To explain knowledge of God

[professor]

Pocaracas, over the years I have heard of people state that they did not believe in Jesus or God, but they asked.
Like- God, if you are real- show me.
Who are you Lord?
These ones got their answer and they did not get sucked into false religions.

The difference is they asked first and analyzed afterward.
It becomes a series of steps, and if in the process of the steps one decides to stop, the process also stops.
This works for individuals as well as whole groups of people.

For the group, it's why there are so many different denominations amidst Christendom. (I am NOT talking about Catholicism)
The latest revelation or truth refound becomes where the flag is planted and camp is set up, and it takes another set of pioneers to go past the encampment.
So stretching far back in time, every camp thought they had the whole bag.
The truths of God are being restored in reverse order of their being lost.
Culminating in the duplication of the ministry of Jesus with full signs and wonders
(at the exact time Antichrist and his gang are here.)

[Mister Agenda]

Your speaking in a past tense, therefore you did not 'do it right.'

I have spoken to hundreds of you personally (over the years and various websites) on what you have done specifically, not one of you has A/S/K'ed as outlined in luke 11. Not once. You all believe it to be about sincerity or checking off items on a check list. Therefore your efforts always have a start point and an end. This method disqualifies you each and every time.

A method that you can't say was unsuccessful if you tried for fifty years 'because you didn't try long enough' isn't much of a method.

However, that is not my main objection to it. My main objection to it is that it probably usually works, and it will work just as well if you're trying to 'know' if Papa Legba is real as it does for Yahweh. If you try hard enough to convince yourself of something long enough, you are likely to succeed, sooner or later, if what you're trying to believe doesn't directly contradict the evidence of your senses...and I think it would work sometimes even then. It's clearly a method of self-brainwashing. And things that are really true shouldn't require you to brainwash yourself to believe them.

---

That seems fairly common for the abrahamic religions. God will reveal himself to his true followers, but Satan will seek to deceive.

And if this were true, should it be kept seceret should we not speak of it?

If this were true, you should be able to show it's true.

If one's revelation does not match what the Holy Spirit left us in the bible we know Satan is indeed misleading people.

Becaue the Bible is true because it's from the Holy Spirit, and we know the Holy Spirit is true because it's in the Bible, which we know is true because it's in the Bible, which is from the Holy Spirit....and round and round you go.

Which is very appearent when they produce other 'books' that suppliment or arguement the bible.

Like the New Testament.

A/S/K works if one follows what has been written in luke 11.
Very simple if you want the treasure you must carfully follow the map.

The 'map' works for any 'treasure' you decide you want to believe in, in advance. It works just as well for finding Krishna as it does for finding Jesus.

[pocaracas]

Pocaracas, over the years I have heard of people state that they did not believe in Jesus or God, but they asked.
Like- God, if you are real- show me.
Who are you Lord?
These ones got their answer and they did not get sucked into false religions.

Wait.... non-believers asking that of the air?
Or are you saying they were seriously assuming the existence of the god they were addressing?... and, thus, considering the possibility of existence and entering in a psychological state where they were open to any hint towards the existence of something like a god...

False religions? Let me guess, they became a part of whichever religion was most familiar to them, huh?

[Mister Agenda]

There is something that Paul said which pertains here.
He said WHEN the Jews turn to the Lord, the veil over their minds is lifted.

Drich explained the biblical sequence of seeking/finding more than once.
How is it that you guys don't see it?
The same veil found it's way here?

How do you not see that A/S/K is brainwashing yourself to believe in God, and if it were applied equally as diligently to believing in Gitche Manitou, it would work just as well?

---

Notice though, when Paul was struck, he didn't rail against the light, but asked,
Who are you Lord?
I wonder if some would not react in humility?

I suppose if God doesn't know how to manifest in a way that is awe-inspiring, that would be a good question.

---

Why would God put the veil there in the first place?

To protect you from the brilliance of His countenance.

Isn't it going a bit overboard to render himself effectively invisible? Most veils filter light without making it look like you don't have a face.

[professor]

Ya know, I can't speak for all of us, but I can speak for myself and a bunch of us.
The last thing I wanted to do was to abandon my personal sovereignty and lay it at God's feet.

Like little Junior or Junior Missy kicking and screaming to have it THEIR way
(picture the plump girl in Willy Wonka's chocolate factory)- we are very reluctant to abandon our own way.
I certainly was.
I had to decide- against my desire to run my own ship- to A/S/K.
It is just like knowing you have to do what you do not want to do, because you absolutely need to know.

[Jenny A]

What you call A.S.K. I call A.O.R.: Assert, Obfuscate and Repeat. I'll have to work on my version to make a snappier acronym.

A few possibilities:

Propose Imagine Proclaim = PIMP

Ask, Seek, Seek Endlessly Sucker = ASSES

Seek Imagine Know = SIC

[Mister Agenda]

are you a profit? Do you want to be? Die a marytar? Live and have nothing

Better than to die and be roasted eternally. If there is a God, it is welcome to make me a prophet with a lousy life if it will save me from the teeth gnashing agony.

And, if your wrong?

Think about it. If my experience with God was as empty as your own, why would I be standing with Him?

Same reason a Muslim stands with Allah.

What if.. Our/Christianity experience with God is not as empty as what you know?

What if the universe and all we know of it, including our memories, was just created in a highly advanced video game two minutes ago? You can 'what if' anything. It's not an argument, it's displaying your imagination.

---

http://www.cute-factor.com/images/smilie...053_XD.gif [/img] We start with a proper definition.

The fallacy of petitio principii, or "begging the question", is committed "when a proposition which requires proof is assumed without proof".
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begs_the_question

And citing Luke 11 (which says nothing about never giving up A/S/King, btw) from the Bible presumes the Bible is a reliable source of information. Proving the Bible is step one, but you're assuming it.

The 'proposition' is a method in which proof is obtained.
Again it is a receip. If one follows the receip then one gets what the receip provides, if one does not follow the receip then one can not expect to receive what the receip provides.

This recipe doesn't say anything about following it over and over for years until you get the answer you're seeking, or any indication that you have to A/S/K more than once or that it could be a very long time between the A/S/King and the answering. You made all that up, because it just doesn't work very well as written.

So no question begging here, just a strait forward question. Did you (yes or no) A/S/k as outlined in Luke 11?

Yes. I just didn't follow the made-up version you claim is what is really meant in Luke.

What makes you think it's about volume? In your search for a wife are you looking to marry every man woman and child on the planet? Or is there just one who meets the criteria you are looking for?

The great commission implies that God wants his salesmen to recruit as many followers as possible. You seem to be trying to follow that commission. If you or God doesn't want us on board, how about not pestering us?

Jesus uses this analogy in several places. The 'one' He is looking for is the Church.

And he definitely doesn't want many people in the Church, eh?

No other religion has their God interact with the common man. Only Prophets and emisarries have that right even in OT judisim.

Never heard of the Hindu gods who incarnate as humans to interact with regular people, huh? Because it would take an extremely rudimentary knowledge of other religions to be aware of that, and ignorance is the main arrow in your quiver. If you meet God's criteria, I can't say they're very exacting. Apparently he doesn't care in the slightest if the things you say are true or not, and neither do you.

Do you want to serve God?

If it's real and is going to torture me eternally if I don't, yes. If it's not real, it would be stupid to serve it.

If your answer is not yes then it's no..

That makes as much sense as 'if your shirt is not white, then it's black'.

For all those who answer no directly or by default, you will be happy to know God has a plan for you, so you do not have to serve Him for eternity.

Apparently, if you're correct, it involves having his followers nag people over the internet (perhaps as an illustration of what hell will be like?).

---

FAF,
We were not created as slaves, or ancient forefathers chose that when they gave Satan the dominion
which they themselves possessed.

God's intention is a family, He said in the OT that He is the husband of Israel.
In the NT, Lord Jesus is the husband of the (true) Church.
He is coming for a Bride.
NOT sexual but relational.
THAT is the destiny of those who choose Him.
To be joined to God in fullness of joy forever.

Apparently a third of the angels, beings who had direct contact with him, whom he created to serve him, couldn't stand him and rebelled. There's reason to doubt that being joined to God guarantees 'fulness of joy forever', even if you believe the Bible.

[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.

[Mister Agenda]

You guys never fail to provide me with mirth.
Learning about this Satan character comes from a myriad of sources including the Bible.
Do you know nothing about the civilizations that went before the veneration of Darwin?

Since Darwin isn't exactly venerated, that's a very vague period of time, but yes. You don't see Satan before the Bible.

I suppose the question would be how many cultures DIDN'T have evil spirits?

Lucifer seems to have been a great angel who fell, a specific being, not just any 'evil spirit'. How many cultures didn't have gods? When the Japanese talked about Amaterasu, did they really mean God, or are they both specific persons?

The naturalist, unable (unwilling?) to grasp anything he can't fit in a test tube, just rejects everything which went before his superior "Enlightenment".

Mostly just the supernatural parts, and that only requires methodological naturalism, not metaphysical naturalism.

when you see Beyonce , and a number of other celebrities making the illuminati triangle, winking at you or holding their hands in the triple 6 mode, or the devil horned hand sign (done also by many world leaders, beside entertainers)- these people are signaling their allegiance to something unseen.

Or illustrating that many humans are unconscious of how they're so wired to find patterns that it's almost impossible not to find them if you look.

Your ability to evaluate evidence is so crippled that about the only way you can be right about something is by coincidence.

[Tonus]

Ya know, I can't speak for all of us, but I can speak for myself and a bunch of us.
The last thing I wanted to do was to abandon my personal sovereignty and lay it at God's feet.

So you and that "bunch" had to overcome stubbornness and pride to find god. I overcame them to realize that he isn't there. So we're back at square one, it seems.