to be more clear. Of course, I believe in a BIG God, but also and more importantly a knowable interactive One. jar claims this as my pet fantasy, as well as the fantasy of the CCoI. My "fruit" needs no defending from me. I can toot my own horn and write my own resume all day, but I'll let others defend me. Let's start by turning that around. You claim that the job of a human is to help others. God is irrelevant to you. So how do you rate your own fruit as we start 2020?

It isn't "my position". It's what the Bible says. You're the one who thinks that Satan exists as a single entity. I have told you before that the Big Bad Wolf who dies in Little Red Riding Hood is not necessarily the same Big Bad Wolf who dies in The Three Little Pigs. If they learned to think for themselves, they were ready to graduate. So go ahead, make an argument that independence is a bad thing. I think I have. No evidence that unicorns exist is the same as no evidence that Christ existed. You're the one who needs to explain how that is not logical and rational. There's no "choice" involved. It's what the Bible says. How can becoming like God be a fall? Correct. There isn't. Yup. Been there. Done that. To begin with, the talking snake should be your first clue that it wasn't meant to be taken literally. Who is your phone bill meant for? Maybe some detective can glean some useful information from it to solve some crime. Or maybe in the future some archaeologist might gain some insights about our society from it. But isn't it fairly obvious that it's meant for the addressee? That appeal to popularity is getting tiresome. You can stop using it any time.If the apologists' arguments are so persuasive, why can't you repeat them in your own words?

Sure it does. If you're going to claim that your "experiences" with God have "transformed" you (presumably into a better human being), then there should be some external sign of that transformation. By your fruits we shall know you. Do you know who said that?We're warned to beware of false prophets so yes, you do need to show the world that you're not one of them. No, I don't claim anything. I have observed - and it's a fairly common observation - that humans are a social species that has a better chance of survival if we help each other. I have also observed that there are no signs of any spooks helping us help each other, so yes, any and all gods are functionally irrelevant.

Uh, I do not see where ringo had said that. If you are replying to a different message of his, then shouldn't you cite it so that we could all have proper context?This is the closest thing in ringo's Message 307, to which you replied, that I can find: It appears to me that you two are talking about the Fruit of the Spirit in Galatians 5. My understanding is that those qualities cannot be earned nor learned, but rather come to a Christian naturally.That is a doctrine that keeps coming up in deconversion stories by those who had been raised in the faith. Especially when they were entering religious adulthood (normally early teens which is marked by Confirmation, Bar/Bath Mitzvah, whatever the various flavors of Protestants use, etc), they begin to think seriously about their religion and also (especially among Protestants of the more extreme types) begin to worry about their own salvation status. One of the self tests they would use for being saved would be the Fruit of the Holy Spirit and they would interpret not having those automatic qualities as a sign that they are not actually saved. Of course, that would cause them great anxiety, which would be one of the factors leading them to deconversion.Now, in the sense of the Matthew 7:20 Test which I have frequently cited here to deaf ears, you would be the fruit of your religion, such that if you turn out to be wicked (as far too many "true Christians" prove to be) then that is proof that your religion is wicked and false and should be cut down and thrown into the fire. Jesus didn't leave any wiggle room in that test.But we're still lacking context for your "reply". Why would they? A recurrent theme among "true Christians" is that you are all completely on your own, that it's just between you and God and everybody else is required to butt out completely. I've had fundamentalists insist to me that that is the case. Not really, but it is to everyone's benefit. We rely on others for the survival of our family and of us, just as others rely on us. That is why we form societies, to ensure mutual survival. It can be difficult to see that in urban settings with decent climates, but in rural settings and harsher climate that mutual dependency becomes more apparent -- eg, when I was stationed in North Dakota, everybody would immediately come to the aid of a stranger in the winter, because next time that stranger could very well be themselves.Of course, we don't reason all that out all the time, but rather we respond almost instinctively like it's been bred into us. When it has been. Our ability to feel empathy for others is a trait that has been bred into us over millions of years as we were becoming a social species. Those social groups whose members lacking empathy died out, whereas those groups with empathy survived and then thrived. Helping others is a win-win-win strategy (the third win going to the society). We're all doing what we can. Having gods to judge us or no gods at all makes not difference.Edited by dwise1, : first paragraph: where, not what

Message 2429

Double PostEdited by Thugpreacha, : Double Post

Phat, what does any of the stuff you brought over here have to do with the TOPIC?