I was staying on topic. I didn't entirely go out of it, I was merely observing something about you, based on a reply or two I read of yours in your own thread. Off-topic would be if I suddenly started talking about the weather, but I'll let the staff waste their time with inappropriate usage of the report function.

At least you dropped the pretense, as far as I'm concerned. You can stop being a hypocrite now.

(January 3, 2016 at 12:25 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: I was staying on topic. I didn't entirely go out of it, I was merely observing something about you, based on a reply or two I read of yours in your own thread. Off-topic would be if I suddenly started talking about the weather, but I'll let the staff waste their time with inappropriate usage of the report function.

You sharing your story was staying on topic, you insulting me is not on topic. And it reveals more about you, than it does me. I have no need nor desire to insult anyone who doesn't believe as I do. It just has never been what I'm about, but to each their own. 

It's one thing to simply insult you out of the blue, and it's a whole other thing to describe what I think of you alongside giving reasons for it. But good thing I don't care much how you take it. If you don't like my posts, you can block me. Go ahead and do that and stop wasting my time.

(January 3, 2016 at 12:33 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: It's one thing to simply insult you out of the blue, and it's a whole other thing to describe what I think of you alongside giving reasons for it. But good thing I don't care much how you take it. If you don't like my posts, you can block me. Go ahead and do that and stop wasting my time.

I'll just keep reporting you. This isn't your personal playground to be rude to people.

And you can't decide what's on topic or not. I read your thread, but as we all know, we don't only reply to the OP on these forums, nor is it required of us to do so. I replied to something you wrote to give you my honest view of what's going on with you. If you don't like it, tough luck, you can change who you are. Or, you can ignore me out of fear of changing your mind, as you surely will.

(January 3, 2016 at 12:34 am)Deidre32 Wrote:

(January 3, 2016 at 12:33 am)excitedpenguin Wrote: It's one thing to simply insult you out of the blue, and it's a whole other thing to describe what I think of you alongside giving reasons for it. But good thing I don't care much how you take it. If you don't like my posts, you can block me. Go ahead and do that and stop wasting my time.

I'll just keep reporting you. This isn't your personal playground to be rude to people.

It is whatever I want it to be, as long as I adhere to the rules. I wasn't being rude anyway, you're just playing the victim card.

And I'm not derailing the thread, if that's what you're about to accuse me of. If anything, you are. I didn't talk about anything out of the purview of the topic, you did, when you tried to silence me by telling me you're reporting me to the staff.

(January 2, 2016 at 9:59 pm)MysticKnight Wrote:

(January 2, 2016 at 9:31 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote: I feel like I'd understand you better if I understood the bolded sentence.  If I understand you correctly, you may be right.  A 'proof' as you use the word may turn on the audience being in a closed system (like math and logic) of a uni-culture with a common tradition regarding the 'sacred'.  Perhaps it is because that is condition is fading away that the appeal of such attempts to persuade too is also fading.

The heart needs to be sincere to God and in search of tranquility in a path of devotion to the treasured Being.

Love of God to lovers of God helps them reach out and connect to the source, realize their connection, and increase in seeing power of her light and majesty.

Anyone who remembers God and is not in awe of by her majesty, essentially lacks faith in Her. 

All arguments for God will make use of spiritual truths, in which, it's up to the heart to perceive. 

Now you're just saying the only way to be persuaded by proofs of god is to already adore god .. which means you are already persuaded. This is hopelessly circular. Worse, who are you to say what other people's relationship to god "must" have been? I was never a toady for god and neither did I conceive of god as desiring such a stance. You are in no position to pass judgment in such broad sweeping ways.

(January 2, 2016 at 10:29 pm)Deidre32 Wrote:

(January 2, 2016 at 9:14 pm)Brakeman Wrote: If you are sure the spiritural event was solid evidence givent to you by god, but private, why wouldn't he give me, or Min, or Rob the same or similar evidence events? Why are you better than me? Why does god love you better than Rob? Do you know?

You never know, maybe God has ....but it requires you to believe that what maybe you felt/experienced, was Him.

No he hasn't. Nothing at all. I was a pastor's kid who fervently believed god was talking to me and guiding me, only I slowly discovered that I was just talking to myself and that all the "movement" and relief that I'd felt was just my emotions that I was controlling through my own wishful thinking.

Secondly the story about the contemporaries not believing jesus was supernatural is a very weak excuse.
Firstly, we have no contemporary sources at all of the opinions of the people that knew him, only the claim itself in the bible. Secondly, If I witness David Copperfield doing tricks, I might be skeptical if all I saw was a water to wine switcheroo, but Jesus' instant calming of a storm. walking on water, and ascending into heaven were beyond the possible feats of a slight of hand magician and those tricks wouldn't be commonplace in Jerusalem of that time so it does not make any sense that his believers that actually witnessed those events as described would just turn away and not believe anymore. We atheists do not really have unmeetable standards of evidence, we just expect non-silly evidence. You are a self proclaimed example. You were an atheist but something occurred that convinced you. You were not un-convincable, nor are we. You don't know what we would or would not accept in order to make the call to 

Quote:..shake the dust from their feet if those villages didn't accept the Gospel. Not to spend time struggling to get people to believe, but to plant a seed and go on

furthermore that bible line is referring to a point after the full witness not before, and you aren't to judge us.. right?

I'm assuming that you believe the incredible event you experienced was an action by god. So it seems that you would just tell us what god did only and strip any and all personal references and events out. I'm guessing something like god told me and my friend to high five and the magic fairy dust shot from our fingertips and healed an amputee. No, jk, I won't prod you, but the bible says it is the complete message of god's word and if he told you something then I think it should be the same as when god told Mary or Sarah stuff in the bible and your story should be written up and published. It would then be up to the churches whether or not to canonize it and include it into the bible. I can't see why god would perform a trick that he knew would only convince you, but no one else would be worthy of a similar event, plus he's not pushing you with his holy spirit to spread it. I would have to say that it is obvious that you haven't been swallowed by a fish or anything for not sharing it so god isn't actively trying to force you to share it. Why is he not concerned with those of us you converse with to command you to talk? Does he know that his "events" are so dubious that they wouldn't cause us modern day scientific types to bat an eye? Why would he choose such weak modern events when he spoke of moving mountains in the bible? Doesn't make any sense to me.