what being apart from the law means.

[FallentoReason]

A/S/K as Luke 11 demonstrates is not about seeking the experiences of Others. At the End of that Passage Christ promises to deliver a Measure of the Holy Spirit to the person who A/S/K for themselves. To A/S/K is to meet God for yourself. Not to listen to how someone else met God.

Been there, done that. Nothing.

It's hard to accept any substitutions when you've been to the mountain yourself and seen the promise land with your own eyes. The Reason nothing can convince me other wise is because i experienced God for myself.

We are masters at exaggeration. Your story of having visited hell in your dreams happened ~20 years ago. That's twenty whole years of retelling the story, where with each retelling it gets that much more fantastic.

I went to a university camp before the start of my first year. Long story short, a mate and I were going to the dorm of someone we met the night before and as we walked into his room in the morning, we saw him wet his bunk bed. He had so much urine to release that it seeped through the top bunk mattress and formed a stream of water on the other side and it wet the empty bunk bed beneath. During the start of our second year, I was walking around campus with someone and I bumped into him. The first story he told my friend was of him wetting the bed... and how he wet the person below and they woke up and said "huh, what the f*%&?!".

Stories get modified Drich, whether you like it or not. Good for you that you feel warm and think you have some connection to a bipolar character in a narrative, but you'll need more than a trivial dream which happened twenty years ago to prove your beliefs.

Put your personal beliefs aside for one second and ask yourself if you experienced God on His terms, and He Himself gave you a confirmation/proof daily. Ask yourself what 'philosphy' could anyone offer you that would replace your relationship? what religion could shake your beliefs?

I experienced god just as much as the Muslim experiences theirs. That's the whole point... the believer isn't a trustworthy source of confirmation of a belief.

It's real simple. If you wish to seek and worship the God of the Bible, then it is by the bible that you will find Him.

Agreed. Prove that he exists, otherwise we're wasting our time following a particular Holy book that the Western world just so happens to be brought up with.

I can give an example of a relationship with 100% faithfulness that doesn't work: your wife comes home at very irregular hours of the night. Because you're so faithful, you don't for one second ask yourself that she's sleeping with other men.

This is not what i asked. I asked for you to provide an example of a healthy relationship where one or both of the two people being in a relationship where being unfaithful.

Clearly you missed the point I was trying to make. A level of scepticism is always good.

The Point being if 'we' do not value/honor relationships where one is unfaithful to the other, then why should God? More over if you are not faithful to what God has given you in the way of a relationship, then why should He stay and enable you to be a wicked person?

This is all trivial and applicable to any of the 3 000+ gods humanity has invented until you can start proving your assumptions about Bible God.

The fallacy has to do with excluding someone from a particular group as having never been a "true" member of that group. You do the exact same thing, but with theological methods such as A/S/K. People continually keep telling you they have tried when they were a Christian, but you keep telling them they were doing it all wrong i.e. they never tried out the method properly. Not only are you being fallacious, but you're being arrogant by claiming that YOU know the way and we don't. You are literally stripping the former believer of everything they used to stand for and discrediting the sincere faith they used to have. That's low.

Do i need to beat you with the no true scotsman fallacy before you let this one go?

The No True Scotsmam fallacy Centers around the Idea that their aren't any prerequsites to be a 'true scotsman' and someone just randomly makes up rules to being a 'true scots man.'

How does that differ from Christianity? There are a written set of prerequsites of being a Christian. Meaning one can legitmatly discern a Christian from someone claiming to be one.

All anyone has to do is open the bible and compare what is written to what the person has done. If that person has not followed what is written, then it is pretty easy to discern whether or not that person fit the biblical defination of a Christian.

...

You've adapted the fallacy in such a way that it deals with methods of doing things and not membership of a group, which is what the original fallacy has to do with.

People here are telling you they have tried and tried to communicate with your god but failed. Your response is that they weren't ever doing it right. You're effectively achieving the same sort of comfort as the original fallacy: that you know you have it right and that they don't fit in with your category of "I am a believer and I have A/S/Ked" because they never A/S/Ked properly. Fallacious my friend.

A non thirsty person would not argue as to how to operate the fountain. They would simply ignore the instruction and move on. No one would spend hours debating the operation of the fountain if he were not a little parched.

Cool.

I can tell you right now the only one thirsty is yourself. I don't know your past, but I do know of more people than I can count who are Christian because they have had a traumatic experience/mental issues/lost a loved one... basically it's a crutch they need and they thirst for a resolution -- an answer to their suffering. I personally thirst for truth, but what you offer is too vague, too mysterious, too ambiguous for it to be called a self-evident truth.

Has the whole universe always revolved around how your understanding of it? I mean wow.. What I offer is a starting line and a direction. i wish I could give you more, but this is all God offers any of us to begin with. either you will take him up on what He has offered or you will not.

The universe revolves around truths, of which are embedded within it for all to see. The whole religious pursuit of truth is so contradictory, so hypocritical, so obscure and tedious, so against reason and logic.

Seriously, this whole A/S/K thing is directly comparable to 1984. As you say, you offer me this starting point, this "initiation ritual" whereby I need to achieve a level of "enlightenment" that you claim you have; "I have A/S/Ked God and I have been met with a response". Now you say it's my turn. I have told you it has never worked, but you won't accept that as an answer and instead tell me I've got it wrong and that I need to try harder/more sincerely/more faithfully etc... whatever the snakeoil salesman pitch might be here. So in essence, I am the victim and you are the torturer telling me that I'm in actuality being irrational because A/S/K does work, and so begins the torture within me between the rational mind and the part of me that says "let go of reason, just believe". Well, guess what Drich, 2 + 2 will always equal 4 and A/S/K will continually fail because I won't let you override my rational thinking processes in order to make me fool myself that I can feel/hear/see something.

Do you see how obscure and mysterious this all is? The truth is always much simpler and self-evident, unlike conspiracy theories and cons.