Why knocking is so important.

[Drich]

And who decides which is the corrupt one? You? The Pope? Putin?

that is between you and God. He sends the rain. If your belief/structure are sound, then you will grow in your faith. If not then you latest attempt will also fail.

---

youve assumed too much here. It seems you believe everyone is entitled to what they have or what they want. God gives and takes in accordance to what we are able to be responsible for.

God proves that the ability to be responsible for something in no way serves as a compulsion to actually be responsible for something. God should be maximally responsible, and yet is not responsible in the slightest. He does whatever he wants regardless of how anybody else feels about it. That's what irresponsibility is.

God has dealt with us in a way compatible with our inability to live free of sin. That's what atonement is.

Demanding atonement for an inability we can't do anything about is mere cruelty, especially when he explicitly made it so that we lacked that ability. It's like beating an infant to death because it can't climb a ladder.

And, you still haven't addressed the dilemma I remarked on earlier.

You do know the Son of God provided the required atonement don't you, and all we have to do is accept it?

If so, what are you talking about? If your on a sinking ship, and their are life rafts available, would you not get on board one? Or would you stay on the sinking ship in all your self righteousness proclaiming that a modern ship should be unsinkable? If you stay on board and elect to drown how is that the fault of the ship lines?

[KUSA]

Meaning if you believe God is supposed to be XYZ, and He is Really 123, then by showing Himself to you while you hold an XYZ system of belief supports an inaccurate version of Him that will have you support this corrupt version rather than God Himself.

If someone had a false (XYZ) view of me I would want to reveal the true (123) view of myself to them and clear the confusion up. I certainly would not avoid them hoping that one day they would have a 123 epiphany of me. That would be retarded.

There are literally billions of views of god. I would think he would want to clear the air up some but it doesn't happen. The reason it doesn't happen is because God is imaginary.

[rexbeccarox]

Drich, are you God? You sure do speak for him a lot.

[Ryantology]

The delima is irrelevant, as it does not address the aspect of the analogy I was intending to use.

I know it doesn't, because the aspect of the analogy you were attempting to use was invalid. It was the point of my response.

No matter who the queen of England is, belief in the office or the acknowledgement the power the office holds is what was being discussed. That is why I never mentioned a specific queen or president.

Dude, I get it.

It doesn't matter who the queen of England is most especially if there is no queen at all. It's an empty seat, and empty seats have no authority. The actual authority is held by goons who pretend there is a queen, claim that they communicate with her and know her will, and wield that power in her name.

Know what I'm saying, goonsberger?

You do know the Son of God provided the required atonement don't you, and all we have to do is accept it?

If so, what are you talking about? If your on a sinking ship, and their are life rafts available, would you not get on board one? Or would you stay on the sinking ship in all your self righteousness proclaiming that a modern ship should be unsinkable? If you stay on board and elect to drown how is that the fault of the ship lines?

The ship line is at fault if they intentionally sank the vessel just to blackmail me with a lifeboat.

[Anomalocaris]

What is the point of describing god by analogy when you can't demonstrate god exists, much less you have any reliable means of determining what god's attributes are?

Making a lie more vivid does not make it any more convincing.

[RobbyPants]

God is not asking you to believe out of a vacuum. As with what I told to us in my last post. Apart of the reason you met silence is because God is not in the business of supporting a corrupt view of Himself. Meaning if you believe God is supposed to be XYZ, and He is Really 123, then by showing Himself to you while you hold an XYZ system of belief supports an inaccurate version of Him that will have you support this corrupt version rather than God Himself.

Like I said the first time: endless goalpost shifting. You have no proof your god is 123 other than "cuz you say so". You're already admitted your system can't produce reliable results, and that you can't tell the difference between genuine revelation and self-delusion:

That's not to say someone steeped in self delusion could not use this method to confirm whatever he likes. But, again as I have illustrated some perfectly adjusted member of society could also use this method to find themselves a spouse.

Now, prove to me when you say God is 123 that your revelation was real and not imaginary.

[Drich]

Drich, your whole approach to this sounds circular and void.

can you support this or are is this just wishful thinking on your part?

Why do you believe in the god of the bible? (this includes believing that the bible is the 100% accurate and true word of god)

i believe in the God of the bible because because in Said bible God make promises and if you follow what He wants He delivers.
I never said the bible was not infallible. As only God is perfect, and the bible is not God, there is no reason to assume the bible is perfect. It never even claims to be.

Because ASKing brought you to that conclusion.

Ah, no. A/S/King is an objective process that has one examine and quest for the truth of God.

Why do you believe that ASKing is a reliable
way of knowledge?

Jesus was recorded in prescribing it, I followed it, and Got what was promised.

Because the Bible (Luke 11) says so.

the bible saying so only focuses the asker on testing the bible itself.

Those four lines above are not a strawman and I'm sorry if they might look like one, rather it's genuinely what I could understand from what you have been saying.

you have been corrected. If you default to any of your prior provided information, it will then become a straw man arguement.

Now, my question is, where is the hard evidence that the responses you get from ASKing are not delusional and caused by confirmation bias and circular reasoning? In other words, how is what you are saying different from the four lines I just wrote?

In my other threads. Just do a member thread search. Pm me or Start another thread if you want to discuss anything I have shared. [/quote]

---

Hey Drich... Think of how many souls aren't being won by you because you spend your time bashing your head against a wall on AF!

How about you stop casting your version of god's pearls at we swine here online? WWJD? He'd have left long ago, and advises you to do so as well.


You're wasting resources bro....

Why you say such harshness? I for one am happy Drippy is here and tries. It shows me that he's mentally well enough to reach outside of himself. I'd never ask him not to do that.

And why do Minimalist call Drippy a loser? ad, sad bunny:

It's ok, Minnie and I have lots of fun calling each other names. (Plus I only read every third post of his, so I miss out on most of his soap boxing/name calling.)

[Natachan]

No. You haven't. I read through this thread. I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt. Your reasons revolve around the bible and your interpretation of that. I will be blunt: I do not find the bible to be good evidence of anything. Based on its history of it said frogs were amphibians I would have to go and get a biology textbook, take a biology class, and dissect a frog before I believed it. So let me rephrase this in a couple ways.

I work in a research lab studying concrete. If I scan a sample and the data reads out that it contains 29% air by volume what do I do? I know I set up the machine correctly. Perhaps if I know nothing else then I accept it. But if I know that concrete with more than a 9% air content is unstable and won't set what do I conclude? Or, to be more accurate, I have an old handbook before they had accurate measurements that say paste mixes can be up to 30% air but that book had been discredited and is no longer used since it uses improper measurement methods. I have a newer book that says different, and all my other test data says a sample can have no more than 9 or 10%, and that other tests have indicated that this sample should have a content of 6%. Do I accept the single data point of 29%? Or do I toss it out and see what else could be going on?

You say your god can be tested by A/S/K method. I ask on what premise we can even begin to assume that this is a valid test. If you say scriptural then you have failed that.

[Simon Moon]

Ah, no. A/S/King is an objective process that has one examine and quest for the truth of God.

If I do not currently presuppose a god exists, how am I to 'examine and quest for the truth of God'?

How is this any different than 'faking it 'til I make it'?

The biggest problem with your A/S/K 'method' is that no matter how much we tell you that we tried, you have a built in, ready to go reason why it didn't work.

"You didn't try for long enough"
"You weren't sincere enough"
Or whatever...

Since you are so convinced, it has to be something we are doing wrong, and nothing to do with the real possibility that you are simply wrong, and that you have been convinced for bad reasons.

[StealthySkeptic]

This was posted on a different forum where someone claimed that humans need God like plants need the Sun, but I think a lot of it applies here.

*****

Basically, I hear this argument all the time, Dale. And I've kind of have gotten fed up with it a little bit. Because the idea of "plants not recognizing the sun" is comparing that rather obvious fact (that the Sun nourishes plants) to the existence of God, which is obviously NOT an obvious fact, or it would just be something that people never argue about, as no one in their right mind would dispute the existence of the Sun.

However, I was a Catholic for twenty years of my life (not by choice mind you, but through the silly forcing of a child into it by baptism), suffered through death in the family, disability, illness, depression, etc. and have not come anywhere close to the experiences that you claim. So to claim indirectly through your metaphor that you are staring an obvious fact in the face makes me go:



Well, if God is so obvious, and if it's so obvious also that only through knowing God can we live to our full potential, I'd love to see the obvious evidence for that. Oh wait...

You, of course, see what I mean.