Most personally convincing reasons you don't believe.

[vorlon13]

And the A/S/K thing only actually works for believers of The One True Faith.

Everyone else that thinks it is working is actually being deceived by Satan.

Really. That's how we know even fervent Hindus and Sunnis, for instance, are unSaved sinners.

[Angrboda]

Taken from the above linked thread, "messenger/message"

At this point we traveled less than a mile and I was absolutely dumb founded, I thought to myself this Guy must be my guardian angel. Then He stopped mid sentence looked me square in the eye and said: "something like that." Then He proceeded to tell me of my future, what God was going to do for me, what was required of me, and what was expected in return. (Don't like to go into details because many tell me I am conceded or foolish to think God will use me in these ways when I do share.)

To which i now say:

If He were not FROM GOD Then How would He then be able to tell me What God would do in my life?

You aren't that simple Drich. You're obviously dancing around the truth that you embellished your story.

Love to
Mt 25:41 41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
2thess 1:9 9 They will suffer the punishment of peternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,

That's weak sauce, Drich.  Of course hell is going to be away from God, that doesn't in any way support that the suffering consists in the privation, and not the eternal fire which is mentioned in your very quote.

Again nothing I ever said excluded pain. I describe pain beyond anything comprehensible in this life. I simple said Hell is separation From God (inferring) that separation was the cause of said pain, not physical fire.

And you still haven't backed up that the cause of the pain is separation and not physical torment. You've simply chosen to champion a modern interpretation of hell and discount a classical one. Both versions are there in the bible, so you just picked the one that fit your presupposition. That isn't 'confirmation', that's simply choosing one over the other.

Because it was the closest thing 'we' could identify with. If you go beyond a google check Hell is also described
"the pit, The Second Death, The Void, it is also described as a prison containing 'Caves of Darkness'/Where the fallen angels are kept until the final judgement. The Idea of Gehenna was a place where things/unwanted things or even bodies were burned/destroyed. This is the physical picture of the Spiritual destruction of Soul, mind and body is what the physical place was meant for us to process or understand what happened on a spiritual level.

You're reading between the lines, dearie.  Nowhere is this said in the bible.  That's your invention.

So your saying an accurate reading means the 'unforgiving' will be sent to the literal fire pits of Gehenna?

That would be wrong as another attribute of Hell is described in several placed in the book of Revelation starting at Chapter 9 It is refered to as the bottomless pit. Last time I checked there are no 'bottomless pits' possible on the planet. Therefore the physical location of the actually historical site of Gehenna is not the physical location of Hell. Therefore it would stand to reason that 'reading between the lines' is the only option left to us. Eg.. Hell is a spiritual version of the physical Gehenna. Couple that with what I experienced and I have biblical support for my 'dream/vision.'

The text is ambiguous. Dispelling that ambiguity with your own spin doesn't amount to biblical support. It amounts to you reading things into the text.

Please this is what I am looking for. What of genesis day 3 did i say that is wrong?

https://atheistforums.org/thread-41813-p...pid1221460

I don't see a problem here.
You made an arguement that supports what you believe, and I supplied BCV that shows you that your wrong. You dropped the subject. How does any of that show me I am wrong? Are you under the impression because you do not fully understand or you will not take the time to consider what I have said that somehow it makes me wrong? If so how so?

First off, you didn't quote contradicting BCV. Second, your claim that I dropped the subject is a flat out lie. Anyone can plainly see that I was the last to respond.

It's simple. In Genesis 1, the animals didn't appear until day six. You claim that Genesis 2 all occurs on the third day. Genesis 2:19 clearly states there are animals. If Genesis 1 is accurate, that can only be on the sixth day. So it's impossible that all of Genesis 2 occurred on the third day if there were animals. There were no animals until day 6. That you can't see the blatant contradiction there is ridiculous.

You want to address me topically I will go as long as your willing to respond.

Fine, then let's address your interpretation of A/S/K.  You claim that this is a guaranteed method of finding the holy spirit.  Yet when people tell you that they have indeed sought God for a long time and found nothing, you discount this as them not having had a correct, biblical vision of God.  In the first place, it says "seek and you shall find" -- no qualifications.  These people did seek and did not find.  Your rationalization as to why they didn't find is supposedly based on the parable of the wise and foolish builders, that those who have an incorrect vision of God are like the foolish builders.  Well let's look and see what the parable says.

post 373 answers this question. https://atheistforums.org/thread-42987-page-38.html

The Wise and Foolish Builders

24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. 26 But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.”

Matthew 5:24-27

It specifically states that the foolish builders are those who hear his words at the sermon on the mount and fail to put them into practice.  Nothing about a 'correct' vision of the biblical God.  And I would think that the people who were serious Christians for a long time are a better judge of their adherence to the sermon on the mount than you are.  In fact, in the sermon Jesus instructs people how to 'seek' God, in the form of the Lord's prayer.  It would be audacious of you to claim that these previously serious Christians were unacquainted with the Lord's prayer.  Regardless, the parable of the wise and foolish builder does not offer you support for claiming that God is looking for any 'correct' vision of God.  What is your scriptural basis for this claim?

Mat 7...
24 “Whoever hears these teachings of mine and obeys them is like a wise man who built his house on rock. 25 It rained hard, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house. But it did not fall because it was built on rock.

26 “Whoever hears these teachings of mine and does not obey them is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. 27 It rained hard, the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house. And it fell with a loud crash.”

28 When Jesus finished speaking, the people were amazed at his teaching. 29 He did not teach like their teachers of the law. He taught like someone who has authority.

Who is God if not the Teachings found in the bible??How can we know God if not for the teachings of Christ Himself and what has subsequently been recorded in scripture?

How then can one know God and not know what has been taught about Him?

If one knows what Jesus says in the bible, but one's 'religion' teaches something else, then is he like the wise or foolish man if he follows what the religion says over the teachings of Christ?

Like wise if one see and hears a teaching in the bible, and ignores or moves away from a religion that teaches the oppsite, Will his faith stand or fall when tested?

You're just spinning your wheels, Drich. That's your interpretation and it's not biblical. You've extended the parable of the wise and foolish builders to encompass your personal theology. First off, the parable doesn't support your interpretation as it pertains exclusively to the sermon on the mount, whereas you're trying to make it apply to the bible as a whole. Second, you're arguing a version of sola scriptura which is nowhere advocated in the bible itself. In short, you're making up a spin doctored version of the text to support your personal theology. That's not biblical. That's your own special version. There are those who believe that Christian tradition weighs as heavily on how the bible and God is to be interpreted, who are you to say they're wrong? Do you have biblical support for believing them wrong? No, you don't. You have Drichology, not any 'biblical Christianity'. If you knew anything about the interpretation of texts, you'd know that your claim to a bible based Christianity is a sales pitch, not something that can be a reality. Your 'interpretation' is as much an invention of your personal theology as any Church's is. You don't have a priviliged view of the meaning of the bible, no matter how much you claim otherwise.

[Angrboda]

And now, for another personal message from, Your Creator:

[Pat Mustard]

: In my best dirtbag evangelist voice :

So you -do- want what christians have?  Well, all you need to do is A/S/K!

Do I also get to be a condescending ass, or does that cost extra?

Only if you learn to spell arse correctly, my son.

[Drich]

What you call two dimensional was just me pre-empting what I was expecting to come next given my current paranoid state.

Your reasoning for two dimensional thinking is irrelevant. It's still two dimensional.

Ultimately you don't need a specific citation, you just need to understand how neural networks work, particularly bidirectional neural networks.

And now you've slipped into one dimensional thinking. Otherwise why trivialize my request for a citation? Why demand that I simply accept your word, your biased take/understanding of what you are convinced that "i need."

Not just how they are structured but how they work in practice and the dynamics that emerge... and that takes more than just a cursory glance at the material. That book is all about simulating biological neural networks in software which lets you see these dynamics in action and understand them at a deeper level.

What the citation demands is accountability. Currently something you are operating without. When I provide a citation (when EVER requested) I don't do so because I believe the person asking is looking for complete knowledge or even a cursory glance. They are looking to make sure my bias has not altered known or knowable facts.

That is what i am looking for from you. The fact that you either don't know why a citation is important, or the fact that you are so desperately trying to down play it, IS the Very Reason I asked for one.

So I don't know what else I can say and given that, yes I would like to drop out of the conversation or the subject, whichever you prefer.

Your peers tend to drop out of a specific conversation when they are caught with their pants down. I am not one who typically drives a point home unless you feel the need to have it driven that far. Meaning if you drop an argument so do I.

[Drich]

The things I read, and continue to read, in the bible have been the deciding factor for me. In the last few years of my delusion, I thought I could hold on to my “personal relationship with Jesus.” And just ignore the things I was reading. Nut it became clear that without the bible, I had no foundation on which to base such belief.

The Church's convoluted and disingenuous explanations for why things didn't happen in real life the way they did in the bible only served to strengthen my resolve.

examples?

[quip]

Simply put, God is not apparent.

Indeed, if such an omni-max being were to exist his existence would be efficiently apparent; the mere question of his existence would remain moot as my ontological acceptance of him would be inherently wrought, the spiritual equivalent to the physical and mental efforts required for my innate capacity to breath or empty my bowels.

As it stands...all personal knowledge of any divine beings have been clearly foisted upon me by my fellow man....suspiciously so.

...And if God were not an Omni Max being?

No where in the bible does God that term to describe Himself. He has omni attributes but not all the ones most people ascribe to Him.

Of course, it's that smorgasbord of divine attributes that defines His appeal.

[AkiraTheViking]

I have to do all the hardwork of making my life better by myself. If that's not enough evidence that there's no invisible space fairy helping me I dunno what is.

[emjay]

I have one more thing to say on the subject, Drich. My sister is a lot like you in her outlook on life, and that's something I never thought I'd hear myself say. She's not a Christian but she does have a have-faith-and-the-universe-will-provide attitude, cosmic ordering I think is what she calls it. She believes in birth charts, sees signs in everything, and puts a lot of meaning in coincidences. She's also heavily into positive thinking and the power of belief and focuses heavily on that in her work as a psychologist. Me and her couldn't be any more different in these regards. Every time she goes into one of her particularly (self-confessed) kooky modes she gets a friendly roll of the eyes from me. That's just our thing. But nonetheless, she is my rock, as a person. I am the opposite... generally depressed, lacking in confidence, and with severe self-esteem issues. My life is defined by a general feeling of hopelessness and hers is the opposite. She invited me down to live with her to help me out of my rut. She is a constant force of positive energy to counteract my negativity.

Because of her outlook and beliefs, she is remarkably resilient, bouncing back from any setbacks because she finds meaning in them. She's just had two major setbacks in her life and after a good cry she's bounced back from both of them much to the surprise of everyone around her. I don't mean this in a bad way against her because I'm genuinely happy for her that she has this effect, however it comes, and to some extent, like Rocket said, I'm envious of it, but what she's done, from my perspective, is take what's happened, find meaning/signs in it, and then shift the goalposts to the next goal. We both talk about psychology, that's our mutual passion, and in regards to my own therapy I try to meet her half way. I can get behind the positive thinking stuff because I understand the theory of it, if not the practice (unfortunately... most of the time). I can also get behind the mindfulness and meditation for similar reasons.

We discuss different therapy approaches and one we're looking at the moment, and which I'm willing to try, involves something similar to what you've said... sort of... faith without investment. The idea in this is to just sow seeds of thought as it were that will come to fruition in the long term. The difference is though, in her perspective it is the universe that will provide the answer when the time comes but in mine, that sowing of seeds just gets the subconscious cogs turning... just - to use my own vernacular - sets up a context which will influence thinking in the future. So I'm all for it if it works essentially as a long term means to implant some useful foundations subconsciously, similar to hypnotic suggestion.

But I can't get behind the cosmic ordering stuff or the birth chart stuff. She paid a lot of money to have this birth chart thing done and the thing was remarkably specific... I can fully understand why she believed in it... and for a second there I believed in it and for a second I wanted to have one done for myself just out of curiosity. But snapping out the trance, the only real curiosity I have left is how it was done. So I'd still like to have one done, but trying to figure out what the catch is, like trying to figure out how a magician performs his trick. It's mostly done by email with a half hour skype chat at the end to deliver it... so I think that's where I think the 'magic' must happen... where the astrologer or whatever they're called reads the client's reactions to what they say.

And likewise for the cosmic ordering. She was 100% convinced that a particular decision was right... it just the felt the exact right time and place for this decision. All the signs converged and some pretty freaky (even objectively) coincidences. She just felt to the core of her being that this was the right decision. And asking for my input, my internal response was the same as always, but nonetheless I suggested she should go with it... go with her gut... because I knew she wouldn't be happy if she'd done anything else. And ultimately that's what I want for my sister - for her to be happy. But anyway, right after she'd committed to this decision the situation went tits up and she was devastated. But there were no 'I told you sos' from the skeptics, me included, because we just wanted her to be happy. She bounced back anyway and found new meaning for what she'd been 100% certain about before... saying making that decision stopped her making this other even worse decision which was related to it. And so it goes... endlessly shifting the goalposts and ignoring the certainty from before from when things turned out to be wrong.

I'm happy for her that she has this effect in her life... it makes her happy, strong, incredibly driven, and purposeful... but I can't buy into it myself. I can't see anything more than the psychology that underlies it and I don't believe in any external force in the universe, be it the stars or god, conspiring as it were to provide any more meaning and purpose in our lives than what we create/perceive for ourselves through psychology.

[emjay]

Okay Drich, here's your citation, which I managed to find from an online preview of a chapter in the book, on Google books. There is not a full e-version of this book anywhere that I can find so I was lucky to find that. I'm having to type this thing out because the preview is in PDF form. The bolding and italics is theirs, but I'm adding underlining to point out what I've been talking about.

Bidirectional (a.k.a. recurrent or interactive) connectivity is predominant in the cortex, and has several important functional properties not found in simple unidirectional connectivity. We emphasise the symmetric case (i.e. where both directions have the same weight value), which is relatively simple to understand compared to the asymmetric case. First, it is capable of performing unidirectional-like transformations, but in both directions, which enables top-down processing similar to mental imagery. It can also propagate information laterally among units within a layer, which leads to pattern completion when a partial input pattern is presented to the network and the excitatory connections activate the missing pieces of the pattern. Bidirectional activation propagation typically leads to the amplification of activity patterns over time due to mutual excitation between neurons. There are several other important subtypes of amplifying effects due to to bidirectional excitatory connections, including: mutual support, top-down support or biasing, and bootstrapping. Many of these phenomena are described under the general term of attractor dynamics, because the network appears to be attracted to a particular activation state.

And this comes from "Computational Explorations in Cognitive Neuroscience: Understanding the Mind by Simulating the Brain (Bradford Books)", by Randall C. O'Reilly and Yuko Munakata, 2000, page 113.

You can read the chapter it comes from, and maybe others, same place I've quoted it from... (unless you also want to claim that this link doesn't work):
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=BLf3...&q&f=false