(October 27, 2011 at 6:01 pm)Stimbo Wrote: I thought it was supposed to be 1+1+1=1; the only way you can make it work is 1+1+1=3? That's what we've been saying all along!
It can work either way. You might try addressing some of the other things I said.
(October 27, 2011 at 6:01 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Personal testimony by itself is useless. I'm sure if I bothered to try I could find "hours and hours" of testimony from people who think that faith-healing and psychic surgery is real. No, the only interesting - and revealing - part of your whole response here is your reliance on the "no true Scotsman". I'm sure you don't need me to tell you what these people who disobeyed Christ believed, or claimed to. I'm not even going to raise the spirit of Hitler here, as I don't need to. Pope Ratzinger, for instance, guilty of actively covering up child rape while still a Cardinal (indeed he was in charge of an organisation to do just that). And that's just one of his many crimes against humanity. Or then there's Mother Teresa - how would you rate her; xtian or not? Saint or sinner?
There are true scotsman. They were born in scotland and they wear kilts and play bagpipes. Just because you say you're a Christian doesn't mean you are one. Just because you claim to follow Christ doesn't mean you're going to get into Heaven:
Matthew 7:21
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
Atheists will claim that atheism had nothing to do with the brutal actions of atheist dictators, but then condemn Christianity because of the actions of Christians who weren't following Christ.
The catholic church is an apostate church which has strayed far from scripture. It is a corrupt organization and I don't support it in the least. I won't apologize for child rapist hiding catholic priests because they are sick people who I very much doubt are followers of Christ.
(October 27, 2011 at 6:01 pm)Stimbo Wrote: If you're actually being serious, then I want to thank you for making my point for me. You cannot possibly have any objective way of knowing, or even discovering, whether my testimony is reliable or not; other than my word which, since I represent a diametrically oppoing position, you have to automatically - and correctly treat as suspect. Your very words indicate that you recognise this. Sadly you then veer wildly from the point without even having to begin a fresh sentence, which must be something of a record.
To elucidate: I presented you with what I described as a genuine anecdote. I'll skip the part where the meaning of my careful choice of words flew over your head and go right to the meat. In considering my anecdote, you were left with at least five options: I had a real godly vision; I had a real Satanic vision; I was delusional/hallucinating; I was dreaming; I was lying. I even gave you a clue in my testimony. The point is you cannot know which of these options applies. There is nothing for you to test; you either have to accept it or reject it. You can't accept it because I am a godless atheist and you can't reject it if it's genuine, since it contradicts your opinion (though it would have been interesting to see your response if I'd claimed to have been converted or someting). Thus the only course of action open to you, after a healthy expression of doubt, was to poison the well.
No, I only had two options, because it can be tested. All truth is spiritually discerned. Either you were lying, or it was a Satanic vision. It wasn't from God because He doesn't lie. It wasn't a halluncination because lies about God always come directly from Satan. I was 99 percent sure you were lying, but I ventured my answer just in case. To someone with no spiritual discernment, it's all the same to you. I know because I used to view all of it the same way. It doesn't mean personal testimony is worthless, it just means you have no idea how to intepret it.
