To explain knowledge of God

[Thumpalumpacus]

where have I stated this?

This is an assumption on your part. The only 'faith required is the same 'faith' needed to test any promise/primise.

No, it is the necessary corollary to this drivel:

Let's say you did have a humble and contrite heart when you asked God to help you find Him or when you genuinely asked for proof of Him. But let's also say you had a really messed up idea of who God is and what He wants from you.

Now if God gave you confirmation that He does indeed exist, it would cement your version of God (flaws mistakes and all) in your mind.

[...]

This is why it is so important to continue knocking. Because in your prayer you asked to see God, and rather than God allow you to continue to build a 'house' on a corrupt foundation, He will simply stop supporting your house/religious beliefs, allowing your house to collapse under its own fatal flaws.

This is where many of you are at. You sought God and rather than re enforce your ideas of what God is, He has taken those imperfect images from you, by giving you the proof you need to disqualify those pictures of Him as being 'God.'

http://atheistforums.org/thread-27948-po...#pid727300

You are clearly stating that faith in the correct god is necessary for the ASKer to get evidence of the correct god.

That is circular, and you are clearly not insightful enough to understand the implications of your own words. Why should I then take at face value your beliefs?

A/S/K is about showing up/the how and where to show up.

See above.

Maybe to you. God is very alive and active in EVERYTHING I do. I have accomplished so much with very little, and here again all I had to do is faithfully 'show up.'

Confirmation bias.

The word 'Holy' Literally means to be set apart (By or for the use of God) These men were set apart, meaning they were not common. As they were set apart from the common man. Every deity outside of Christianity ONLY Speak/interacts with 'holy' men/Set apart from the common man.

Then that renders what you said a tautology.

The purpose of Christianity/Christ dying is so that God can have a personal relationship with anyone who wants one. Again no other religion does this, as only the 'set apart' get to speak with their gods.

So what? That doesn't lend your particular mythos any veracity.

define the term and apply it as i did. just because you say it begs the question does not mean it does. To beg the question one must fit the defination. According to the defination I provided and the link that supports my defination, my statement does not beg the question as a logical fallacy. If you insist on using that term, define it and apply it other wise your objection will be dismissed/ignored.

You'll have to do your own homework here somewhere, kid. Thankfully, your education is not my obligation.

By the bible. I know the simple atheist mind want to dismiss the bible so i can not use that as a standard of determining one's holiness. But, it was not me who brought the bible into the conversation. It is you who has done so. You did this when you used the names and stories of God speaking and interacting with those on your list. If you can use the bible to compile the list then it is a valid point of refrence to establish that those who God interacted with in the OT were considered set apart or holy.

Assuming that they were holy because god spoke to them is question-begging ... especially when you can neither prove your god or his speaking, nor disprove the normalcy of the men in question. You must assume god exists in order to prove they are "prophets" and not normal men; you must assume their status as holy men in order to use their words as proof their god exists. Yet more circularity from you.

You're new to this thinking stuff, huh?

The problem with your whole approach is you do not understand the principle of who or what a prophet or emmassary is. Maybe before you respond look up that term. Then understand anyone in the OT who speaks with or does the work of God is indeed considered 'holy prophet or emmassary.

See above.

You can natter on about your version of Christianity, a version which you yourself have admitted isn't mainstream, and yet you cannot persuade anyone of anything beyond the fact that you're incoherent.

Non-answer duly noted. You believe that the biblical god is not omnimax, when even the Bible you say you study says otherwise. Read that discussion here.

Your conception of the biblical god is quite frankly nonbiblical.

Ask any jew (Those who the OT was written) if Moses was an ordinary man or a prophet of God. Ask any 'mainstream' active/devoute Catholic if Moses was or wasnt a prophet of God.

That whooshing you just heard ... it was the point.

Again prophets by nature are Holy Men Or 'Set apart' by God from the common man, for his own use or purpose. This is true across the 'religious' board. Meaning this is true in all religions except one. Biblical Christianity. Again Christ died so God could potentially interact with any or all of us.

Again, so what? That doesn't mean jackshit with a candle stuck in it as far as truth-value goes. All it means is that you have partners in psychosis, who also believe they're talking to an imaginary friend.

You don't have a leg to stand on here, and what's funny your too deeply invested to admit your wrong/you don't understand simple terms like 'holy or prophet.' Yet you insist on having this conversation. If you wish to continue to keel haul yourself over known and verifiable truths I will be happy to oblidge you.

I'm not invested in this, very much ... I forgot about this exchange for a while, until I got bored and was looking through some older pages. Obviously my argument is not with the definitions of those words, but with their circular applications here -- and just as obviously, you're too dull to discern even such a simple nuance.

If you're the best god can fetch up for a messenger, he must be scraping the bottom of the barrel. Your dullness is matched only by an unmerited egotism that is repellent.