yes, and I believe some scientific stuff I'm told here. If I didn't believe it, I would go read one of the numerous books written about it.
With God, some people believe what they are told. If they have questions they read the Bible, or one the numerous books that have been written about it.
And in some instances the private experiencers have been right even though their ideas contradicted the science of the time.Of course knowledge can be wrong.
You don't need to believe in science and the scientific method. Just drive your car, catch a plane , watch television or ,as you have been doing , use your PC and you will have proof if you ned it.
And in some instances the private experiencers have been right even though their ideas contradicted the science of the time.
I am not one of nor am I fond of in general the types of theists you are most concerned about. They used to kill people like me. And generally after torture. I see no reason to assume they won't start it up again.
I do agree in general that knowledge (that includes experience) is stronger than experience alone.
I am yet to be convinced that I can only consider knowledge that which I can prove to someone else.
I am also very glad that people before me in time, did not assume that they needed to wait for science (or consensus) to confirm everything they considered knowledge.
the fantastic claims obviously needs a scientific setting with the requisite tools in order to be validated. y'know, whips, nipple clamps, handcuffs...basement and whatnot
dear god
this wont hurt one bit
It may be a conundrum to you but it is not so to others. You are simply playing with words. Try Scrabble. To believe that Napoleon died a long time ago is to believe a historical fact. To believe that someone claiming to be Napoleon is in error is rational.
So if you want to play with words by suggesting that a belief that something isn't is different from disbelieving that that same thing is, that is your privilege , but a moment's reflection should show you that there is no conundrum.
The conundrum is the belief requirement indicative to either side. Napolean's demise is a forgone conclusion if he actually existed. We believe he existed due to existential information we sometimes take for granted. I only point out that true confirmation of Napoleans existence is marked by history in the form God's existance is marked in history. Napolean had a certain impact on the world as well as God. Both of their contributions to history are not unmitagated by any facts and secured by written history. It seems your illistration was better than even you knew.
Which god are you talking about and as for his influence, just look at the state of the world. And please don't tell me we are all sinners or that god gave us free will. I have yet to meet a human who was responsible for a flood which caused devastation and loss of life, for example. But those who believe in a Christian god seem to believe that god did such a thing. I seem to remember that he was having a second go, as things had not gone as planned the first time round. So much for omniscience. The deluge he created was a case of " back to the drawing board "
If you believe in some other god , that's fine. But as I say to the people who come to my door selling Jesus, double glazing , etc., I'm not interested.
Please do not expect a response to any further correspondence.
As always, I remain open to meaningful communication.
Your post seems to take the perspective against defending the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures from not being malicious and tyranical. You've stated these accusations premptively to curtail widening your own understanding. Or perhaps from listening to any other contrary perspectives, leaning upon your own understanding. That is exmplified in your most immediate response posing a question as a statement then routing the need for rejoinder. This must be a direct contradiction to opening such a topic to discussion.
Aside from this diversion, it is established through the apparent lack of disagreement on your part that there is a tangable truth to perception that limits us to a realm of shared experiences to draw from. Exceeding this coporeal line of reasoning draws upon belief more often than it draws upon facts. Relegating belief as a measure of reality is a communal attachement we all share but is currently exhibited more strongly on this forum supposedly dedicated on the ridge defining of the world rather than a societal perception of it. The relative association of science and perception create a percieved state of communal superiority where strength in the numerical is percieved through the vagaries of perception elevate belief to an equal plane with that of facts and logic. While it is true that Facts and Logic require an association with societal context they remain mostly unshakable in acceptance. Societal perceptions become agrivated when questioned and become taboos and superstitions. Taboos are societal defined fears. Fear leads to avoidance, avoidence to intolerance, intolerance leads directly to an unquestioned teaching of the original perception subsequently straying far from science.
As always, I remain open to meaningful communication.[/QUOTE
Be patient. God will communicate with you as you have the obvious ability to talk in tongues.
I have just read one of your posts elsewhere, in which you say the world is in the grip of Satan. As we say on this side of the pond. you are stark, raving bonkers and not open to any discussion that does not fit in with your view of the world.
You express yourself in such a stilted fashion that it is reasonable accuse you of blustering. I have seldom come across such verbosity. Are you hoping that your obscurantism and verbosity will persuade us that you are saying something worth listening to?
You have been trained in the same way as salesmen are trained. i.e., never mention price until the last possible moment by which time you will have "sold" them. For price read beliefs.
Can you avoid prolixity and give a straight answer to my question: Do you believe the bible to be the revealed word of god and that everything it contains is literally true ? Which version do you use ?
My purpose is to maintain an "exact" perception, (if those two words share any relation at all) of yours and any other post I deam necessary to make response. At the very least I attribute to words their meaning and to statements only their immediate context. Thus I honestly did not take offense of a comment which was inherently true.
I have just read one of your posts elsewhere, in which you say the world is in the grip of Satan.
you gotta love it, man
those were the days
citation please. an exact link
you gotta love it, man
those were the days
This should bring a smile to your face. I have just come another of this man's posts in which he says that the ability to see god is beyond us. That is the gist of what he said. I couldn't be bothered to copy it outexactly or yo quote chapter and verse.
So you may join me in thinking that it's very convenient for the door-knocking god-botherers that we cannot see the god they talk about with such confidence.
If they are right. I wonder what god has to hide I can't wait for judgement day when I may get to see him. You must visit my home country, Ireland, one day. the place is crawling with fairies and leprechauns. You won't be able to see them but the natives will tell you all you want to know, as long as you keep buying pints of Guinness for them. I now live in England because the littlr people never gave me a minutes peace at home