Marsh said:

---

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Andrew Dufresne said:

---

schmendeler said:

---

I don't know. But it seems like you may already have some opinions formed yourself.

---

I just don't understand Atheists. You think the idea of a creator is outlandish. You think everything just randomly happened out of nowhere, which I think is outlandish.

I don't necessarily believe in a Christian God btw. I just believe in a creator of some sort. It blows my mind to try and imagine this creator beginning.

---

I think most Atheists would say about the question of existence that they do not know. Personally, I certainly would not assert that everything just 'happened from nowhere' or even that existence has purely material explanations.

---

I'm not necessarily trying to quote you but I did want to clarify a piece of this; atheists may not know the answer to how or why we exist but, by definition, they believe it CANNOT be a deity. That is the literal definition of atheism, no? "I think most Atheists would say about the question of existence that they do not know... Except that they know it can't be a deity"

I'd put your quote more as an agnostic belief. Simply put, there is no way to know.

Someone feel free to correct me.

---

No, that is not the literal definition of atheism. Atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. You also make the strange claim they (atheists) "know it can't be a deity". Very few atheists would claim such knowledge. Most Atheists are agnostic

I mean, on some level, seeing or experiencing things outside known physical limitations of this world is miraculous. I think that is a simple enough definition of a miracle, right? Its supernatural by definition, so if you're demanding that miracles be natural, testable, and repeatable, your asking something it by definition can't be.

Again, I would just start looking at the description of miracles over the ages, both modern and ancient. Miracles point to a higher power.

Its a very modern worldview to look at a miracle and go, 'they're all just lying'. The ancient Hebrews didn't doubt that Pharaoh's magi could perform supernatural feats, its just that Moses's was greater (on purpose). And the answer for why the magi could in the first place is that they were in communion with demons and demons were performing them.

If you've got some other sources of miracles, start examining their claims. Who they claim to be, who they claim to get that power from, and how they used that power. From my more limited examinations into other religions miraculous claims they seem to be. Your biggest 'competitors' for miracles and claims of authority are Mohammed and Buddha. And Mohammed called himself a plain warner. Buddha's more miraculous claims come about in the later writings of buddha

Whose healing the sick and raising the dead?

I don't think they are necessarily liars. I think some people are eager to call coincidences miracles.

Again, just reading the lives of the saints throughout history would show that these aren't coincidences. That single example within the video I shared is of a saint who was dead for 11 months when that photo was taken that he showed up in. Again, either everyone involved is either a liar or its a miracle.

Win at Life and I have talked about it a little bit on these forums, but seeing a miracle is jarring. You'll do everything in your power to explain it away, and for a while, you really won't know what to do with yourself.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

Come join. Can you PM me? Send me a burner email and I'll email you to get your contact info.

---

Appreciate that but I'm up in Tulsa these days. I may check out one of them here.

The curious thing about miracles is how they suddenly disappear in a world where everyone has a great video camera in their pocket

The example video I've linked is literally a miracle on a camera roll. The whole miracle is that St Lakavos was dead for 11 months, a christian wanted to visit him, the other monks at his monastery said he's been dead for almost a year, the christian asks to take a picture of the saints dorm anyway, they said sure, and when the film is developed the saint is standing in the picture. Its not a miracle of healing, but its still a miracle.

If you're interested in healing miracles, Here's a great interview of a priest who oversees a shrine church for St. Paraskevi, the saint of healing vision. He's got over 100 letters from people who have made pilgrammages and wrote back that they have been healed. Most of the interview is about a blind man whose vision is restored over the following days and started seeing right as the priests meets and blesses him.

https://www.ancientfaith.com/specials/ocampr_2014_the_mind_body_and_soul_connection/once_i_was_blind

St. Antony is an Orthodox Church up in Tulsa that rolls up under the same archdiocese I do. I can ask my priest to ask their priest for someone to reach out to you and host you one sunday. I'm sure people would be happy to do it.

I'd be happy to give you the gentle nudge to get the ball rolling. Whats the number one rule of interacting with sales people? Never tell a salesman exactly what is stopping you from buying, because they'll make it their mission to remove that hurdle.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

I mean, on some level, seeing or experiencing things outside known physical limitations of this world is miraculous. I think that is a simple enough definition of a miracle, right? Its supernatural by definition, so if you're demanding that miracles be natural, testable, and repeatable, your asking something it by definition can't be.

---

I think that is my point. If miracles are not testable, repeatable, examinable, then by what means to we validate them? Other than by using already held faith and bias? You need faith to believe that the Christian God performs miracles. Therefore, miracles are a problematic tool in justifying faith in the Christian God. There seems to be a circular, chicken or the egg, type issue here.

Quote:

---

Again, I would just start looking at the description of miracles over the ages, both modern and ancient. Miracles point to a higher power.

Its a very modern worldview to look at a miracle and go, 'they're all just lying'. The ancient Hebrews didn't doubt that Pharaoh's magi could perform supernatural feats, its just that Moses's was greater (on purpose). And the answer for why the magi could in the first place is that they were in communion with demons and demons were performing them.

If you've got some other sources of miracles, start examining their claims. Who they claim to be, who they claim to get that power from, and how they used that power. From my more limited examinations into other religions miraculous claims they seem to be. Your biggest 'competitors' for miracles and claims of authority are Mohammed and Buddha. And Mohammed called himself a plain warner. Buddha's more miraculous claims come about in the later writings of buddha

Whose healing the sick and raising the dead?

---

They point to a belief in a higher power. Or they point to a need by mankind to assign agency and meaning to all things. My question for you is, given the number of non-Christian miracles, how reliable should we consider testimonies of miracles? What are the options here?

Are all miracles true? Christian miracles come from God and other miracles come from demons posed as false gods. And if that is the case, miracles maybe aren't so remarkable. And its not like these demonic miracles are all terrible things. . . . Other Gods heal the sick, bring back the dead, and generally help people. Which makes understanding miracles that much more difficult. If we've got all these demons performing 'good' miracles, how do you know your miracle is from God and not from one of these other gods?

Or Maybe only Christian miracles are true and everyone else is lying.

Or maybe miracles don't happen.

Or if they do, given their nature, we should admit we don't understand them.

Raising the dead falls is a pretty extreme type of miracle - if someone famous were to rise from the dead tomorrow, gory and decomposed, walk to a tv station and give an interview about how God raised them from the dead, well that would surely be something. But that doesn't happen. God decided to stop raising people from the dead a while ago it seems. There are types of miracles, where, should they occur, the sheer improbability of the event would be absolutely profound. I don't need to understand how God raises someone from the dead to understand that if it were to happen, it would be massively important. So, lets ask God to raise a gooey half decomposed person who can give an account of Heaven and God and I promise you I'll listen on the very edge of my seat.

For most people, when you ask them about miracles and revelation, they talk about some moment when they felt touched by God or they heard a voice or something else. Fine for you, but what am I supposed to do with that? The implications of the existence of the your type of God existing are massive. Am I to dedicate myself into full faith toward 'your' God because you heard a voice? Well, Bob heard a different voice and Mary heard a different voice and Joe heard a different voice. The inconsistency of these miracles, the impossibility of understanding them, and the fact that they are subjective is all the reason I need to completely dismiss them from being what they claim to be.

----------

The foundation of Christianity is rooted on the belief that the miracles surrounding Jesus Christ as outlined in the Bible are true. Jesus was the son of God, born of a virgin, healed the sick, rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven. If Jesus was just 'some guy', then the whole things falls apart. And Jesus did all of these miracles and performed these miracles alongside Hindu and Egyptian and pagan gods who were also sons of gods, and born of virgins, and performed miracles, and healed the sick, and walked on water and whatever. And Jesus did all of this at a time in history when everyone knew for a fact that illness was caused by demons, weather was controlled by God, the that if your God couldn't out-God your neighbor's God, then there is no point of worshipping your God. . . . so your God better be the best and have all the attributes of your neighbor's God and more! I'm sorry one MEEN ag, I think there is a 99.99% chance that it didn't happen and Jesus was just some guy.

And if it did happen and Jesus is the son of God, then I'm even more confused than I am now. Because it means that God's plan for salvation of a hundred billion human being is to perform some miracles for an ancient civilization in literally 0.01% of the world and then ask a few of those ancient peoples to write down the accounts 30 years later and cross their fingers and hope that it spreads to everyone. Are you F-ing kidding me? This is God's plan? Can you imagine the CEO of General Electric setting a new company policy and implementing it by finding a desk clerk in a local manufacturing office in Patesville Kentucky to give his policy to and then just hoping that the policy direction makes its way to all 172,000 employees? "Trust me everyone, the CEO (God) told me of this policy (miracle). And if you don't follow it, you'll be fired (sent to Hell)." I don't buy it. I certainly don't look down on anyone that does buy it, because its not as though I have any better answers to offer. Excuse the language, but, My God!, if the Christian God wants us to know Him. . . What the **** is He doing?

Ha! sorry, that was much longer than I intended.

one MEEN Ag said:

---

St. Antony is an Orthodox Church up in Tulsa that rolls up under the same archdiocese I do. I can ask my priest to ask their priest for someone to reach out to you and host you one sunday. I'm sure people would be happy to do it.

I'd be happy to give you the gentle nudge to get the ball rolling. Whats the number one rule of interacting with sales people? Never tell a salesman exactly what is stopping you from buying, because they'll make it their mission to remove that hurdle.

---

You got the full court press going! Lol!! Not looking to convert just interested in seeing a service…Never really knew much about the EOC until I started reading about it here….Just intrigued for now. I'll make it to a service sometime.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

I think that is my point. If miracles are not testable, repeatable, examinable, then by what means to we validate them? Other than by using already held faith and bias? You need faith to believe that the Christian God performs miracles. Therefore, miracles are a problematic tool in justifying faith in the Christian God. There seems to be a circular, chicken or the egg, type issue here.

Validate is big word here. You can witness a miracle, you can receive a miracle, or know someone transformed by a miracle. The fact that it is not a science experiment doesn't detract from them. They would just become science if they were.

Quote:

---

Again, I would just start looking at the description of miracles over the ages, both modern and ancient. Miracles point to a higher power.

Its a very modern worldview to look at a miracle and go, 'they're all just lying'. The ancient Hebrews didn't doubt that Pharaoh's magi could perform supernatural feats, its just that Moses's was greater (on purpose). And the answer for why the magi could in the first place is that they were in communion with demons and demons were performing them.

If you've got some other sources of miracles, start examining their claims. Who they claim to be, who they claim to get that power from, and how they used that power. From my more limited examinations into other religions miraculous claims they seem to be. Your biggest 'competitors' for miracles and claims of authority are Mohammed and Buddha. And Mohammed called himself a plain warner. Buddha's more miraculous claims come about in the later writings of buddha

Whose healing the sick and raising the dead?

---

They point to a belief in a higher power. Or they point to a need by mankind to assign agency and meaning to all things. My question for you is, given the number of non-Christian miracles, how reliable should we consider testimonies of miracles? What are the options here?

This is a question I have been pondering for a day or two now. A collection of miracles as ascertained by the church. It would be huge. But you bring up an interesting point, non christian miracles. What is the extensive list of miracles claimed (dubious or not) by other people? And what means do we have to review them. Not all religions make claims as big as christianity, and in actuality, most don't. Where else in history is there a miracle performing Messiah that is healing the sick? Forgiving sins? Claiming they are God and have existed outside of time and created time? The claims and actions of Jesus have not been repeated nor replicable.

Are all miracles true? Christian miracles come from God and other miracles come from demons posed as false gods. And if that is the case, miracles maybe aren't so remarkable. And its not like these demonic miracles are all terrible things. . . . Other Gods heal the sick, bring back the dead, and generally help people. Which makes understanding miracles that much more difficult. If we've got all these demons performing 'good' miracles, how do you know your miracle is from God and not from one of these other gods?

Again, what other religions have claimed to have a messiah whose resume included bringing someone back from the dead? The history of miracles performed by demons are to advance power to trick you as a human. Talking to dead people, seeing the future, etc are supernatural things but they aren't good for you.

Or Maybe only Christian miracles are true and everyone else is lying.

Or maybe miracles don't happen.

Or if they do, given their nature, we should admit we don't understand them.

Raising the dead falls is a pretty extreme type of miracle - if someone famous were to rise from the dead tomorrow, gory and decomposed, walk to a tv station and give an interview about how God raised them from the dead, well that would surely be something. But that doesn't happen. God decided to stop raising people from the dead a while ago it seems. There are types of miracles, where, should they occur, the sheer improbability of the event would be absolutely profound. I don't need to understand how God raises someone from the dead to understand that if it were to happen, it would be massively important. So, lets ask God to raise a gooey half decomposed person who can give an account of Heaven and God and I promise you I'll listen on the very edge of my seat.

This is literally Matthew 27:52. The church holds that the saints that were raised where the righteous sons of Simeon, a high priest who knew Jesus from the time of His birth, who shared Jesus's account from their side in Sheol. Its preserved as The Harrowing of Hades. Its extrabiblical literature, but it lends some insight into who was actually reanimated momentarily during Jesus's death.

For most people, when you ask them about miracles and revelation, they talk about some moment when they felt touched by God or they heard a voice or something else. Fine for you, but what am I supposed to do with that? The implications of the existence of the your type of God existing are massive. Am I to dedicate myself into full faith toward 'your' God because you heard a voice? Well, Bob heard a different voice and Mary heard a different voice and Joe heard a different voice. The inconsistency of these miracles, the impossibility of understanding them, and the fact that they are subjective is all the reason I need to completely dismiss them from being what they claim to be.

Those types of revelation are for those people. Nobody is given a reason why they recieve or don't receive a miracle. Jesus even brings this up to the Pharisees. Miracles are surely meant to bring people towards repentance and to the church. Does this hypothetical person hearing voices bring you closer to church? Doesn't sound like it. But for those who have been healed, and those who witnessed or listened to them, it certainly does.

----------

The foundation of Christianity is rooted on the belief that the miracles surrounding Jesus Christ as outlined in the Bible are true. Jesus was the son of God, born of a virgin, healed the sick, rose from the dead, ascended into Heaven. If Jesus was just 'some guy', then the whole things falls apart. And Jesus did all of these miracles and performed these miracles alongside Hindu and Egyptian and pagan gods who were also sons of gods, and born of virgins, and performed miracles, and healed the sick, and walked on water and whatever. And Jesus did all of this at a time in history when everyone knew for a fact that illness was caused by demons, weather was controlled by God, the that if your God couldn't out-God your neighbor's God, then there is no point of worshipping your God. . . . so your God better be the best and have all the attributes of your neighbor's God and more! I'm sorry one MEEN ag, I think there is a 99.99% chance that it didn't happen and Jesus was just some guy.

There is not a single other pagan god that can match the claims and documentation of Jesus. Even the Bill Maher special spitting hot takes about Isis isn't of the same 'virgin birth'. Yeah virgin birth from spilling semen onto the ground, it sprouting a tree, and an acorn of that tree falling into a womans lap and getting her pregnant. Find a pagan god that makes the five following claims you say are so common. Remember, you're not the first person to do this, won't be the last, and demons are way ahead of you here.

Just go take a gander at history at what pagan gods promise, and why are pagan gods even subservient to man? How is that man can even ensnare these gods in the first place or that gods care about men at all? They're there to capture you. Because they're demons. If a creator God created us out of love, what can you even do to bribe Him? One of the biggest tenants of Christianity is the removal of coin-operation that you see from pagan god interaction.

And if it did happen and Jesus is the son of God, then I'm even more confused than I am now. Because it means that God's plan for salvation of a hundred billion human being is to perform some miracles for an ancient civilization in literally 0.01% of the world and then ask a few of those ancient peoples to write down the accounts 30 years later and cross their fingers and hope that it spreads to everyone. Are you F-ing kidding me? This is God's plan? Can you imagine the CEO of General Electric setting a new company policy and implementing it by finding a desk clerk in a local manufacturing office in Patesville Kentucky to give his policy to and then just hoping that the policy direction makes its way to all 172,000 employees? "Trust me everyone, the CEO (God) told me of this policy (miracle). And if you don't follow it, you'll be fired (sent to Hell)." I don't buy it. I certainly don't look down on anyone that does buy it, because its not as though I have any better answers to offer. Excuse the language, but, My God!, if the Christian God wants us to know Him. . . What the **** is He doing?

Ha! sorry, that was much longer than I intended.

Take a step back. Theres a lot of anger here about how God has chosen to work. Whose to say it so cavalier about how salvation came about? The history of God and man is God creates man, man sins, creates a gap between Him and God. Man's wickedness grows, God has to take a step back from His creation due to their wickedness. Angels are placed to guide the nations, the angels fall and accept worship of humans. Jesus chooses a man to make a nation to begin his promise of salvation for all man. The nation of Israel is a priestly downpayment on the messiah to come. Prophecies to fulfill, miracles to perform.

Sheol and hell are our own doing. We choose to reciprocate the love God has for us and walk with God in this life, and be reunified with Him in the next. Nobody knows the final judgement or final place of anyone.

And, if you want to know about Christ, he's got a whole church that's doing their best to preserve God's teachings and history and worship God every sunday. Every now and then, someone gets a little bit of God revealed to them. The church tries to write that down to. But come taste and see. Learn about the miracles by saints to this day. Participate in the peace, love and forgiveness of Christ.

Consider how different the world has been over the 2000 years. Christ, and Christians have pushed paganism to the corners of this earth. The world over is dominated by Abrahamic faiths, not local pagan gods. Look at the advancements in health, science, and world building that have been accomplished in the last 2000 years because of people living out the ideals that all people are worthy of love and fair treatment because they are made in the image of God. (a solely Christian ethic).

Liturgy is at 10.

---

88Warrior said:

---

one MEEN Ag said:

---

St. Antony is an Orthodox Church up in Tulsa that rolls up under the same archdiocese I do. I can ask my priest to ask their priest for someone to reach out to you and host you one sunday. I'm sure people would be happy to do it.

I'd be happy to give you the gentle nudge to get the ball rolling. Whats the number one rule of interacting with sales people? Never tell a salesman exactly what is stopping you from buying, because they'll make it their mission to remove that hurdle.

---

You got the full court press going! Lol!! Not looking to convert just interested in seeing a service…Never really knew much about the EOC until I started reading about it here….Just intrigued for now. I'll make it to a service sometime.

---

This is a great overview and answers kind of the first round of questions most protestants have. I think you'd enjoy it.

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWVTUn45RRSTl4Qdwikar5ANGIPIBnlZx

Quote:

---

Validate is big word here. You can witness a miracle, you can receive a miracle, or know someone transformed by a miracle. The fact that it is not a science experiment doesn't detract from them. They would just become science if they were.

---

Validate is absolutely the right word. And what are the tools you offer to validate miracles? How do I validate that Mary was a virgin? How do I validate that Jesus rose from the dead or ascended into Heaven? How do I validate Heaven or Hell? Even validating a miracle that I witness can be difficult. That people mis-see and mis-witness details and events even when they are paying special attention is very well documented.

The best chance we have for validation is one of those big miracles like I mentioned in my last post. If Abraham Lincoln rises from the dead later today and walks his corpse into a tv station to give a 'live' interview (pardon the pun) about God and Heaven while a dozen of our top scientists, doctors, and biologists poke and prod and scratch their head about how this is all possible. . . then great! I'm in! I mean, I'll probably ask around to make sure everyone else saw the same thing I saw and I wasn't hallucinating, but yeah! Sign me up!

Quote:

---

This is a question I have been pondering for a day or two now. A collection of miracles as ascertained by the church. It would be huge. But you bring up an interesting point, non christian miracles. What is the extensive list of miracles claimed (dubious or not) by other people? And what means do we have to review them. Not all religions make claims as big as christianity, and in actuality, most don't. Where else in history is there a miracle performing Messiah that is healing the sick? Forgiving sins? Claiming they are God and have existed outside of time and created time? The claims and actions of Jesus have not been repeated nor replicable.

---

As societies go from small to big, so do gods. 5,000 years ago a tribe of 40 people invented gods and spirits to explain death and the sun. And then we needed gods to explain the weather and basic ethics. And then more and more complex systems and morals.

The problem with the relatively big claims of Christianity should be clear. 5,000 years ago I needed only to offer some tribute to my local god or offer them some respect and they would grant me good fortune and thats the end of it. The Christian God demands that I worship him with all my being, abandon all my reason and faculties to follow Him, and dedicate my whole life to His glory. And there is no end to it. What I do in this life will lead to an infinity of happiness or torture. The claims of Christianity are bigger by an infinite margin and the evidence is just the same as those smaller religions. I've already said it, but if Christianity is true, it is the single most important thing to know and understand in any of our lives - by an infinite margin. And the justification I have for believing it is that God sent the equivalent of an email to bum-frick Kentucky to a clerk to implement the new company policy to all 172K employees. Its simply not reasonable.

The bigness of the Christian claims works against it, in my opinion. Yes, the tired saying of extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence.

Quote:

---

Again, what other religions have claimed to have a messiah whose resume included bringing someone back from the dead? The history of miracles performed by demons are to advance power to trick you as a human. Talking to dead people, seeing the future, etc are supernatural things but they aren't good for you.

---

Do a google search for 'what gods can revive people' or 'what gods can heal people'. There is no shortage of reports of gods doing 'good' things.

And even if Christian miracles are 'bigger' than other miracles, it doesn't prove anything. I can invent a religion today that has even bigger miracles than Christianity - that won't make it true.

Quote:

---

This is literally Matthew 27:52. The church holds that the saints that were raised where the righteous sons of Simeon, a high priest who knew Jesus from the time of His birth, who shared Jesus's account from their side in Sheol. Its preserved as The Harrowing of Hades. Its extrabiblical literature, but it lends some insight into who was actually reanimated momentarily during Jesus's death.

---

John 20:28-29 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Are these not the words of a con man? We are asked to believe in a God, follow a doctrine, and live a life and make it the most fundamental and foundational piece of who we are as human beings, but we are asked to do it mostly blind. We are told that God could make it so that we can all 'see' and thus all 'believe', but it is better for us to believe without 'seeing'. What type of God gives us mental faculties and free will but not enough information to understand our choices, and then rewards or punishes us for eternity for our ill-informed choices? The answer is - the type of God that a con man would ask you to believe in.

So yeah, Matthew 27:52 is ink on a page. I have no more reason to believe that saints and people were raised from the dead 2000 years ago than I do to believe that Voldemort could split his soul into pieces to survive death.

Quote:

---

Take a step back. Theres a lot of anger here about how God has chosen to work. Whose to say it so cavalier about how salvation came about? The history of God and man is God creates man, man sins, creates a gap between Him and God. Man's wickedness grows, God has to take a step back from His creation due to their wickedness. Angels are placed to guide the nations, the angels fall and accept worship of humans. Jesus chooses a man to make a nation to begin his promise of salvation for all man. The nation of Israel is a priestly downpayment on the messiah to come. Prophecies to fulfill, miracles to perform.

---

And how would you do it? If you were God and wanted to spread your message to ALL of humanity, what would you do? Pick your favorite tribe in your favorite nation, give them revelation and gifts and then wait for them to spread it to the world. And if after 2000 years, the message had only really reached 30% of the world and 10,000 arguing factions existing within that 30%, I would say you had failed horribly. What Christianity says God wants from humans and what God does is not in balance. It is radically disproportionate.

As I understand it, a lot of ancient cultures had gods that they respected or worshipped in some fashion. And their neighboring nations had their gods. And each nation sorta acknowledged the gods of the neighboring nations, but those weren't 'their' gods, so they stuck with their own gods. These gods were small. Small in that they ruled over just their land and their people. And despite the fact that the Christian God is supposed to rule over all nations and all people, the entirety of the Bible takes place in a spot the size of New Jersey. My guess is that the Christian God is another one of those small gods. But people, being tribal as we are, decided that it was no longer okay for other nations to have their gods. "Our god is best and so our god rules the world."

Imagine if there had been a Jesus simultaneously born in 10,000 other places in the world to perform similar miracles and spread the same message. This would not be a small god of a land the size of New Jersey. This would be a GOD OF THE WORLD.

Quote:

---

Sheol and hell are our own doing. We choose to reciprocate the love God has for us and walk with God in this life, and be reunified with Him in the next. Nobody knows the final judgement or final place of anyone.

---

More cons. You are sick and this snake oil will save you.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Quote:

---

Validate is big word here. You can witness a miracle, you can receive a miracle, or know someone transformed by a miracle. The fact that it is not a science experiment doesn't detract from them. They would just become science if they were.

---

Validate is absolutely the right word. And what are the tools you offer to validate miracles? How do I validate that Mary was a virgin? How do I validate that Jesus rose from the dead or ascended into Heaven? How do I validate Heaven or Hell? Even validating a miracle that I witness can be difficult. That people mis-see and mis-witness details and events even when they are paying special attention is very well documented.

The best chance we have for validation is one of those big miracles like I mentioned in my last post. If Abraham Lincoln rises from the dead later today and walks his corpse into a tv station to give a 'live' interview (pardon the pun) about God and Heaven while a dozen of our top scientists, doctors, and biologists poke and prod and scratch their head about how this is all possible. . . then great! I'm in! I mean, I'll probably ask around to make sure everyone else saw the same thing I saw and I wasn't hallucinating, but yeah! Sign me up!

Quote:

---

This is a question I have been pondering for a day or two now. A collection of miracles as ascertained by the church. It would be huge. But you bring up an interesting point, non christian miracles. What is the extensive list of miracles claimed (dubious or not) by other people? And what means do we have to review them. Not all religions make claims as big as christianity, and in actuality, most don't. Where else in history is there a miracle performing Messiah that is healing the sick? Forgiving sins? Claiming they are God and have existed outside of time and created time? The claims and actions of Jesus have not been repeated nor replicable.

---

As societies go from small to big, so do gods. 5,000 years ago a tribe of 40 people invented gods and spirits to explain death and the sun. And then we needed gods to explain the weather and basic ethics. And then more and more complex systems and morals.

The problem with the relatively big claims of Christianity should be clear. 5,000 years ago I needed only to offer some tribute to my local god or offer them some respect and they would grant me good fortune and thats the end of it. The Christian God demands that I worship him with all my being, abandon all my reason and faculties to follow Him, and dedicate my whole life to His glory. And there is no end to it. What I do in this life will lead to an infinity of happiness or torture. The claims of Christianity are bigger by an infinite margin and the evidence is just the same as those smaller religions. I've already said it, but if Christianity is true, it is the single most important thing to know and understand in any of our lives - by an infinite margin. And the justification I have for believing it is that God sent the equivalent of an email to bum-frick Kentucky to a clerk to implement the new company policy to all 172K employees. Its simply not reasonable.

The bigness of the Christian claims works against it, in my opinion. Yes, the tired saying of extraordinary claims and extraordinary evidence.

Quote:

---

Again, what other religions have claimed to have a messiah whose resume included bringing someone back from the dead? The history of miracles performed by demons are to advance power to trick you as a human. Talking to dead people, seeing the future, etc are supernatural things but they aren't good for you.

---

Do a google search for 'what gods can revive people' or 'what gods can heal people'. There is no shortage of reports of gods doing 'good' things.

And even if Christian miracles are 'bigger' than other miracles, it doesn't prove anything. I can invent a religion today that has even bigger miracles than Christianity - that won't make it true.

Quote:

---

This is literally Matthew 27:52. The church holds that the saints that were raised where the righteous sons of Simeon, a high priest who knew Jesus from the time of His birth, who shared Jesus's account from their side in Sheol. Its preserved as The Harrowing of Hades. Its extrabiblical literature, but it lends some insight into who was actually reanimated momentarily during Jesus's death.

---

John 20:28-29 Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!" Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Are these not the words of a con man? We are asked to believe in a God, follow a doctrine, and live a life and make it the most fundamental and foundational piece of who we are as human beings, but we are asked to do it mostly blind. We are told that God could make it so that we can all 'see' and thus all 'believe', but it is better for us to believe without 'seeing'. What type of God gives us mental faculties and free will but not enough information to understand our choices, and then rewards or punishes us for eternity for our ill-informed choices? The answer is - the type of God that a con man would ask you to believe in.

So yeah, Matthew 27:52 is ink on a page. I have no more reason to believe that saints and people were raised from the dead 2000 years ago than I do to believe that Voldemort could split his soul into pieces to survive death.

Quote:

---

Take a step back. Theres a lot of anger here about how God has chosen to work. Whose to say it so cavalier about how salvation came about? The history of God and man is God creates man, man sins, creates a gap between Him and God. Man's wickedness grows, God has to take a step back from His creation due to their wickedness. Angels are placed to guide the nations, the angels fall and accept worship of humans. Jesus chooses a man to make a nation to begin his promise of salvation for all man. The nation of Israel is a priestly downpayment on the messiah to come. Prophecies to fulfill, miracles to perform.

---

And how would you do it? If you were God and wanted to spread your message to ALL of humanity, what would you do? Pick your favorite tribe in your favorite nation, give them revelation and gifts and then wait for them to spread it to the world. And if after 2000 years, the message had only really reached 30% of the world and 10,000 arguing factions existing within that 30%, I would say you had failed horribly. What Christianity says God wants from humans and what God does is not in balance. It is radically disproportionate.

As I understand it, a lot of ancient cultures had gods that they respected or worshipped in some fashion. And their neighboring nations had their gods. And each nation sorta acknowledged the gods of the neighboring nations, but those weren't 'their' gods, so they stuck with their own gods. These gods were small. Small in that they ruled over just their land and their people. And despite the fact that the Christian God is supposed to rule over all nations and all people, the entirety of the Bible takes place in a spot the size of New Jersey. My guess is that the Christian God is another one of those small gods. But people, being tribal as we are, decided that it was no longer okay for other nations to have their gods. "Our god is best and so our god rules the world."

Imagine if there had been a Jesus simultaneously born in 10,000 other places in the world to perform similar miracles and spread the same message. This would not be a small god of a land the size of New Jersey. This would be a GOD OF THE WORLD.

Quote:

---

Sheol and hell are our own doing. We choose to reciprocate the love God has for us and walk with God in this life, and be reunified with Him in the next. Nobody knows the final judgement or final place of anyone.

---

More cons. You are sick and this snake oil will save you.

---

Just something Christians and atheists will never be able to reconcile..you want hard scientific proof that it happened and is real and I simply have faith that it happened and is real….

one MEEN Ag said:

---

The example video I've linked is literally a miracle on a camera roll. The whole miracle is that St Lakavos was dead for 11 months, a christian wanted to visit him, the other monks at his monastery said he's been dead for almost a year, the christian asks to take a picture of the saints dorm anyway, they said sure, and when the film is developed the saint is standing in the picture. Its not a miracle of healing, but its still a miracle.

If you're interested in healing miracles, Here's a great interview of a priest who oversees a shrine church for St. Paraskevi, the saint of healing vision. He's got over 100 letters from people who have made pilgrammages and wrote back that they have been healed. Most of the interview is about a blind man whose vision is restored over the following days and started seeing right as the priests meets and blesses him.

https://www.ancientfaith.com/specials/ocampr_2014_the_mind_body_and_soul_connection/once_i_was_blind

---

That's not a miracle on a camera role. No one died on camera, no one was raised on camera, no one was healed on camera....you literally have a picture of a dude. The date of the picture isn't verifiable. Nor is it in any way difficult to take a picture of a picture which would indicate the wrong date. To believe this you'd have to accept virtually every miracle claim from every religion or cult the world over. The only place I see this even being discussed is a small reddit thread, where it's met with skepticism.

(2) The Appearance of Saint Iakovos Tsalikis in a Photograph 11 Months After His Death : OrthodoxChristianity (reddit.com)


The problems with healing miracles are many fold. Not only do they never manage to happen in miraculous and verifiable ways. The only healing miracles anyone can attest to are for diseases and ailment for which people recover without treatment a steady percentage of the time.

Effects of remote healing prayer have been studied and it worked out badly for prayer. You might say that miracles are far too rare to make a statistical appearance. Not a strong argument for prayer, but ok.

But it seems really strange to me that there are entire categories of ailments for which god is utterly powerless to intervene. Ailments which have a 100% death rate, or 100% no recovery rate. Does god not answer the prayer of these?

Why does god never heal symptomatic rabies? Why does god never heal prion disease? Why does go never heal amputation of any kind? Why does god never heal severe radiation poising? This doesn't' include things like African sleeping sickness or Pneumonic plague that god never heals but doctors can.

How do you explain entire categories of god's impotence?

88Warrior said:

---

Just something Christians and atheists will never be able to reconcile..you want hard scientific proof that it happened and is real and I simply have faith that it happened and is real….

---

So do all the followers of all the other religions, past and present. What makes you different? Why should someone find yours more substantial?

I understand there are people willing to accept on faith and those that require more evidence. But even if we ignore the hangup on evidence (we shouldn't) why should your faith in things not seen take precedence over any of the others?

Aggrad08 said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

Just something Christians and atheists will never be able to reconcile..you want hard scientific proof that it happened and is real and I simply have faith that it happened and is real….

---

So do all the followers of all the other religions, past and present. What makes you different? Why should someone find yours more substantial?

I understand there are people willing to accept on faith and those that require more evidence. But even if we ignore the hangup on evidence (we shouldn't) why should your faith in things not seen take precedence over any of the others?

---

Seeking something divine should obviously not just involve ones intellect, it requires their heart. Why I think Christianity is more substantial is because of my desire to seek the truth...not just with my head but my heart. If a Muslim feels the same way about their faith, then I can debate with them all day about evidence....(that and the fact that the Christian God is living) but if their heart isn't open to truth, then they may not experience the realization of why Christianity is more substantial.

First their is the desire to be open to the idea of a divine being. If someone isn't open to that, then it will be extremely difficult to even consider one religion over another.

Wait, so you've already decided a priori that if someone doesn't accept Christianity then their "heart" is closed? That sounds like special pleading for Christianity rather than something you can define.

88Warrior said:

---

Just something Christians and atheists will never be able to reconcile. You want hard scientific proof that it happened and is real and I simply have faith that it happened and is real….

---

My objection is between what Christians say God wants and how Christians say He goes about achieving that goal. If God wants ALL humans to believe, then the actions He's taken to achieve that goal do not feel, to me, like they match. 6000 years of involvement in human affairs, 2000 years since His son supposedly made a visit and, as I've mentioned, you've got 30% of the population on board, but just about as many years of fighting and argument over God's actual message resulting in tens of thousands of different groups. I'm calling into question the efficiency of the communication methods. The only way to justify God's communication skills is to a priori decide that those skills must be perfect. . . . and then there is nowhere to take the conversation.

"Hard scientific proof" is hardly the threshold. Lets say the threshold exists somewhere between hard scientific fact and 2000 year old hearsay testimony.

Given how important this issue is, why should our threshold not be higher? Eternity is at stake and we just have to like 'have faith, man'.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

88Warrior said:

---

Just something Christians and atheists will never be able to reconcile. You want hard scientific proof that it happened and is real and I simply have faith that it happened and is real….

---

My objection is between what Christians say God wants and how Christians say He goes about achieving that goal. If God wants ALL humans to believe, then the actions He's taken to achieve that goal do not feel, to me, like they match. 6000 years of involvement in human affairs, 2000 years since His son supposedly made a visit and, as I've mentioned, you've got 30% of the population on board, but just about as many years of fighting and argument over God's actual message resulting in tens of thousands of different groups. I'm calling into question the efficiency of the communication methods. The only way to justify God's communication skills is to a priori decide that those skills must be perfect. . . . and then there is nowhere to take the conversation.

"Hard scientific proof" is hardly the threshold. Lets say the threshold exists somewhere between hard scientific fact and 2000 year old hearsay testimony.

Given how important this issue is, why should our threshold not be higher? Eternity is at stake and we just have to like 'have faith, man'.

---

To be fair, many people who saw and heard didn't believe despite witnessing it. In some respects, you put yourself outside of the rest of humanity when you make these posts because the assumption is always that you would believe if the 'appropriate' proof was shown. We still have flat earthers and moon landing hoaxers (some atheists might even say we still have Christians). What makes you so different that it's not you that's the problem, but God?

AGC said:

---

To be fair, many people who saw and heard didn't believe despite witnessing it. In some respects, you put yourself outside of the rest of humanity when you make these posts because the assumption is always that you would believe if the 'appropriate' proof was shown. We still have flat earthers and moon landing hoaxers (some atheists might even say we still have Christians). What makes you so different that it's not you that's the problem, but God?

---

First off, what percentage of those who have been presented with evidence of a round earth or moon landing fall into the category of flat earther or moon landing hoaxer? Is it anywhere near the 70% of people that are non-Christians? I never said that 100% of the population must be Christian in order for me to be convinced that there is a God has effectively communicated His will. I am saying that 6000 years (or maybe more) in order to reach 30% of the population seems unreasonable given a supposedly all powerful God who wishes for all of us to know Him.

Next, what is at stake when it comes to believing the Earth is round and that we went to the moon? Is eternal torture or happiness a possible consequence? If the answer is 'no', then don't we have to admit that the size and consequence of those claims comes nowhere close to those of Christianity (and religion generally)? And does this mean we disagree about big claims / big evidence?

If my willingness to amend what I believe when presented with 'appropriate' evidence puts me outside the rest of humanity, then I think maybe you have a poor opinion of humanity. Wouldn't you change your beliefs given appropriate evidence? If some other God poked their head through the clouds and spoke to all humanity at the same time, took human form and performed miracles, provided message of love and happiness, and gave you and everyone else a profound spiritual revelation / experience, would you begin to believe in that God? Or would you go to the grave never being willing to admit you could be wrong?


The last sentence in bold: Actually, I'm not 'different'. I'm with the vast majority of people that don't believe in the Christian God.

Another analogy (sorry. . .)

I have a couple of young engineers I'm training to someday be project managers. One of the things I tell them often is that one of the key things that makes a project manager effective is their ability to understand who their team is and how to communicate with them. This does not mean you let the tail wag the dog, it means that a good project manager knows how to get good performance from their team. A good project manager understands what information their team needs, when they need it, how to provide it to them, and how to set them up to do well. A good manager also understands how to pivot if some part of the team is not performing. And how to clarify requirements when there is debate about the project goal.

To your point, there will always be team members that are unmanageable. However, if 70% of a team does not know the project goal, project requirements, deadlines, and responsibilities and the 30% that does know is in constant argument about the specifics and details - this falls squarely on the project manager. There is NO way around that.

And it gets worse for God in this analogy, because he doesn't get 'stuck' with a team. Genesis tells us that God built His team 'from the 'dust of the ground'. I can imagine having a project where I could hire anyone I wanted and put together an all start team. If I get that opportunity and 70% of my hand picked team fails to simply understand the project goals, then good God have I failed miserably. Wouldn't you agree?

Now, I'm not saying that I think God is a bad communicator and project manager. I'm saying that I don't see any reasonable way to rectify the Christian description of God with reality. I'm not the only non-Christian out there. There are like 6 billion of us. How many of that 6 billion would begin to believe in God provided better evidence? You think zero? All 6 billion of us are just bad people?

I think you misunderstood my comment (though it looks like you may have found your way there in the response).

Plenty of people reject miraculous things that they witness firsthand, or they hand waive it away with science or whatever. My point is that by thinking there is a requisite burden of proof beyond which you would accept it, is to say that you do not pre-exist in the two groups. You exempt yourself from being a person who would not believe no matter what, though it is a very reasonable and common outcome (whether on the economy, gender, politics, the best way to drive home after work, etc.).

Edit: I think that most people who reject such things believe like you do, that they have some reasonable burden of proof, that it's not been met, and that if only it ever could, they would in fact accept such things. But this also conditions your outlook to reject all such events or occurrences that could satisfy it and reduces your likelihood of finding them.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

I think you misunderstood my comment (though it looks like you may have found your way there in the response).

Plenty of people reject miraculous things that they witness firsthand, or they hand waive it away with science or whatever. My point is that by thinking there is a requisite burden of proof beyond which you would accept it, is to say that you do not pre-exist in the two groups. You exempt yourself from being a person who would not believe no matter what, though it is a very reasonable and common outcome (whether on the economy, gender, politics, the best way to drive home after work, etc.).

Edit: I think that most people who reject such things believe like you do, that they have some reasonable burden of proof, that it's not been met, and that if only it ever could, they would in fact accept such things. But this also conditions your outlook to reject all such events or occurrences that could satisfy it and reduces your likelihood of finding them.

---

There are also plenty of people that attribute literally everything they witness to miracle. Everything from getting over an illness down to making a green light on the way to work. What miracles are you concerned that people dismiss?

I don't understand your concern with requisite burden of proof in order to be convinced of something. It almost feels like a criticism that I do not believe 100% of everything I am told or view every occurrence as miracle and indisputable proof of God. When someone tells you that a miracle happened, do you simply accept it as fact without any further questioning? Or do you ask for more information or evidence before you believe? I mean, Hell, the Catholic Church conducts investigations into miracles before considering them true. It sure seems like they have a burden of proof that must be met before they are convinced. And in many cases, as I understand, they are unable to be 'certify' that a supposed miracle happened.

What I think you really mean with your post though is that you believe I demand an arbitrarily high threshold burden of proof so that I can avoid admission to being close minded about the possibility of miracles or God being true. I think you just doubt that my beliefs or skepticism is genuine, which doesn't bother me - I've been called worse. What does bother me a little is that I think you are trying to use this to avoid all my arguments. You accuse others of hand waiving, yet, I think you are doing plenty of hand waiving here by suggesting that there is no level of evidence that would ever convince me in order to be able to dismiss the actual content of my posts.

---

No, it's not a bad faith argument or general dismissal of criticism. You've misconstrued my position.

It is to say that plenty of people have witnessed miracles firsthand and rejected them. The possibility you don't discuss is that you would reject a miracle. There are people with arbitrarily high burdens of proof and those who would reject all proof. Your premise here is that God has not plainly communicated to you (Him as something existing outside the pure physical which you can partially measure with your limited knowledge) when, to many others, he's communicated sufficiently. To what do we attribute your higher burden of proof? Are we not all skeptical (here in R&P)? Are we not all intelligent enough to interrogate such things? To arrive at radically different conclusions with the same basis is to say, it's entirely possible that no amount of proof would be sufficient for you.

That is my only point, that you don't acknowledge that your own skepticism or burden might, in fact, be impossible for God to meet because of you, rather than Him. This shouldn't be an affront or insult. I'm just asking why the null hypothesis is that you're a rational person with a reasonable burden of proof. Shouldn't it be that you aren't?

Is a god a requirement?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

No, it's not a bad faith argument or general dismissal of criticism. You've misconstrued my position.

It is to say that plenty of people have witnessed miracles firsthand and rejected them. The possibility you don't discuss is that you would reject a miracle. There are people with arbitrarily high burdens of proof and those who would reject all proof.

---

The claim about people rejecting witness miracles needs to be explained more. What are examples of miracles that you think people reject? I assume you mean something more than Jesus's face on toast. And are these miracles potentially explainable without a miracle? Miracles like getting over an illness, getting a job, your flight being on time, being safe during an accident, and other things could be miracles. . . . but, we also know that those things occur all day every today. I am of the opinion that this is the problem with "mundane" miracles. Which is why I've given you an example of a 'big' miracle that would convince me. And why should we not expect a big miracle? A lot is at stake!

Again, the importance of Christianity, if true, cannot be understated. If true, all human beings are called to a specific doctrine, lifestyle, and set of actions / beliefs with eternal consequences. This is the most important thing in existence! Ever! And you want people to lower their burden of proof? We live in a world with thousands of 'gods', doctrines, beliefs, and claims. The multitude of conflicting / competing claims and the importance of these religious claims does not justify haphazard and reckless acceptance of any and all claims of miracles. And yet, that is precisely what we are asked to do. We are asked to believe without seeing.

How often do people simply grab and hold on to the religion of their culture? Is this not what you did? Did you spend a decade studying the Quran and praying an listening for Allah? Opening your heart to let him reach you? And did you do the same for Buddha? and Vishnu? and every other God or for every other major religion? The charge by Christians, that atheists like myself, block out God by not sufficiently opening our heats to God is 100% undercut by the fact that Christians are equally closed to every other religious experience. If you get to chalk up my being non-Christian to close mindedness and impossible burdens of proof, then every other religion gets to make the same claim about your close mindedness about their beliefs.

Please do not treat this previous paragraph as rhetorical. I would like to know how many years you studied other religions and how many decades you spent opening your heart to those Gods. Because there is a billion and a half Muslims that would tell you that if you do this, Allah will reveal himself to you. And another billion Hindus that will say the same. And billions of others with different paths to different Truth.

Agnostic atheism occurs when you realize that there are 8 billion people on the planet all saying "I'm right, everyone else is wrong. . . . come on! Trust me! Would I lie to you? Come on! You don't need proof - God will like you even better if you accept this without proof! Trust me! Eh?"

Quote:

---

Your premise here is that God has not plainly communicated to you (Him as something existing outside the pure physical which you can partially measure with your limited knowledge) when, to many others, he's communicated sufficiently. To what do we attribute your higher burden of proof? Are we not all skeptical (here in R&P)? Are we not all intelligent enough to interrogate such things? To arrive at radically different conclusions with the same basis is to say, it's entirely possible that no amount of proof would be sufficient for you.

That is my only point, that you don't acknowledge that your own skepticism or burden might, in fact, be impossible for God to meet because of you, rather than Him. This shouldn't be an affront or insult. I'm just asking why the null hypothesis is that you're a rational person with a reasonable burden of proof. Shouldn't it be that you aren't?

---

Its possible that my own bias and skepticism makes it difficult for me to 'meet God'. But this thread was never about me, nor are any of my arguments. My arguments are all about the 5.5 Billion other people that do not feel the Christian God has communicated to them. And the fact that intelligent and rational and honest and sincere people can arrive at radically different conclusions is EXACTLY the problem.

I'd like for you to address my analogy with the project manager. In my analogy, you had a project manager and 70% of the team working under this project manager do not understand the project goals or missions or requirements. Within the 70% of the team that does not understand, there are hundreds of competing beliefs about what the project goals and missions are. And even within the 30% that understand the project goals, there are thousands of divisions of competing beliefs on how to achieve those goals. This project team is a ****ng mess and there is no leadership, as far as I can tell. Sure, the project team needs to be open to listening to leadership, but the responsibility of communication begins with this project manager. This is not about some people that will never accept the project manager's role. This is not about select individuals who reject the project manager's authority. This is about miscommunication on a massive scale.

Either the project manager is incompetent, or the project manager has different goals not communicated to the team, or there is no project manager and we're on our own.

---

No on many levels. I think you have taken for granted that you grew up in a Christian culture if you assume that all people going to heaven is fulfillment of God's will.

You're talking about opening oneself up to demons as if they're food on a buffet rather than a spiritual being with agency that works on us and changes us. You think these books and religions are simply worldviews and falsehoods people choose to put their faith.

Your argument starts with the presupposition that God and the spiritual realm doesn't exist and then claims to have a reasonable burden, as defined by being impossibly high and blaming someone else if you decide not to take part in the project. More later I think.

They began when they first got involved with us.

The real question is..when did they begin?

AGC said:

---

No on many levels. I think you have taken for granted that you grew up in a Christian culture if you assume that all people going to heaven is fulfillment of God's will.

You're talking about opening oneself up to demons as if they're food on a buffet rather than a spiritual being with agency that works on us and changes us. You think these books and religions are simply worldviews and falsehoods people choose to put their faith.

Your argument starts with the presupposition that God and the spiritual realm doesn't exist and then claims to have a reasonable burden, as defined by being impossibly high and blaming someone else if you decide not to take part in the project. More later I think.

---

How would you define 'fulfillment of God's will'?

I'm not asking you to open themselves up to demons. Rather, I'm pointing out that you are not able to view other versions of God as anything other than demonic - which means that if some other version of God is true, you won't be open to accepting or meeting that God. You pointed out that my skepticism and burden of proof may make it impossible for me to meet your God. I'm pointing out the same for you. Of course, this line of thought only works if you are someone that is willing to admit that you could be wrong.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

No on many levels. I think you have taken for granted that you grew up in a Christian culture if you assume that all people going to heaven is fulfillment of God's will.

You're talking about opening oneself up to demons as if they're food on a buffet rather than a spiritual being with agency that works on us and changes us. You think these books and religions are simply worldviews and falsehoods people choose to put their faith.

Your argument starts with the presupposition that God and the spiritual realm doesn't exist and then claims to have a reasonable burden, as defined by being impossibly high and blaming someone else if you decide not to take part in the project. More later I think.

---

How would you define 'fulfillment of God's will'?

I'm not asking you to open themselves up to demons. Rather, I'm pointing out that you are not able to view other versions of God as anything other than demonic - which means that if some other version of God is true, you won't be open to accepting or meeting that God. You pointed out that my skepticism and burden of proof may make it impossible for me to meet your God. I'm pointing out the same for you. Of course, this line of thought only works if you are someone that is willing to admit that you could be wrong.

---

You're using demons in the Christian sense rather than a more ancient sense like Socrates, as in a guiding spirit.
It's part of why your arguments are less convincing and the 'you're just atheist towards every other religion' argument fails. I've been to a Hindu temple deep in India where white people don't go; you don't just have a snack if they offer you food, it's sacramental - it's a meal with their God. I don't have to be an Aztec or molech worshipper to see how its demons manifest. But this is beyond how you generally think; I think everything has a guiding spirit, such as political parties, non-profits, cities, etc. The question is different for me because I acknowledge spiritual realities (you don't).

Back to the original question that spawned this, how can we not say that it's possible for your burden of proof to be too high so that you'd never change your mind? It's simple probability. It was just a question to put all possibilities forth in the debate, not a slight or insult. I'm not challenging your pride and I gain nothing if you say it's possible.

AGC said:

---

You're using demons in the Christian sense rather than a more ancient sense like Socrates, as in a guiding spirit.
It's part of why your arguments are less convincing and the 'you're just atheist towards every other religion' argument fails. I've been to a Hindu temple deep in India where white people don't go; you don't just have a snack if they offer you food, it's sacramental - it's a meal with their God. I don't have to be an Aztec or molech worshipper to see how its demons manifest. But this is beyond how you generally think; I think everything has a guiding spirit, such as political parties, non-profits, cities, etc. The question is different for me because I acknowledge spiritual realities (you don't).

---

To be clear, I'm not suggesting you to go to a Hindu temple and have a snack. Nor am I suggesting you share a meal with their God. I'm suggesting you (metaphorically) grow the food, help in the kitchens preparing the meal, sit with the people and share the meal with their God, and then help clean the dishes. Unless you fully immerse yourself into Hinduism, on what grounds do you reject their God . . .or guiding spirit. . . or whatever you want to call it?

The irony I am trying to point out is in the continually reinforced idea that if non-Christians are open enough to the Christian God, if they immerse themselves in the faith and culture, and if you make their heart open and vulnerable to God, then God will meet them. And the same people that make these statements, end up being those who are unwavering in their unwillingness to do the same for any other religious practice. If you are unwilling to even experience a sacramental meal at a Hindu temple, can it not be said that you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of - being unwilling to ever change your mind?

Its as though you've found a great pizza place and have decided its the best. You are so sure your pizza place is the best, that you won't even try other pizza places. You can judge them as not as good simply by the fact that they do things differently than your pizza place. You want everyone to come try your pizza place, but you won't try any of theirs.

Given what you believe is at stake, why would you not try every pizza place you can in order to find the best?

Quote:

---

Back to the original question that spawned this, how can we not say that it's possible for your burden of proof to be too high so that you'd never change your mind? It's simple probability. It was just a question to put all possibilities forth in the debate, not a slight or insult. I'm not challenging your pride and I gain nothing if you say it's possible.

---

Two posts ago I said:
"Its possible that my own bias and skepticism makes it difficult for me to 'meet God'. But this thread was never about me, nor are any of my arguments. My arguments are all about the 5.5 Billion other people that do not feel the Christian God has communicated to them."

If you think I should amend this statement to say that it may make it IMPOSSIBLE for me to change my mind, then fine. I happily concede. But, I still think this should not be about me. Now that we've done me, do the other 5.5 billion non-Christians.


Also, How would you define 'fulfillment of God's will'?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

You're using demons in the Christian sense rather than a more ancient sense like Socrates, as in a guiding spirit.
It's part of why your arguments are less convincing and the 'you're just atheist towards every other religion' argument fails. I've been to a Hindu temple deep in India where white people don't go; you don't just have a snack if they offer you food, it's sacramental - it's a meal with their God. I don't have to be an Aztec or molech worshipper to see how its demons manifest. But this is beyond how you generally think; I think everything has a guiding spirit, such as political parties, non-profits, cities, etc. The question is different for me because I acknowledge spiritual realities (you don't).

---

To be clear, I'm not suggesting you to go to a Hindu temple and have a snack. Nor am I suggesting you share a meal with their God. I'm suggesting you (metaphorically) grow the food, help in the kitchens preparing the meal, sit with the people and share the meal with their God, and then help clean the dishes. Unless you fully immerse yourself into Hinduism, on what grounds do you reject their God . . .or guiding spirit. . . or whatever you want to call it?

The irony I am trying to point out is in the continually reinforced idea that if non-Christians are open enough to the Christian God, if they immerse themselves in the faith and culture, and if you make their heart open and vulnerable to God, then God will meet them. And the same people that make these statements, end up being those who are unwavering in their unwillingness to do the same for any other religious practice. If you are unwilling to even experience a sacramental meal at a Hindu temple, can it not be said that you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of - being unwilling to ever change your mind?

Its as though you've found a great pizza place and have decided its the best. You are so sure your pizza place is the best, that you won't even try other pizza places. You can judge them as not as good simply by the fact that they do things differently than your pizza place. You want everyone to come try your pizza place, but you won't try any of theirs.

Given what you believe is at stake, why would you not try every pizza place you can in order to find the best?

Quote:

---

Back to the original question that spawned this, how can we not say that it's possible for your burden of proof to be too high so that you'd never change your mind? It's simple probability. It was just a question to put all possibilities forth in the debate, not a slight or insult. I'm not challenging your pride and I gain nothing if you say it's possible.

---

Two posts ago I said:
"Its possible that my own bias and skepticism makes it difficult for me to 'meet God'. But this thread was never about me, nor are any of my arguments. My arguments are all about the 5.5 Billion other people that do not feel the Christian God has communicated to them."

If you think I should amend this statement to say that it may make it IMPOSSIBLE for me to change my mind, then fine. I happily concede. But, I still think this should not be about me. Now that we've done me, do the other 5.5 billion non-Christians.


Also, How would you define 'fulfillment of God's will'?

---

Again, you use metaphor because you don't believe in the spiritual reality of other religions. I do. Thus, immersion is more than eating at a home and doing some reading on my own time of religious texts. You used the exact buffet example I decry - one does not simply sample spiritual realities without being changed, even against one's will. If I practice yoga and do the goddess pose while 'opening' my heart (intentional language on their part because yoga isn't just white upper middle class SAHM stretching), I damn well better know what spirit I'm opening it up to. Considering that's Kali, I'd say it's pretty short-sighted and flippant to simply try it out.

And this is the heart of the matter - you think that someone's belief in something is proportional to that thing's reality. Thus, if you believe Hindu gods are nonexistent, you can eat a little food, do some harmless stretching, and if you like it you keep going because they don't exist. That is, until they do and you're fully into it.

As a Christian I don't think the reality of a thing is predicated on your belief in said thing. Thus spiritual reality exists everywhere so one does not simply try a little of this or that.

This doesn't begin to address your stated idea that one cannot know an absolute truth without knowing everything absolutely. I obviously think it can be found and you don't need to try everything (and no one lives like this, not even you). We all put boundaries on our appetites and restrain our passions because we recognize moral truths where we're at. No one eats every mushroom without accepting wisdom of those before them. What would we think of someone who gratifies every, and I mean every, sexual appetite before deciding which is true? Must one live in every house before choosing one, or forsake believing theirs is the right one? No one lives like this.


God's will is His alone and what He wills is done. Do you foresee this tangent not playing out into a debate of what love and free will are?

AGC said:

---

Again, you use metaphor because you don't believe in the spiritual reality of other religions. I do. Thus, immersion is more than eating at a home and doing some reading on my own time of religious texts. You used the exact buffet example I decry - one does not simply sample spiritual realities without being changed, even against one's will. If I practice yoga and do the goddess pose while 'opening' my heart (intentional language on their part because yoga isn't just white upper middle class SAHM stretching), I damn well better know what spirit I'm opening it up to. Considering that's Kali, I'd say it's pretty short-sighted and flippant to simply try it out.

And this is the heart of the matter - you think that someone's belief in something is proportional to that thing's reality. Thus, if you believe Hindu gods are nonexistent, you can eat a little food, do some harmless stretching, and if you like it you keep going because they don't exist. That is, until they do and you're fully into it.

As a Christian I don't think the reality of a thing is predicated on your belief in said thing. Thus spiritual reality exists everywhere so one does not simply try a little of this or that.

This doesn't begin to address your stated idea that one cannot know an absolute truth without knowing everything absolutely. I obviously think it can be found and you don't need to try everything (and no one lives like this, not even you). We all put boundaries on our appetites and restrain our passions because we recognize moral truths where we're at. No one eats every mushroom without accepting wisdom of those before them. What would we think of someone who gratifies every, and I mean every, sexual appetite before deciding which is true? Must one live in every house before choosing one, or forsake believing theirs is the right one? No one lives like this.

---

I am hopeful that, through a very round about path, we might be converging to being on a similar page.

This part of the thread morphed into a debate about whether I, and people like me, are so biased and skeptical against religion, that it is not possible for God to reach me (us). And I think my response is "Must I live in every house before choosing one?" I've chosen a 'house' without having lived in every house. Meaning. . . that the worldview I've chosen based on my knowledge and experience is one that says that the Christian description of God appears irrational and not descriptive of reality. And I've chosen that despite not having all knowledge and possible experience.

I do not have any problems with the fact that you have not immersed yourself in other religions prior to rejecting those religions. Just as you feel confident that you do not need to open yourself up to Hindu gods in order to be skeptical of them, I too feel confident that I do not need to open myself up to the Christian faith in order to be able to be skeptical of its 'Truth'.

In short, I think you've done a good job describing the path in which I dismiss the charge that "If you just open yourself to God, you'll see that He is real."

For me personally, I would say that I am open to new information or experiences. You may say that I am relatively closed toward experiencing the Christian God, but what obstacle is my potential stubbornness to an all powerful being? If there is an all powerful God that wishes to deliver me a message, I have very little doubt that it could find a way.

Quote:

---

God's will is His alone and what He wills is done. Do you foresee this tangent not playing out into a debate of what love and free will are?

---

I was not specifically going for the love or free will route here. I don't know the practical meaning of your first sentence. I read it as "God is what He is and does what he does" and it feels like tautology.

Where I wanted to go with the God's will question had more to do with my accusation that the Christian description of God is a poor communicator. Whether or not a person accepts God can be said to be a matter of free will. But whether or not a person believes that the Christian God is real is much less a matter of free will. Do you think it is God's will for human beings to acknowledge that He exists? Unless you think that 5.5 Billion people are intentionally lying to themselves, this is not a question of free will. God could reveal himself to everyone on the planet in a grand and undeniable manner and it would not affect our individual free will to accept or reject Him. Instead, it enhances our free will by clarifying our choices.

So again, is it God's will for his presence to be known to ALL of mankind? If the answer is yes, then we might ask for an explanation for why 70% of the population doubt his existence. And if the answer is "what He wills is done", then we might ask for an explanation for why He has chosen to hide himself from 70% of the population.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

AGC said:

---

Again, you use metaphor because you don't believe in the spiritual reality of other religions. I do. Thus, immersion is more than eating at a home and doing some reading on my own time of religious texts. You used the exact buffet example I decry - one does not simply sample spiritual realities without being changed, even against one's will. If I practice yoga and do the goddess pose while 'opening' my heart (intentional language on their part because yoga isn't just white upper middle class SAHM stretching), I damn well better know what spirit I'm opening it up to. Considering that's Kali, I'd say it's pretty short-sighted and flippant to simply try it out.

And this is the heart of the matter - you think that someone's belief in something is proportional to that thing's reality. Thus, if you believe Hindu gods are nonexistent, you can eat a little food, do some harmless stretching, and if you like it you keep going because they don't exist. That is, until they do and you're fully into it.

As a Christian I don't think the reality of a thing is predicated on your belief in said thing. Thus spiritual reality exists everywhere so one does not simply try a little of this or that.

This doesn't begin to address your stated idea that one cannot know an absolute truth without knowing everything absolutely. I obviously think it can be found and you don't need to try everything (and no one lives like this, not even you). We all put boundaries on our appetites and restrain our passions because we recognize moral truths where we're at. No one eats every mushroom without accepting wisdom of those before them. What would we think of someone who gratifies every, and I mean every, sexual appetite before deciding which is true? Must one live in every house before choosing one, or forsake believing theirs is the right one? No one lives like this.

---

I am hopeful that, through a very round about path, we might be converging to being on a similar page.

This part of the thread morphed into a debate about whether I, and people like me, are so biased and skeptical against religion, that it is not possible for God to reach me (us). And I think my response is "Must I live in every house before choosing one?" I've chosen a 'house' without having lived in every house. Meaning. . . that the worldview I've chosen based on my knowledge and experience is one that says that the Christian description of God appears irrational and not descriptive of reality. And I've chosen that despite not having all knowledge and possible experience.

I do not have any problems with the fact that you have not immersed yourself in other religions prior to rejecting those religions. Just as you feel confident that you do not need to open yourself up to Hindu gods in order to be skeptical of them, I too feel confident that I do not need to open myself up to the Christian faith in order to be able to be skeptical of its 'Truth'.

In short, I think you've done a good job describing the path in which I dismiss the charge that "If you just open yourself to God, you'll see that He is real."

For me personally, I would say that I am open to new information or experiences. You may say that I am relatively closed toward experiencing the Christian God, but what obstacle is my potential stubbornness to an all powerful being? If there is an all powerful God that wishes to deliver me a message, I have very little doubt that it could find a way.

Quote:

---

God's will is His alone and what He wills is done. Do you foresee this tangent not playing out into a debate of what love and free will are?

---

I was not specifically going for the love or free will route here. I don't know the practical meaning of your first sentence. I read it as "God is what He is and does what he does" and it feels like tautology.

Where I wanted to go with the God's will question had more to do with my accusation that the Christian description of God is a poor communicator. Whether or not a person accepts God can be said to be a matter of free will. But whether or not a person believes that the Christian God is real is much less a matter of free will. Do you think it is God's will for human beings to acknowledge that He exists? Unless you think that 5.5 Billion people are intentionally lying to themselves, this is not a question of free will. God could reveal himself to everyone on the planet in a grand and undeniable manner and it would not affect our individual free will to accept or reject Him. Instead, it enhances our free will by clarifying our choices.

So again, is it God's will for his presence to be known to ALL of mankind? If the answer is yes, then we might ask for an explanation for why 70% of the population doubt his existence. And if the answer is "what He wills is done", then we might ask for an explanation for why He has chosen to hide himself from 70% of the population.

---

Dunno if I'm entirely with you. People reject messages all the time. You certainly wouldn't be an exception, nor does your rejection reflect on God the way you seem to believe (surely an all powerful God could simply grant me this one secret thing that only I know and can't really articulate fully - which I don't feel an unfair description because I think words fail all of us in these encounters and expressing what they need to be). That is ultimately where you land in all of this based on what you post: it's His obligation to reach you in your way and if you don't perceive it or accept it, well, it's still going to be His fault since He's the all powerful one.

That's not such a logical conclusion as it is avoiding agency in the matter and washing your hands of any action. In this scenario you could deny any and every proof and grant yourself a clean conscience, even if you decided to do so spitefully, say due to a relative's painful death or other life experience. You could decide He must give you a billion dollars. It's hostage taking really, and not all that thoughtful in the end.

AGC said:

---

Dunno if I'm entirely with you. People reject messages all the time. You certainly wouldn't be an exception, nor does your rejection reflect on God the way you seem to believe (surely an all powerful God could simply grant me this one secret thing that only I know and can't really articulate fully - which I don't feel an unfair description because I think words fail all of us in these encounters and expressing what they need to be). That is ultimately where you land in all of this based on what you post: it's His obligation to reach you in your way and if you don't perceive it or accept it, well, it's still going to be His fault since He's the all powerful one.

That's not such a logical conclusion as it is avoiding agency in the matter and washing your hands of any action. In this scenario you could deny any and every proof and grant yourself a clean conscience, even if you decided to do so spitefully, say due to a relative's painful death or other life experience. You could decide He must give you a billion dollars. It's hostage taking really, and not all that thoughtful in the end.

---

And if you are wrong about the Christian God, does everything above not also apply to you? I don't know if you consider any possibility that you are wrong in a meaningful way. Maybe you will respond to this by saying something like "I'm sure that I'm wrong about some specifics about God and there is a lot I don't know or understand." But, sometimes statements like this can be genuine but often times I think that they are a false modesty.

I read your second paragraph as a rejection of the idea that my beliefs and values are honest and sincere. My first reaction to it is "Well, F U too." I'm fine with you disagreeing with me, but I don't know why you go through all this effort discussing this topic with me if you think this little of me.

And yes, If God wishes for us to have a certain message, I believe its on Him to deliver it. And its on us to listen. The problem with listening though, is that when there is nothing to listen to, we all hear what we want to hear.

A father with 10 young children tries to teach his children the rules of the house. So, he tells one child and none of the others. Eventually 2 of the other children adopt the rules and 7 decide that the others are making it up and if Dad wants us to follow certain rules, he could just tell us all. And you chalk this up to the 7 children intentionally disobeyed their father instead of a grossly negligent father that failed to provide remotely clear direction to anyone other than his one 'chosen' son. Do you really feel it is unreasonable for a child to expect clear communication from their father?

Yes, its on the father to communicate. When 70% of your creation does not understand what you want them to understand, then you have failed to communicate. Don't make this about me. I'm only one of 5.5 billion here.