The real religion?

[Crossless2.0]

Ok, I'm tired of this non-stop nattering about a 'personal relationship with God'. Since you have one, tell me something about this close personal friend that I can't learn about by reading the Bible.

[LadyForCamus]

Stevo wants to have his cake and eat it too, which is what it comes down to. He says we can't have physical evidence for the metaphysical. Except for the crappy testimonial "evidence" that he seems to think is both indisputable proof of his claim, yet not subject to criticism.

[Edwardo Piet]

Semantic wriggling and word games to try and define Christianity into reality. Not gonna work Stevey boy.

[GrandizerII]

Ok, I'm tired of this non-stop nattering about a 'personal relationship with God'. Since you have one, tell me something about this close personal friend that I can't learn about by reading the Bible.

I've been asking about this ever since forever. How is it that no Christian whatsoever has ever elaborated on this close personal relationship in an unambiguous and clear (unvague) manner?

[Crossless2.0]

Ok, I'm tired of this non-stop nattering about a 'personal relationship with God'. Since you have one, tell me something about this close personal friend that I can't learn about by reading the Bible.

I've been asking about this ever since forever. How is it that no Christian whatsoever has ever elaborated on this close personal relationship in an unambiguous and clear (unvague) manner?

I think we both know the answer to that.

What I find interesting is how all of this personal interaction with the divine never yields more than what they already 'knew' from their holy book. I mean, I have personal relationships with people such that I could tell you things about them (personality quirks, odd likes/dislikes, etc.) that would almost certainly never appear in biographical sketches of their lives and characters. You'd think that believers who claim to have a pipeline to God would be able to supply something unexpected and of interest. But no. There's not a shred of synthetic knowledge (if you will) to be had.

[SteveII]

SteveII

Here's the core of your belief, and the failing of your belief, with regards to empiricism.

Empirical evidence is what can be experienced-- NOT the interpretations of experience.  If we look at an apple, that is an apple for 100% of the people, whether they call it that or not.  People can do stuff to apples, and consistently observe the effects of their interactions with apples.

"Empirical evidence is what can be experienced." Why isn't someones self-described relationship with God (experience) 'empirical evidence' for a relationship with God? If a relationship with God is evidenced, doesn't it follow that God exists? 

This is not so with the "empirical" evidence for God.  What you actually experience is a sense that someone is looking over you, or a sense of peace, or whatever.  In fact, you listed many of these "empirical" feelings a few pages back, claiming that only Christianity could lead one to have some of these experiences, and implying that they are evidence for God.

Your problem is that these feelings have been variously interpreted by people.  EVERYONE agrees that an apple is an apple, because it is so by definition.  People across cultures have attributed their feelings to Krshna, to Buddha, to Allah, to Freya, to Mother Nature, to whatever.

I did not say that only Christianity leads to those feelings. I said that the relationship with God has the same (or very similar) effects on individual people and then attempted to describe those effects. I also asked what other non-religious experience consistently produces those effects. 

There is no evidence for God.  There is plenty of evidence for religious experiences and feelings.  Your failure is that you happily draw a bridge between them, when you have no sensible means of doing so.

How can you say there is no evidence for God? What is the NT? It not only provides evidence for God, it provides the framework for a relationship with God--which is further evidence that God exists. You might not find it convincing, but it certainly objectively evidence for God.

[Edwardo Piet]

How can you say there is no evidence for God? What is the NT?

That's fucking retarded.

[Jesster]

How can you say there is no evidence for God? What is the NT?

That's fucking retarded.

Agreed. It's like saying LotR is evidence for Gandalf. I'm not convinced.

[FatAndFaithless]

The stumbling block that I can never get passed with Steve is the fact that the NT is the claim, not the evidence. It's no more evidence for Jesus/God than the Koran is for Mohammed/Allah.

[Edwardo Piet]

Circular fucking horseshit. The fact Stevey boy can talk down to us when he believes the NT is evidence. The idea that any book is evidence for the external world is ridiculous enough, but when the claims are contained within the book itself that's even more retarded.