Most personally convincing reasons you don't believe.

[pocaracas]

Reading stuff on my phone and not replying immediately does this to me...

How would that work? I... may be interested in crazy stuff.... and never be interested by the actual real one claim...
What if I make up a few claims by myself? Should I then try to follow through? They would certainly interest me...

if you were not interested in finding out if their is a God we can stop here, as the rest would be pointless.

Maybe you missed the hypothetical detail.
You said I should look into those religious claims that interest me.
What if the ones that interest me aren't the ones that contain the god you think is real?
Would that make some god among those that is indeed real?

[robvalue]

The first very common error is assuming that one of the (current) religions must accurately describe God, if there is one. There's no reason to think that is the case. In fact, there's every reason to think it's not the case.

The truth is likely to be much more mundane.

[vorlon13]

The first very common error is assuming that one of the (current) religions must accurately describe God, if there is one. There's no reason to think that is the case. In fact, there's every reason to think it's not the case.

The truth is likely to be much more mundane.

Even if a putative actual real life universe creating god did instill divine knowledge into a given human, his/her ability to then go on to gestate The (ordained) One True Faith is zero.

Thought experiment:

let's assume this is precisely what happened to Joe Smith in 1820, 1823, 1816, 1825 or whenever (he gave differing accounts), when supposedly God and/or Jesus and/or Moroni and/or Micheal and/or Adam  and/or a host of angels (he gave different accounts) imbued upon him whatever it was that was imbued upon him (he gave differing accounts) and then he proceeded to establish the One True Church, but also immediately began changing things (current Mormon administration denies anything significant or consequential was changed) (despite copious evidence to the contrary the church itself has published in approved church sponsored publications printed on church owned printing presses which church fore knowledge and approval prior to publication) including forbidding polygamy in the Book of Mormon, secretly began practicing polygamy and lied about it, then slowly taught others about polygamy while denying it, then announced a revelation commanding polygamy but only in regards to taking native American wives in order to 'whiten' their offspring and make them less loathsome to God, but only to a select few in his church (including Brigham Young, who did try a couple of the recommended wives, found them wanting and abandoned them in Council Bluffs IA while on the way to Utah) then had the church become more open about polygamy and dropped the native American requirement and opened it to Caucasian women, even ones already married, and working out new rules that contradicted the Old Testament strictures while claiming they followed them and then altered the churches Doctrines and Covenants to indicate polygamy was now approved while denying the teachings had ever been otherwise then experienced pressure from the US government to renounce polygamy (somewhere along the way Joe died, church admin continued in Joe's furrow) so the church renounced it publicly and still practiced it secretly for 10 years more then changed to prohibit it and it was while still being described in some church publications (Book of Mormon) to be prohibited and in others to be the most exalted form of marriage possible, also, along the way, to clarify matters further, the church instituted celestial marriages where in the afterlife polygamy could be instituted by the folks left alive on earth for their revered dead and then . . . .


LOL, see what the problem is ??

God is totally fucked if He thinks humans are ever going to tow His line and do it right.


God!!  Get a clue you big dummy !!!!

[Drich]

post 377 was a joke. you 'snipped' what you did not want to address and ignored everything else infavor of one liners skirting the issues I brought up. So no, Not like post 377.

Perhaps I address subjects as seriously as I find them presented to me?  That ever occur to you?

Post 377 allows you to keep your head burried in the sand concerning critical flaws in your thinking and logic. which allows you to make the same blindly ignorant statements that you have made from the beginning. Post 377 is an homage to your unwillingness and or inability to adapt to new information that critically undermines your thought or thinking process.

So again, No not like post 377. Maybe try to speak on point and leave the one liners to someone who does not know you are trying to deflect.

People have tried your method, they spoke the magic words, they walked counterclockwise around the bonfire...the spell didn't work - they found no gods.  Others -didn't- do what you claim needs be done...and yet they did find god, just as you claim to have found god.  Obviously, something in this scenario is awry.  If you're incapable of coming down from Mount Drich and acknowledging this, fine...but that's pretty much the end of any use you may have had, isn't it?  We'll have to find someone who has more god-knowledge than you do to explain it.

I doubt that's going to be difficult.

Again, you are avoiding the points made in post 373. Did you think I didn't know what I wrote? do you think I do not understand the impact of what I had written in relation to your 'excuse/arguements?' Then why pretend repost an argument I have so soundly refuted?

Oh... Or is it you don't get it?

If that's the case I appologize let me try a different way:

There are two versions of God Everyone deals with. Your version based on your religious experiences and undisciplined thought, and the God of the bible. Now the issue you maybe having is that because you called your version "the Father, Yaweh, Jesus, The Holy Spirit or any other name in the bible you wrongly assume your verion was indeed the version the bible Describes.

The problem? your version was a false God, an idol, something created by man/you for your own consumption. IF you A/S/K The God of the bible sent the wind and the rain to test you and your version of God. You found that your god did not exist. You stopped your quest when you found what you believed about God was wrong, and because you gave your gad the same same as the God of the bible, you transferred your failure to the God described by the bible.

You Asked, and Sought after YOUR god. The God of the bible proved it was not real. Is essence your atheism was an answer to your prayer. However, You did not knock. If you had You would have rebuilt your faith on the God of the bible by receiving a measure of the Holy Spirit.

None of you has ever followed the A/S/K found in luke 11. I have said this from the beginning. You may have asked and sought to the idols you have created for yourselves, but none of you even A/S/K of the God of the bible.

Just look at how appalled you all are between my representation of the God of the bible and what yourself believe God should be. If your version of what 'should be God' has by you been proven to be silent in the time of need, and is counter the promises the bible makes (Ever so willing to send the Holy Spirit to those who will simply ask seek knock) then it should stand to reason that your god and the efforts you made before it were in absolute vain.

[Drich]

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

... you're serious?

Back in context yes.

Context meaning full filled prophesy. How else could a man list off nearly a dozen life changing future events and yet to be wrong, if he were not from God?

[The Grand Nudger]

Only two versions of god?  I think you need to read more.  

-People have tried your method, it didn't work.  People didn't try your method, and still found god.  Something is amiss.  You can either explain that or you can't...and if you can't, why waste words not explaining it?

No amount of imagining what I have or haven't done, or why.... will answer that question. Tell me that you at least understand that...because it's getting tiresome, watching you yank your business while fantasizing about me.

[Drich]

I'm sometimes jealous of people who have no idea what confirmation bias and self-fulfilling prophecies are.

And I am sometimes jealous of the selective ignorance that some people can wield with out guilt or shame concerning a topic the just jump into.

Me... Before I speak I must read back to where a given subject matter starts so I can formulate a proper response. However most don't share this burden or dedication to honesty. They can just read one or two lines and 'know' or at least pretend to know who and what they are talking about.

[The Grand Nudger]

..... : in my best dirtbag evangelist voice :

Ah, so you -do- want what atheists have?  Well, all you need to do is stop A/S/K ing.

[Drich]

[quote='Drich' pid='1277425' dateline='1463580550']
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.
[/quote]
Obvious??? You have several different examples of me telling this story, and can't cite One instance of me contradicting, nor do you have one example of me changing the core text or direction of this story. All signs or examples of embellishment. Yet you claim the so called embellishments are obvious. Obvious to whom? those who will take any road besides the one that leads to belief?

Again, what you fail to grasp, is that these things that happened to me are not the beginning nor the end of your proof your potential journey. These things were my proof mile markers in my journey. God has offered the Holy Spirit to you, which means whatever you need for you to establish and maintain your belief will be provided to your specifically.

Then some atheist douche can tell you that your making everything up when you share the amazing things God will do for you.

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.

We are not done yet:
Luke 13:
Jesus said, 24 “The door to heaven is narrow. Try hard to enter it. Many people will want to enter there, but they will not be able to go in. 25 If a man locks the door of his house, you can stand outside and knock on the door, but he won’t open it. You can say, ‘Sir, open the door for us.’ But he will answer, ‘I don’t know you. Where did you come from?’ 26 Then you will say, ‘We ate and drank with you. You taught in the streets of our town.’ 27 Then he will say to you, ‘I don’t know you. Where did you come from? Get away from me! You are all people who do wrong!’

28 “You will see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in God’s kingdom. But you will be left outside. There you will cry and grind your teeth with pain. 29 People will come from the east, west, north, and south. They will sit down at the table in God’s kingdom. 30 People who have the lowest place in life now will have the highest place in God’s kingdom. And people who have the highest place now will have the lowest place in God’s kingdom.”
In verse 28 the only thing done to the people "outside the Kingdom of Heaven" was the seperation and yet they experience tremdous pain.

That said I do not believe the 'classical view' and this one contradict one another but one gives context to the type of pain felt.

[quote='Drich' pid='1277425' dateline='1463580550']


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.

No. It's only ambiguous if you want to represent Gehenna as being the only literal Hell. The text is clear in describing hell. In those descriptions we have attributes not found in Gehenna nor anywhere else on the planet which only leaves the spiritual plain/The type of place where Heaven is also found. Is it REALLY A Leap for you to concede that Heaven and Hell were never meant to be understood as being on this planet?

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.

My mistake I didn't follow the thread for whatever reason.
And I did provide BCV that contradicted your telling.

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.

Actually it's simpler than that.
Genesis 1 to Gensis 2:4 is a 7 day creation over view of how God created and populated the planet as a whole. Genesis 2:5 forward is a garden narritive that all took place day 3 apart from the genesis 1 overview.

Or are you one of the ones so foolish to think that this 'contradiction' would have been left alone for literally thousands of years without some attention being made to it.

How can we be sure Genesis 2 is a Garden/day 3 account?
Because it spells it out in plain english:
Gen2:
4 This is the story about the creation of the sky and the earth. This is what happened when the Lord God made the earth and the sky. (This happened" Meaning the Following narritive happened on the DAY God made the Earth and sky but before
5 This was before there were plants on the earth. Nothing was growing in the fields because the Lord God had not yet made it rain on the earth, and there was no one to care for the plants.

So.. then one asks himself, What Day Did God Make the Earth and Sky? And What Day did God make the plants? God made the earth and Sky day three and plants on Day 4.

So that means the following narrative all happened on the Day God made the earth and sky, but before he made plants. Which means the Genesis 2 account is a garden creation account. Meaning that Man and animals in the garden were separate than man and animals outside of the garden.

You're just spinning your wheels, Drich.  That's your interpretation and it's not biblical.

That's B/S you people are the first to judge and condemn who God is often citing a verse about slavery or killing women and children proclaiming from your own self righteousness that you could NEVER worship a God like this!!!

Who is God outside of Law, Decrees and Biblicaly recorded behavior? We don't/can't possible know. So to build your house on anything other than what Jesus has told us about Him and God is like building on sand. That's not me sport that is all bible.

Because what you people naturally do (ascribe the negative characteristics of God from biblical accounts of slavery and prescribed death) is the Same measure from which Christ Himself uses to associate building on the sand or a rock.

 You've extended the parable of the wise and foolish builders to encompass your personal theology.

And what you are failing to do is establish that God's nature is separate from his laws and decrees. Soorry Jorge, but you are going to have to try harder than that. We have scripture that tells us we know the nature of God through the laws and commands he has given us. Rom 1 28 tells us that "true knoweledge of God is found in His laws
28 People did not think it was important to have a true knowledge of God. So God left them and allowed them to have their own worthless thinking. And so they do what they should not do.

 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.

Actually it doesn't. It says:24 “Whoever hears these teachings of mine and obeys them is like a wise man who built his house on rock.

"HIS TEACHINGS." are what are being identified in this passage not the specific sermon, nor the teaching only found in this specific sermon. How can I possibly say this? Because this teaching/parable is also found in luke 6 where no such 'sermon on the mount' was tied to his use of this parable, but they were tied to another set of instructions. Now who is reading between the lines?

Second, you're arguing a version of sola scriptura which is nowhere advocated in the bible itself.

Nuupe. I am working off of 2 tim 3:16 that all scripture is God Breathed and good for the use of teaching correcting and reproof...

It's very simple really. I want to follow and worship the God of the bible so I use the bible as my primary source for this effort. I also use my experiences and the experiences of others as long as they coincide with scriptural teaching.

The God of the BIBLE is not found in the traditions of man, but in the bible. Now I did not say God can not be access through the traditions of Man I said He is not found in them. Meaning while you can find salvation in many if not all Jesus Christ centered church, No one will argue that all Jesus Christ centered churches yield the same spiritual exposure/Fruit that the bible describes.

I am search/found the Spiritual fruit the bible promises, and it was far from the traditions of men. For those who want traditions. God has made a provision for them. For those who want Spiritual fruit God has equally provided for them.

 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?

 again jorge I haven't said anyone is wrong. I continue to teach (as I always have) so long as you worship in a Jesus Christ centered way you will find yourself on the right side of heaven. That said I also say, if your experience with God is not or has never yielded the types of experiences the bible demonstrates and even promises then you are worshiping a version of God, He will not directly support with the miricals and wonders described in scripture. While you will find salvation, not everyone is promised the same measure of spiritual gift/talents. These are based off of what you are faithful to. As per the parable of the talents.

Do you have biblical support for believing them wrong?  No, you don't.

Because I never said they were. However I do have scripture that demonstrates that those who honor what God gives them will be given an abundance, and I can show scriptural, proportional increase in spiritual gifts and experience if one invests in God properly.

 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.

Ah, no. Sorry again jorge, but you are speaking to sterotypes and have repeated failed to demonstrate that you even have a basic understanding of what it is I teach here. you have systematically failed to present evidence to support your 'embellishment' charge despite having full access to several different examples of me sharing this story. You have failed to proper give a synopsis of my teaching on Hell (seem you thought I taught Hell did not include pain) You have failed in your exegesis of the parable of the wise and foolish builders as only appling to the sermon on the mount, https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se...ersion=ERV . You have failed in your assumption that I persume I am the only 'right' person here. So it is no wonder your final synopsis based on all of these failures also amounts to a big fail when you compile everything you 'think' you know.

[Drich]

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

like crush the head of a 'great snake' under the heel of my foot?