Christian "faith" vs. plain "faith"

[Esquilax]

In Luke 11 Christ Himself gives a set of instructions to help one obtain a measure of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God. If a portion of God comes to you, and help direct, correct andhelp you, then that interaction is proof of God.

Now if you do as Christ commands and you get nothing, then What christ said would have been proven false.

Except we've already established that if someone does that and gets nothing- as many of us here have- you don't accept that your hypothesis has been falsified, you just say "you didn't do it right," and continue to believe it anyway. We've also established that the method you're proposing requires that we just continue to do the thing until we get the result you want, as a part of the method; a test that demands that you never allow yourself to entertain that its reached the failure state can hardly be said to have a failure state at all.

It amazes me that you can be so profoundly dishonest.

[Neo-Scholastic]

In Luke 11 Christ Himself gives a set of instructions to help one obtain a measure of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is God. If a portion of God comes to you, and help direct, correct andhelp you, then that interaction is proof of God.

Now if you do as Christ commands and you get nothing, then What christ said would have been proven false.

Except we've already established that if someone does that and gets nothing- as many of us here have- you don't accept that your hypothesis has been falsified, you just say "you didn't do it right,"

You must also sincerely repent of your sins. God alone knows if you have perfect contrition.

[Esquilax]

You must also sincerely repent of your sins. God alone knows if you have perfect contrition.

So the apparent "falsifiable" test of god requires the presupposition that the specific christian god exists. That's not falsifiable, it's circular.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You must also sincerely repent of your sins. God alone knows if you have perfect contrition.

This is obviously incorrect. The supplicant as well knows if he or she is sincere.

[dyresand]

Except we've already established that if someone does that and gets nothing- as many of us here have- you don't accept that your hypothesis has been falsified, you just say "you didn't do it right,"

You must also sincerely repent of your sins. God alone knows if you have perfect contrition.

So being alive is a sin life in general is a fucking sin in the whole christian mytho's oh but wait your supposed to feel bad about yourself and fucking pray for forgiveness, ask god for forgiveness, pray, in the mean while feeling like a piece of shit even though you did nothing wrong. This is literally why Jainism is the better fucking religion and every other religion is literally better than the Abrahamic ones. - rant over

[Neo-Scholastic]

You must also sincerely repent of your sins. God alone knows if you have perfect contrition.

...but wait your supposed to feel bad about yourself and fucking pray for forgiveness, ask god for forgiveness, pray, in the mean while feeling like a piece of shit even though you did nothing wrong.

Believing that you never ever did anything wrong sorta undermines your sincerity during the ASK process now doesn't it. I know of one member (above) who said he participated in an orgy and apparent doesn't recognize that kind of activity as a sin and even justifies it. Now he seems to imply that he did try ASK to no avail. Well duh!

[Esquilax]

Believing that you never ever did anything wrong sorta undermines your sincerity during the ASK process now doesn't it. I know of one member (above) who said he participated in an orgy and apparent doesn't recognize that kind of activity as a sin and even justifies it. Now he seems to imply that he did try ASK to no avail. Well duh!

Again, you can't propose a test that requires the subject to presuppose the thing the test is attempting to prove. That's not falsifiable, it's biased and circular.

Regarding the orgy issue, my main contention there was that you were unable to provide a reason why that was wrong, other than god didn't like it; I'm not in the business of accepting arguments from authority, especially where they regard someone else's baseless opinions. I'm gonna need something more solid than "god sez!"

And I don't actually think it's possible to A/S/K the way Drich demands we do and actually have an unbiased result, because Drich's method, and yours too, apparently, requires a presupposition of the existence of the being in question, and that one just keep doing it forever, without ever engaging with the possibility that the test has failed. Drich, like yourself, has engaged in ad hoc rationalizations for the fact that the test fails for everyone that doesn't already believe what he does in every thread in which A/S/K has come up, so frankly, I didn't bother. I've got better things to do than chasing down moving goalposts, but I have plenty of evidence that nothing but agreement will be an acceptable execution of the test to him.

[Neo-Scholastic]

...Drich's method, and yours too, apparently, requires a presupposition of the existence of the being in question,...

Again, Duh! Why would God answer the call of anyone that 1) doesn't recognize His authority and 2) expects God to change His position on sodomy before accepting Grace.

Seems to me that you are making excuses for why you shouldn't have to engage in a sincere effort.

[Esquilax]

...Drich's method, and yours too, apparently, requires a presupposition of the existence of the being in question,...

Again, Duh! Why would God answer the call of anyone that 1) doesn't recognize His authority and 2) expects God to change His position on sodomy before accepting Grace.

Um, because Drich pointed to that exact test as a way to prove that god exists? Seems like you've got a problem with the way Drich is phrasing this, not my objections to it.

Seems to me that you are making excuses for why you shouldn't have to engage in a sincere effort.

Engaging in the kind of effort you want me to undermines the whole point of the exercise Drich was proposing. Do you seriously think that a test to demonstrate god's existence, that requires one to already believe god exists and buy into the entire religion, is at all a cogent proposition? That's idiotic.

But here, let me propose a test that'll prove any other religious position to you: just believe in the proposition in question, and then pray until either you get the response befitting your new beliefs, or you die! You'll be converted easily!

What's that, you don't want to start believing completely in another religion, in order to demonstrate why you should believe in that religion? You're just making excuses, sinner!

[downbeatplumb]

The thing about the Abrahamic faiths that puzzled me was how unconvincing god was supposed to be to people to which it had actually shown its power to.
I am thinking about the exodus jews.
God had just apparently just secured their freedom by a series of terrorist acts and yet as soon as his chief enforcer had some alone time they decided to worship other things. These were people who were supposed to know first hand of the power that god wielded and yet as soon as they could they ditched the dude.
It was only when Moses returned and slaughtered thousands of them that they supposedly gave in.
Makes zero sense.

Why?

What aren't you getting here?