What Would It Take?

[Shuffle]

Now THAT is scary. This is why religion is a bad force in the world. It allows people to believe something without evidence, and, even if evidence is presented against the belief, they stick to it mindlessly.

 I personally have all the evidence I need, a personal relationship with the loving God of the Bible reveals the evidence.

Ok, that is fine to say. But to say that no amount of evidence would change you mind is scary. If you presented me with even the littlest tiniest amount of evidence, I would believe in your god, but if I presented you with a mountain of evidence you would not be an atheist. To know that terrifies me about our future as a species.

[Crossless2.0]

You don't really personally know someone unless you've actually met them.

You don't say "I personally know Kim Kardashian" because you read everything written about her.

 I've personally met God on many occasions. A person can learn a great deal by reading about others, only way you'll learn about people of the past.

GC

Remarkable! Until just now, I had no idea that I've personally known Socrates, Julius Caesar, Nero, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Bonaparte, and many, many more people I've read about. Hell, I thought my knowledge about such people was at best second hand. But it's not because, thanks to you, I now understand that I personally know these people, and personal knowledge of a person cannot be merely second- or third-hand. I personally know Hitler . . . just astonishing!

But there's more! I've also "personally" known Apollo, Zeus, Medea, The Wife of Bath, Don Quixote, Hamlet, Prospero, Gulliver, Faust, David Copperfield, Sherlock Holmes, and Frodo. What's that? That's not what you meant? These are fictional characters?

Guess to which of the two groups above I would assign Yahweh? You'll object, of course, but according to your very words you've personally met God on many occasions by . . . reading about him. Sure, you believe he's real. But you've never met him in any ordinarily meaningful sense of the word, and really, really believing something doesn't make it real. He is, and always has been, the main character of your favorite book -- in many ways one of the most fantastical characters ever invented.

In any case, if one can personally know someone by merely reading about him, then why do you Christians go on and on about the need for the rest of us to have a personal relationship with Jesus? According to the low standard you've set in this thread, I already have a personal relationship with Jesus. I read about him! Oh, right . . . it doesn't count until I clap my hands and repeat the Christian equivalent of "I believe in fairies". Then I get to say I personally know Jesus, right? But this gets back to the way you guys weasel your way out of anything by butchering the language. Do we actually personally know Jesus by reading about him, as the post I quoted seems to indicate, or is a sprinkling of pixie-dust faith also necessary? If the latter, does that also apply to Hitler and Bonaparte or do you apply the standard selectively as your faith requires?

[Catholic_Lady]

Why are you guys being mean to GC? A question was asked of him, and he answered honestly.

[Crossless2.0]

Why are you guys being mean to GC? A question was asked of him, and he answered honestly.

Apparently, you and I have different standards of honesty when it comes to these things.  I know GC and I do.

[Catholic_Lady]

Why are you guys being mean to GC? A question was asked of him, and he answered honestly.

Apparently, you and I have different standards of honesty when it comes to these things.  I know GC and I do.

How do you figure he's not being honest though?

[Crossless2.0]

Apparently, you and I have different standards of honesty when it comes to these things.  I know GC and I do.

How do you figure he's not being honest though?

Is torturing one's native language to maintain a façade of personal knowledge honest, in your opinion?

[Godscreated]

 I've personally met God on many occasions. A person can learn a great deal by reading about others, only way you'll learn about people of the past.

GC

Remarkable! Until just now, I had no idea that I've personally known Socrates, Julius Caesar, Nero, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Bonaparte, and many, many more people I've read about. Hell, I thought my knowledge about such people was at best second hand. But it's not because, thanks to you, I now understand that I personally know these people, and personal knowledge of a person cannot be merely second- or third-hand. I personally know Hitler . . . just astonishing!

But there's more! I've also "personally" known Apollo, Zeus, Medea, The Wife of Bath, Don Quixote, Hamlet, Prospero, Gulliver, Faust, David Copperfield, Sherlock Holmes, and Frodo. What's that? That's not what you meant? These are fictional characters?

Guess to which of the two groups above I would assign Yahweh? You'll object, of course, but according to your very words you've personally met God on many occasions by . . . reading about him. Sure, you believe he's real. But you've never met him in any ordinarily meaningful sense of the word, and really, really believing something doesn't make it real. He is, and always has been, the main character of your favorite book -- in many ways one of the most fantastical characters ever invented.

In any case, if one can personally know someone by merely reading about him, then why do you Christians go on and on about the need for the rest of us to have a personal relationship with Jesus? According to the low standard you've set in this thread, I already have a personal relationship with Jesus. I read about him! Oh, right . . . it doesn't count until I clap my hands and repeat the Christian equivalent of "I believe in fairies". Then I get to say I personally know Jesus, right? But this gets back to the way you guys weasel your way out of anything by butchering the language. Do we actually personally know Jesus by reading about him, as the post I quoted seems to indicate, or is a sprinkling of pixie-dust faith also necessary? If the latter, does that also apply to Hitler and Bonaparte or do you apply the standard selectively as your faith requires?

 What a dimwit, I said nothing about my reading about God being the same as meeting Him on a personal level. you have tried to twist what I've said into your own delusion, have fun with that because you seem to think it entertainment.

[Crossless2.0]

Remarkable! Until just now, I had no idea that I've personally known Socrates, Julius Caesar, Nero, Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, Bonaparte, and many, many more people I've read about. Hell, I thought my knowledge about such people was at best second hand. But it's not because, thanks to you, I now understand that I personally know these people, and personal knowledge of a person cannot be merely second- or third-hand. I personally know Hitler . . . just astonishing!

But there's more! I've also "personally" known Apollo, Zeus, Medea, The Wife of Bath, Don Quixote, Hamlet, Prospero, Gulliver, Faust, David Copperfield, Sherlock Holmes, and Frodo. What's that? That's not what you meant? These are fictional characters?

Guess to which of the two groups above I would assign Yahweh? You'll object, of course, but according to your very words you've personally met God on many occasions by . . . reading about him. Sure, you believe he's real. But you've never met him in any ordinarily meaningful sense of the word, and really, really believing something doesn't make it real. He is, and always has been, the main character of your favorite book -- in many ways one of the most fantastical characters ever invented.

In any case, if one can personally know someone by merely reading about him, then why do you Christians go on and on about the need for the rest of us to have a personal relationship with Jesus? According to the low standard you've set in this thread, I already have a personal relationship with Jesus. I read about him! Oh, right . . . it doesn't count until I clap my hands and repeat the Christian equivalent of "I believe in fairies". Then I get to say I personally know Jesus, right? But this gets back to the way you guys weasel your way out of anything by butchering the language. Do we actually personally know Jesus by reading about him, as the post I quoted seems to indicate, or is a sprinkling of pixie-dust faith also necessary? If the latter, does that also apply to Hitler and Bonaparte or do you apply the standard selectively as your faith requires?

 What a dimwit, I said nothing about my reading about God being the same as meeting Him on a personal level. you have tried to twist what I've said into your own delusion, have fun with that because you seem to think it entertainment.

  I've personally met God on many occasions. A person can learn a great deal by reading about others, only way you'll learn about people of the past.

GC

Jackass, read your own words.

[Godscreated]

 I personally have all the evidence I need, a personal relationship with the loving God of the Bible reveals the evidence.

Ok, that is fine to say. But to say that no amount of evidence would change you mind is scary. If you presented me with even the littlest tiniest amount of evidence, I would believe in your god, but if I presented you with a mountain of evidence you would not be an atheist. To know that terrifies me about our future as a species.

 I have evidence God is real, undeniable evidence, thus you can produce nothing to the contrary, if you could it would have already been presented, yet not one iota of evidence has ever been given against God's existence. People have had thousands of years to find the evidence God does not exist and nothing, not one little tiny bit. I have my evidence, where's your evidence. The end is getting closer every day and soon enough Christ will come and those who have excepted Him as their savior will be perfect beings, so the future looks quite bright.

GC

[Shuffle]

Why are you guys being mean to GC? A question was asked of him, and he answered honestly.

Mean? He answered honestly, and now we are responding honestly. That is how a discussion forum works.