A Christian with a question/concern

[TEG]

14 minutes ago, Weezer said:

These "conversations" with Christians always seem to follow a similar path.  They come here to "talk", but it winds up in them trying to save us, and it all comes to a dead end.  

 

“I just have a question . . . .” 

 

Of all the sermon texts he could have chosen, I can’t believe he picked a comic book.  How likely is it that ANYONE here considers Jonah anything more than a fairy tale?  That in itself is evidence of impaired judgment.

[older]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

These "conversations" with Christians always seem to follow a similar path.  They come here to "talk", but it winds up in them trying to save us, and it all comes to a dead end.  

   

Yeah. I've looked for an emoji that would symbolize a conversation that is going around in circles, but I don't see one. But that looks like where we are. 

[TEG]

[WalterP]

Hello again LmtO. 

 

It occurred to me that there are a number of options you might like to consider about the three  truth claims you made.

 

1.  Basically letting him (JoshPantera) know that my belief in God is not just an assumed belief.  

2.  There is enough combined evidence in my life to point to Him being real.  

3.  God is established as real and part of the world.

 

You could modify your claims to make it clear that they aren't objective, but are entirely subjective.  

You could modify your claims to make it clear that your God and the Muslim god are one and the same.  

Or you could retract your claims altogether.

 

Doing any one of these things would remove the need for JoshPantera to decide between your Christian truth claims and the identical Muslim ones.

 

Food for thought, ok LmtO?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Lost_more_then_Once]

To @Joshpantera

 

I see where your coming from and there are a lot of things a person can get from a perspective of the outside looking in.  However on this I still hold my same stance.  It's better to get something from the source then it is looking at it from an outsiders view.  Think of it like this.  On the point of confirmation bias to believe without question, there is an opposite stance of of suspicion and doubt as it's own bias.  I've heard Christians not understanding another perspective just fill in the blanks, or make assumptions based on the perspective being friends m a bad person (or they know it all to well, but misrepresent it without meaning to..  I've seen the same thing regarding Christian perspectives as told by a non-Christian.  I see in in politics too, when one party describes what the other party stands for.  (And not only gets it wrong, they get it exaggeratedly wrong).  

 

On the one hand being suspicious and overly critical is a point of caution towards a stranger and those who live by a different set of standards then you do.  It's good for your own well being to have at least some caution in those cases.  On the other hand though, being cautious is the only positive aspect to being suspicious and saying what's really going on from an outsiders's view.  It's not that reliable for information.

 

Having both information from an insider looking at their own beliefs as well as an outsider observing them, would be better still then just one or the other.  If anyone here wants to discuss their own beliefs, that'd be fine.

 

On February 5, 2020 at 9:59 PM, Joshpantera said:

We've given you ample direction and links to studies that detail it's pagan origins

 

 And you guys have also asked me about my beliefs, (I assume as a starting point to get me to question my beliefs).  I am not a quick changer when it comes to my beliefs.  Give me information and I'll consider it and consider it's merit or value.  But we live in a world where information is rarely accurate, but instead more often then not has an agenda behind it.  Even scientific studies paid for by those with an invested interest for one answer over another get the information that sought to be published.  Considering the merit of a claim takes time.  Some of it gets rejected right away, other times things get categorized as "possible" and stay in that category for a long time.  As for the pagan origins idea, I don't buy it.

 

When considering established truths you consider my observation to just be speculation and opinion.  Let me ask, how many observations does it take to establish anything?  With a bee sting, it comes and goes.  After it's healed there's nothing there to observe that it ever happened. The same is true with any other event and observation in life.  I'll say it again, I know God is real.  You don't have to believe me or agree with me.  But that is not a stance that is going to change based only on trying to spread seeds of doubt.  Give an alternative foundation (doubt holds no foundation so doesn't count) to way an alternative view by.  But if it comes down to trying to convince me to doubt and offer no other alternative foundation to build of of, and I'll pass. We can just agree to disagree.

[Lost_more_then_Once]

To @WalterP

 

If you give a hypothetical, in my opinion it holds less weight then if you hold an actual case study.  The reason is because the hypothetical gets to make up the situation and the details as you see fit.  There's no reason to give it any credit or to consider the details of it deeply.  Yet hypotheticals are usually asked in a determined "you need to answer this" kind of tone.  I would rather there was an actual example instead of a hypothetical but I'll try to answer the hypothetical anyways.

 

(The hypothetical situation is that a Christian and a Muslim say the identical claim that God did something in their life.  The question being which one did God  actually do something so you know which god to follow).

 

Just for reference WalterP, earlier I said that God answered (or at least responded) to my prayers before I was Christian.  With this in mind I think it's very possible for God to act in anyone's lives, whether they believe correctly or not.  More then that though if a Muslim and I both said what God did in our lives I would say to believe them both, because at that point neither is making the claim of Christianity or Islam being the correct religion, only that God acted.  Since both Muslim and Christian say they believe in the same God, this hypothetical doesn't have to be an either or answer.

 

I would go farther then this though in the hypothetical.  Instead of Muslim who says they believe in the same God Christians do, let's say it was between a Christian and a Hindu.  These two have different beliefs about different gods.  Yet if they say they had an experience with God, even then both could be correct, because God doesn't act only if you believe correctly.  The Hindu would assume the Christian's experience was true but explain where it came from differently.  The same would occur with the Christian saying the Hindu's experience is true, but explain that the experience came from God instead of the pantheon of gods in Hindism.

 

If you want to compare religions you have to look at their beliefs and the texts of their books, not just their experiences.

 

My observations are not subjective.  They are observations.  

[Lost_more_then_Once]

To @older

 

Christians live by their convictions, as does everyone else.  When you say that Christians should not force their beliefs through legislature and social pressure, I have to ask, where should a Christian drop off their faith.  Where do you draw the line?  In my opinion everyone should have their convections shown throughout their lives.  There shouldn't be a person who says they believe one thing in private, but later in the business world, or in the political world they live by a different set of rules.  There should be no line to say I am __________ religion, but only on my days off.  Likewise if your convictions say to stand in favor for more open immigration policies, or even to have a home that is hospitable and welcome, should your views and compassion be cut off when in the presence of others?  Or if a person has the opposite convictions and say that we need to reduce the amount of immigration, and fix our own problems at home before trying to save someone else; should that person be silent about it in front of others?  Global warming causes have done the same to the degree that people try to force companies and nations to correct themselves.  Even to do this without their choice in the matter.  Is that conviction also over the line?  In some cases I would say it is to try and subvert another nation's authority in their own country, but in many other cases like regulations to reduce pollution and have companies responsible for dumping their waste is a very good thing.

 

As for violence.  Anyone who starts violence, regardless of their convections, should be held accountable.  Any group that has more of it's members act in violence should be viewed with the same light of watchful caution or even (arguably) proactively banning that group due to the trouble that is frequently caused.  I can see this type of rule being in effect at a school or at a business, that they ban gang colors in their buildings.  From both staff, costumers/students, or any other guests.  I don't quite agree with that logic on an immigration banning scale, but I get the logic nonetheless.  Violence should not be tolerated.

[LogicalFallacy]

2 minutes ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

My observations are not subjective.  They are observations.  

 

How does this follow? Sure you have observations, but they are still subjective based on you, unless you've found a way that they can be objective. (Terms we might want to define to avoid confusion)

 

[Lost_more_then_Once]

To @midniterider

 

I honestly think the local government buildings should reflect the communities that they are in.  With that in mind, if a community had a large enough presence in it that were scientologist or Muslim,  and they wanted to erect some monument to that belief then they should be able to do that.  Even on a government property.  I like the idea of a government by the people for the people, instead of a population propped up by the government, or only for a government.  Usually something is off when a government says what people are allowed to believe (usually politically), and how they are allowed to show it (like if they are allowed to show any disagreement to the government.).  Think of China's government's reaction to it's own people.  Though China might be an extreme example, I think that if you have enough of a population in your community to support and vote on decorations that align with their traditions and beliefs, then in that local area their culture and beliefs should be able to be readily seen even in government buildings.

 

"The God of bits and scraps?"  Is that a philosophy to ignore somethings you've seen, because they were smaller?  If your spouse shows an act of kindness, or an outburst of anger, should those be ignored because it was a small act?  Should it be ignored even if it was a large deal but was infrequent?  I don't buy it unless there's a contrast with it. If you are being abused or always getting into fights, then the tidbit of a good moment might tide you over showing the other person is trying.  But if that isn't enough and the fights or the abuse persists then the tidbits philosophy of it's not important can be given merit.  In any other kind of relationship what doesn't have the negative and abusive elements in it then disregarding the small moments is a horrible idea.  

 

I am glad that God is there in the small matters.  It helps build faith to let Him be there in the larger matters of life as well.

 

"Fun to debate and debunk."

 

Fun for whom?  If I say something I get told not to preach, (even though it was in reply to a challenge of my perspectives, and I answered it).  Perhaps I should move away from telling about myself and my beliefs and instead ask things about your guy's theology of doubt, or the perspectives of the things you actually believe and hold as true.  I think that would turn out better, because I trust that I won't be hypocritical in my comments, and I can try to be respectful.

 

Your next comment about how Christian talks are untrustworthy go right into this point.  Why  not tell about your own beliefs and convictions.  If you think my views haven't been tried and on trial for your guys' challenges, then look at this conversation again.  I think you missed the whole thing.  But my point on your guys' need to be challenged was more on your reactions then on your views.  Just my observation.  Disagree with me if you want, but I'm not wrong on that one.

[Lost_more_then_Once]

To @Myrkhoos

 

If someone thinks I have a heretical stance, I'd like for them to tell me.  I might not change, but if the criticism holds merit in their complaint I'd want to at least be aware of it.  Nonetheless, your beliefs are not about a popularity contest of how many people agree with you.  If they are then I have to ask if that person really believe in them or not.  

 

For example:  The bible says in it's laws to Israel to treat the foreigner as you do a native.  This goes on to be built on the core value to love your neighbor, but when involved in politics it also has an influence (at least in my opinion) on immigration legislation.  There should be some kind of vetting process, that I'll acknowledge in the world we live in today.  In general though we should have a welcoming environment because we were immigrants when we came to our country.  I doubt this is a belief that everyone else holds, but if I only hold it if everyone else holds it, then it's not really my belief is it?

 

Regarding the Trinity, I don't have much to say about it.  It's not that I disbelieve in it as a concept, but neither am I convinced that it is the truth.  On that note I'm sure some people would call my thoughts heretical.  But while the Trinity might be a close enough concept to the truth, because if you have God, Jesus, or the Holy Spirit, then you'll have the other two right there too.  Humanly speaking I don't think we can draw a line for what is from God , from Jesus, or from the Holy Spirit.  Nor do I think there's much to say where one of them ends and the others begin as their own person.  Therefore I don't disagree with the concept entirely.  However, there are distinctions that Jesus makes between Himself, God, and the Holy Spirit.

 

As for the councils in church history, my understanding of it is that most of those occurred when there was a challenge in the faith.  Things that were splitting people apart, or where wrong teaching were getting in.  So the councils meet and discuss what are the foundations of Christianity in light of the challenges being faced at the time.  I think certain creeds were made in those councils to be a foundation to people's beliefs.  

 

Why do I trust my interpretation over that of someone else's?  Because I've looked into it.  My beliefs and convictions are important to me so I put the time and effort to consider them.  If someone else has a different interpretation on things then I do, then I'd be willing to listen to them and see if there's anything I can learn or be aware of.  But that does not mean either of us will walk away agreeing with each other.

 

Why don't I trust Mohamed's version of Jesus?  Because Islam breaks away from trust and faith in God on too many levels to hold it as reliable and stable.  In Islam they make great efforts to preserve their texts of the Quran instead of trusting God to protect His words through out the translating processes.  In Islam it corrects things in the Jewish texts of the Old Testament, as well as things in the New Testament.  Where as in the New Testament, Jesus built off of the foundation of the Old Testament.  Over and over again I see a lack of trust in God and in God being sovereign through the beliefs and behaviors of Islam.  In the bible it says to let vengeance be God's and to not act out of vengeance ourself.  Yet in Islam, they do not trust God to handle the matter, and instead take everything into their own hands.  The scope of violence of Muslim against Muslim should be enough to see the error of this, while at the same time saying that God is merciful and the religion is a religion of peace.  Something is off on their beliefs.

 

As for Gregorios Palama. What did he say about the monks, or what did he say in general.  Sorry for not looking into it myself, it sounds interesting and has tapped my courousity,  but everyone is trying to get me to look at their books, or links or other sources of information.  I won't look at all of them.  Surely you all can understand that the time I have is not just for the doubts offered towards my faith.  If you can help with a description of what he said that would be easier on my end.

 

I hope I've answered your questions, if I missed some let me know.  

 

Regarding studies on experiences, I would love to see that kind of study done.  There is already so much information out there to say that our experiences are unreliable, so there's the risk such studies will follow the same trend just to continue on that established and overly embellished line of thought.  But on the other hand there are so many experiences that I think should be studied.  There are the strange things like dej vu, dreams, past life memories.  Then there are practical things like handling stress, overcoming hardships, and enjoying the things you love (or finding things to enjoy).  And finally there are the common things we can learn from and teach about the best way, or to avoid the pit falls.  Things like rebound relationships, getting out of a bad habit or starting a new habit.

 

Have a good day to you too.

[Lost_more_then_Once]

To @TruthSeeker0

 

I've come across a few people who've said that their faith ended their depression, or ended their alcohol addiction.  That isn't my story but it does happen.  I can say that when focusing on God more and reading the bible, that has helped me against having a short fuse, and reduced the strength of my temptations each day.  That said I've had depression to a small degree and at times at a larger degree in my life.  I don't think anyone can say how your faith can or will affect you.  You can't standard what God will do in one person's life as how He will act in another person's life.

 

To @SerenelyBlue.

 

What do you mean by seeing God in HD?  Feeling something from God is only one type of experience.  I have other types experiences as well.  But in the end if you are justified to know that God is real through the bigger examples in your life, then you are justified to look at all the situations that God has been there, including the feeling types of experience.

 

To @ficino.

 

When I say something is a religious experience I am doing more then just slipping in a claim for God.  I am acknowledging that God exists, and slipping in a claim to the person's religion.  As for the burden of proof, I disagree with the idea of a burden is placed on anyone except the person who is invested in seeking if there is truth or merit behind it.  The burden is not on a Christian sharing their faith, nor on a Hindu or a Buddhist sharing their faiths.  If what a person says is important enough for you to consider, then the burden is on you.  If it's not important enough for you to consider it and look into it then, then that isn't some extra weight someone else should carry for you.

 

The philosophy of burden of proof has become a philosophy of laziness to not look into a matter on your own.  Since most of you say you've looked into the matter of your beliefs on your own and have stopped being Christianity because of that, I don't think any of you should hold on to a lazy philosophy that demands others to do the search for you.

 

My evidence is from my own search.  Yours should be from your own investigation.  Unless it's not worth looking into.  Then don't.

 

To @TEG.  

 

Isn't that the same as the disbeliever's fallacy? Where an atheist is convinced there is no God so you must be convinced too?  Look I don't think anyone should restrict their views of the world because someone else disagrees with them.  

[Lost_more_then_Once]

17 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

How does this follow? Sure you have observations, but they are still subjective based on you, unless you've found a way that they can be objective. (Terms we might want to define to avoid confusion)

 

 

 

I think I've stretched my limit for being under interrogation.  @LogicalFallacy, you use to be Christian and now you're not.  What are your foundational perspectives now?  Are they spiritual, political, practical?  Or if you want I can get the ball rolling with a philosophical like question.  (I have a few mostly as icebreakers not as much as a need for philosophical study).

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@Lost_more_then_Once, do you hate your father and mother; or do you honor them?

[TruthSeeker0]

2 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

To @WalterP

 

If you give a hypothetical, in my opinion it holds less weight then if you hold an actual case study.  The reason is because the hypothetical gets to make up the situation and the details as you see fit.  There's no reason to give it any credit or to consider the details of it deeply.  Yet hypotheticals are usually asked in a determined "you need to answer this" kind of tone.  I would rather there was an actual example instead of a hypothetical but I'll try to answer the hypothetical anyways.

 

(The hypothetical situation is that a Christian and a Muslim say the identical claim that God did something in their life.  The question being which one did God  actually do something so you know which god to follow).

 

Just for reference WalterP, earlier I said that God answered (or at least responded) to my prayers before I was Christian.  With this in mind I think it's very possible for God to act in anyone's lives, whether they believe correctly or not.  More then that though if a Muslim and I both said what God did in our lives I would say to believe them both, because at that point neither is making the claim of Christianity or Islam being the correct religion, only that God acted.  Since both Muslim and Christian say they believe in the same God, this hypothetical doesn't have to be an either or answer.

 

I would go farther then this though in the hypothetical.  Instead of Muslim who says they believe in the same God Christians do, let's say it was between a Christian and a Hindu.  These two have different beliefs about different gods.  Yet if they say they had an experience with God, even then both could be correct, because God doesn't act only if you believe correctly.  The Hindu would assume the Christian's experience was true but explain where it came from differently.  The same would occur with the Christian saying the Hindu's experience is true, but explain that the experience came from God instead of the pantheon of gods in Hindism.

 

If you want to compare religions you have to look at their beliefs and the texts of their books, not just their experiences.

 

My observations are not subjective.  They are observations.  

You have made observations and interpretations of those observations that are subjective. 

 

sub·jec·tive

/səbˈjektiv/

Learn to pronounce

adjective

1. 1. 

   based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.

   "his views are highly subjective"

    

    

    

    

[LogicalFallacy]

2 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

I think I've stretched my limit for being under interrogation.  @LogicalFallacy, you use to be Christian and now you're not.  What are your foundational perspectives now?  Are they spiritual, political, practical?  Or if you want I can get the ball rolling with a philosophical like question.  (I have a few mostly as icebreakers not as much as a need for philosophical study).

 

If you need to take time to recover from being lambasted with questions then please do so.

 

This is a bit of a side note to the main topic, but I note you failed entirely to even attempt to address the problem I raised.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you have stated that you have made observations which provide evidence for God, and those observations are not subjective?

2 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

My observations are not subjective.  They are observations.  

If my understanding of subjective and objective, and the laws of logic are correct then by saying your observations are not subjective they are therefore objective? At that point I'm wondering how you conclude that your observations are not subjective?

 

For instance we can all agree that it is an objective fact that the bible exists. But when you say that it is the word of God, then that is a subjective opinion. (To demonstrate the difference)

So when you say you have an experience that leads you to believe in God then that is not objective - personal experience is by nature entire subjective.

 

So again given the definitions provided by TS above for subjective, and myself below for objective, how are your observations not subjective?

 

objective

/əbˈdʒɛktɪv/

adjective

adjective: objective

1. 1.

   (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

   "historians try to be objective and impartial"

    

    

[◊ Weezer ◊]

From Star Trek.  "To resist is futile."  

6 hours ago, TEG said:

This is what you get.

[LogicalFallacy]

Ok, back to talking the subject matter - I'll handle this small post fist.

 

On ‎2‎/‎7‎/‎2020 at 1:57 AM, Lost_more_then_Once said:

To LogicalFallacy

 

Looking at the prayers sent up for Loa compared to the experiences ?I gave , you asked which ones would be true.  My answer is simple.  Did you send up prayers to Loa and get a response back?  If so then let's compare those experiences and hear what they were.  If on the other hand it is a hypothetical (as it seems to be the way it's stated) then the answer is even simpler.  My experiences were not hypothetical.  The hypothetical situation is the fake one.

 

To the Loa? No - they were a pure hypothetical situation. I picked them because you are probably unfamiliar with them which helps demonstrate the concept.

 

However I have on occasion prayed to various other better known Gods - Zeus et al, for various things that I used to pray to Jesus for. Helping me find stuff, helping with a life problem, getting better from some sickness. And yes, I would find stuff, find a solution to the problem, and get better. All things Christians report every day. Except whereas they would claim that what happened was a result of praying, I know these are things that occur naturally. So pray to literally anything and you'll get similar results.

 

The bigger problem in your case is that while we both know I'm being a bit factious with praying to old gods, there are people who truly believe, and truly pray to their gods and have the prayers 'answered' You can find quite moving testimonies on youtube of these. The thing is these are not all Christians. so something else is going on, and to me it would seem that either people are attributing natural events to the particular god they prayed to, or a god/s is granting prayers regardless of who they pray to.

 

Back to our individual experiences - there is really only one way to test if something is really happening. That's for you to pray to your God, and me to whatever I like and compare the results. And the result we are looking for cannot be a subjective one. Oh I prayed that I would feel better, kind of rubbish. No, we have to pray for something that is objectively verifiable. Just so happens I have something like that.

 

 My friend is missing fingers due to an accident, as are many people. This is verifiable fact. Now what we could do, is that you pray to your god for one week and see what happens. Then if nothing did happen, I'll pray to whatever for a week and see what happens.

 

I will bet everything I own that in both instances nothing will happen. In fact I'm betting to myself right now that you won't even attempt to take the challenge. No doubt something about prayer not working like that, or not testing god, or some other excuse we've heard before.

 

Why do I pick an amputee? Because unlike subjective things like solving a life problem, finding something ,someone helping you, getting better from [insert sickness], we know for an absolute fact that amputees do not grow back limbs. This is scientifically verifiable, and you and I likely agree on that. Thus if you could pray and those fingers grow back (Or whatever body part for any person) then we would know that something supernatural was happening. It wouldn't be a subjective 'I feel better', but rather the fingers grow back, or they don't.

 

Let me know if you wish to pray for my friends fingers to grow back.

[midniterider]

3 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

To @midniterider

 

I honestly think the local government buildings should reflect the communities that they are in.  With that in mind, if a community had a large enough presence in it that were scientologist or Muslim,  and they wanted to erect some monument to that belief then they should be able to do that.  Even on a government property.  I like the idea of a government by the people for the people, instead of a population propped up by the government, or only for a government.  Usually something is off when a government says what people are allowed to believe (usually politically), and how they are allowed to show it (like if they are allowed to show any disagreement to the government.).  Think of China's government's reaction to it's own people.  Though China might be an extreme example, I think that if you have enough of a population in your community to support and vote on decorations that align with their traditions and beliefs, then in that local area their culture and beliefs should be able to be readily seen even in government buildings.

 

Your tax dollars should pay for a monument to Scientology or Islam? That is one concern that bothers me in that area. I dont want taxes going to 'silly' stuff. Personal opinion.  

 

Uniting people together is a worthy idea and people being able to show what they stand for is good as well. But people are diverse. I'm all for the stars and stripes adorning government places, symbols of America are a fine thing. But even symbols of patriotism can be overdone. Like mandatory Pledge of Allegiance in schools. It's just brainwashing and I doubt too many children take it seriously.

 

 

3 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

 

"The God of bits and scraps?"  Is that a philosophy to ignore somethings you've seen, because they were smaller?  If your spouse shows an act of kindness, or an outburst of anger, should those be ignored because it was a small act?  Should it be ignored even if it was a large deal but was infrequent?  I don't buy it unless there's a contrast with it. If you are being abused or always getting into fights, then the tidbit of a good moment might tide you over showing the other person is trying.  But if that isn't enough and the fights or the abuse persists then the tidbits philosophy of it's not important can be given merit.  In any other kind of relationship what doesn't have the negative and abusive elements in it then disregarding the small moments is a horrible idea.  

 

A positive event happens. It's small. That's fine. Why are you positive that God did it? 

 

I'm not really considering the "importance' or 'non-importance' of an event. I am talking about assigning an author to the event Assigning an author to an event in order to bolster your belief in a God that is absent 100% of the time. What percent of your lifetime have these God moments taken up? 

 

You present a hypothetical situation regarding my wife showing a small act of kindness or outburst of anger...should I really answer that? You dont want to answer the Muslim hypothetical that's been presented to you. So I guess I'll ignore it. (smiles)

 

I'll just say that my spouse shows kindness and anger and other emotions. I get to see them every day. I get to see her every day. She's real and I dont really have a need to try to convince anyone she's real. What is bothersome to me is when someone says, "I believe God is telling me blah blah ...." When it comes to my wife, there's no guessing involved. She appears, she tells me what's on her mind. I dont need to speak on her behalf. God, not so much.

 

 

3 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

 

I am glad that God is there in the small matters.  It helps build faith to let Him be there in the larger matters of life as well.

 

"Fun to debate and debunk."

 

Fun for whom?  If I say something I get told not to preach, (even though it was in reply to a challenge of my perspectives, and I answered it).  Perhaps I should move away from telling about myself and my beliefs and instead ask things about your guy's theology of doubt, or the perspectives of the things you actually believe and hold as true.  I think that would turn out better, because I trust that I won't be hypocritical in my comments, and I can try to be respectful.

 

Your next comment about how Christian talks are untrustworthy go right into this point.  Why  not tell about your own beliefs and convictions.  If you think my views haven't been tried and on trial for your guys' challenges, then look at this conversation again.  I think you missed the whole thing.  But my point on your guys' need to be challenged was more on your reactions then on your views.  Just my observation.  Disagree with me if you want, but I'm not wrong on that one.

 

I'm glad faith works for you. Non-faith works for me. 

 

You can certainly preach here in the Lion's Den. We're just not going to be handing out any amens to you.  

 

My beliefs? I think the universe or multiverse may be conscious and that we may all be of the same substance ... I feel consciousness is primary and gives rise to the material world. See Zen, Advaita, non-dual awareness, Eastern philosophy, quantum mechanics. I am attracted to that stuff. I also have a more than passing interest in pagan goddesses. 

 

I really have no desire to think a certain way, or be told to not have certain thoughts. I dont want a holy book , nor a pastor, nor zealous church people to tell me how to live, nor correct me when I'm stepping outside of their model of Christian thought and behavior. 

 

My yardstick for morality is to not harm other people. If something described in the bible is a sin but harms nobody, then it's absurd to call it a sin, imo. 

[Lost_more_then_Once]

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

If you need to take time to recover from being lambasted with questions then please do so.

 

Does this dialogue look like it's a question?  Though I agree with the observation of being lambasted.

 

8 hours ago, Weezer said:

These "conversations" with Christians always seem to follow a similar path.  They come here to "talk", but it winds up in them trying to save us, and it all comes to a dead end.  

 

7 hours ago, older said:

   

Yeah. I've looked for an emoji that would symbolize a conversation that is going around in circles, but I don't see one. But that looks like where we are. 

 

7 hours ago, TEG said:

 

.... Anyways moving on from what ever "ex-Christian encouragement" this would count as. @LogicalFallacy you asked about subjective versus objective.

 

1 hour ago, LogicalFallacy said:

my understanding of subjective and objective, and the laws of logic are correct then by saying your observations are not subjective they are therefore objective? At that point I'm wondering how you conclude that your observations are not subjective?

 

For instance we can all agree that it is an objective fact that the bible exists. But when you say that it is the word of God, then that is a subjective opinion. (To demonstrate the difference)

So when you say you have an experience that leads you to believe in God then that is not objective - personal experience is by nature entire subjective.

 

So again given the definitions provided by TS above for subjective, and myself below for objective, how are your observations not subjective?

 

objective

/əbˈdʒɛktɪv/

adjective

adjective: objective

1. 1.

   (of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

   "historians try to be objective and impartial"

 

Yet when giving my examples of life experiences, for the most part the reply is to subjectively subvert it.  Interptatng the experiences instead of just acknowledge them.  In that way I don't think you guys are on good footing for having an objective stance.

 

Are you sure you want to continue down this line of thought?  Personally I'd rather find out some things about your guys' views instead of only trying to defend my own perspectives.

 

Here, for an icebreaker question (or a few)

 

•In your opinion which is a better (open ended defination of whatever you count as better), intelect, or humor?

 

•In any given relationship (any kind of relationship, coworkers, friends, romantic, family...). Which is more important?  Trust, or Understanding?

 

•what is one of the most impressive man made thing?  Most impressive thing that isn't man made?

 

answer any of those questions and we can move on to the views that you all hold as your foundations through those kind of friendly conversations.

 

 

[Lost_more_then_Once]

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

Your tax dollars should pay for a monument to Scientology or Islam? That is one concern that bothers me in that area. I dont want taxes going to 'silly' stuff. Personal opinion.  

 

If it was the city's taxes then I think it should be up to that city's decision on how to use it.  Every year where I live there are holiday decorations that the city puts out.  Usually small things designate a holiday season like hearts around Valentine's Day, clovers around Saint Patrick's Day, holloween decorations in October.  But best of all is the grand display of lights around Christmas time.  All of the costs at some point undoubtedly came out of the city taxes.  No reason to say other city decorations and that last in any season like statues, momuments and other items.

 

Personally I wouldn't want to pay for a monument for anything that is connected to Scientology.  But I also think strongly that that decision should be left up for the local city's decision.  If enough people support it, then so be it.

 

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

A positive event happens. It's small. That's fine. Why are you positive that God did it? 

 

As it is with anything, it all comes down to the details.  But it helps if this isn't the only time that God's done something of that nature.

 

1 hour ago, midniterider said:

beliefs? I think the universe or multiverse may be conscious and that we may all be of the same substance ... I feel consciousness is primary and gives rise to the material world. See Zen, Advaita, non-dual awareness, Eastern philosophy, quantum mechanics. I am attracted to that stuff. I also have a more than passing interest in pagan goddesses. 

 

I really have no desire to think a certain way, or be told to not have certain thoughts. I dont want a holy book , nor a pastor, nor zealous church people to tell me how to live, nor correct me when I'm stepping outside of their model of Christian thought and behavior. 

 

My yardstick for morality is to not harm other people. If something described in the bible is a sin but harms nobody, then it's absurd to call it a sin, imo. 

 

The universe is conscience?  I've wondered along the same lines as well.  Where is our conscienceness located within each of us, it isn't in individual cells nor in our organs, yet they are part of who we are.  Could each cell or each organ have it's own conscienceness within itself that acts on it's own within us.  In the same way we could be like that, conscience on our own but without knowing it also being part of something bigger still, like each city, country community and cultural group acts like a single body with it's own sense of the world around it.  Or perhaps conscienceness is not to blame but possibly that our bodies just sometimes work better or worse on their own without explaination, and the same for like minded groups being able to act as one unit in the same cause could be something besides conscienceness, just that people of like minded views would act in a simular way, or an even stranger idea would be that there are spiritual forces that hold some sence of authority and are able to influence or direct the people that are under its jurisdiction.

 

there are several ways of looking at the world, some without conflicting with the others, and the univ rose being conscience is one of them.

 

regarding to not have certian thoughts, let me give a counter point.  It's been noticed by many people that our focus on one thing or another can help or harm a person's ability to move through the world, to behave in a healthy way, and be responsible.  Though I get your point on not being restricted by a religion's stance, I just thought you should still hear and be aware of the counter point.

 

As for not harming another, that's a good measure indeed.  I doubt that's your only one, but I agree that that is a good start.  As for whether sins harm anyone that is sometimes something that requires a bit of wisdom.  I assume it is your stance that there are harmless sins and possibly that sins in general are a bad measure for morals.  (Sorry for putting words in your mouth, that's just the vibe I get).  I won't agree with you entirely on that point, but nor will I argue against it if the main point is to do no harm.

[Lost_more_then_Once]

Those of you interested I have a second thought for you.  Because most of you would answer my thoughts, perspectives even my observations with the tag line "how do you know," I ask what are your thoughts, perspectives, and observations.  I don't ask it as a means to turn the tables, I already know you apply the logic hypocritically, and that is not the focus I care about.  But more so just to know what foundations that you do have.

 

if you want to continue to try and get me to answer a challenge measured to spread doubt, then I first challenge you to put your answers to the topic of doubt in general.  I've started a topic for that just now.  

 

take a gander and give your thoughts on it.  (I won't respect your opinions on this current topic that try to cause doubt until you can at least attempt to breach the topic in the linked conversation on doubt).  Or if you want a less challenging conversation, you can give some of the things you build your thoughts and perspectives off of.  The things you hold reliable.

[LogicalFallacy]

9 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

 

 

I think I've stretched my limit for being under interrogation.  @LogicalFallacy, you use to be Christian and now you're not.  What are your foundational perspectives now?  Are they spiritual, political, practical?  Or if you want I can get the ball rolling with a philosophical like question.  (I have a few mostly as icebreakers not as much as a need for philosophical study).

 

I can rule out spiritual as I see no evidence anything spiritual apart from a colloquial sense where people are actually describing an emotional state rather than some spirit influencing them.

 

I also rule out political as I'm not sure how that can be foundational. 

 

I don't know what you mean by practical, but it is the closest to what I might consider foundational. So when I was a Christian the foundation was God, and faith in God. It was drilled in that we had to have a good foundation built on rock, not sand. That rock was Christ. Sadly it appears that foundation doesn't even exist. 

 

I try and assume at a foundational level as few things as possible so that as many things that I believe as possible are supported by evidence. We were actually talking about these things in this thread: 

 

Such a foundation might look like:

 

Axiom 1: I exist, and am capable of thought.

Axiom 2: There exists a natural world external to me, of which I exist as a part, and which contains many parts other than myself. Some of these other parts are capable of thought, just as I am.

Axiom 3: Things in the natural world have definite properties, and natural processes occur in definite ways. That is to say, there exist certain brute facts about the natural world.

 

You and I probably mostly agree on these, except you want to insert God into your foundation at some point and I don't think that's justified.

 

Does this answer your question or have I misunderstood what you mean by foundational perspectives?

 

5 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

Does this dialogue look like it's a question?  Though I agree with the observation of being lambasted.

 

You're in the lions den son. Bring the armor of God  

 

Quote

.... Anyways moving on from what ever "ex-Christian encouragement" this would count as. @LogicalFallacy you asked about subjective versus objective.

 

Yet when giving my examples of life experiences, for the most part the reply is to subjectively subvert it.  Interptatng the experiences instead of just acknowledge them.  In that way I don't think you guys are on good footing for having an objective stance.

 

Not interpreting, at least on my part, disagreeing with your conclusion that God had anything to do with your experience. I don't deny you had an experience. I don't deny that you prayed and felt extremely awake while driving (If I remember your story from early on). I question your assertion that God had anything to do with it. Have you heard of confirmation bias which is a condition we are all afflicted with? You tend to count the hits and ignore the misses.

 

Quote

Are you sure you want to continue down this line of thought?  Personally I'd rather find out some things about your guys' views instead of only trying to defend my own perspectives.

 

You are the one who popped in talking about how your experience demonstrated God to you. But yeah, I'll give your phsychological test below a shot... it's kind of like those personality tests you get on the internet.

Quote

Here, for an icebreaker question (or a few)

 

•In your opinion which is a better (open ended defination of whatever you count as better), intelect, or humor?

 

Depends on the situation, but more generally intellect. It's probably hard to have decent humor without some intellect behind it.

 

Quote

•In any given relationship (any kind of relationship, coworkers, friends, romantic, family...). Which is more important?  Trust, or Understanding?

 

Trust. A quote I found many years sticks with me:

 

"Learn about trust, how it works and how to build it. If you do it well, other people will give you the earth. If you betray them, they will hunt you to the ends of the earth."

 

Another one is "Trust Is Like A Piece Of Paper, Once It's Crumpled It Can't Be Fixed."

 

Quote

•what is one of the most impressive man made thing?

 

This one is hard. The pyramids stand out. Writing... inventing writing was pretty impressive. Building a flying hydrogen bomb with a capsule strapped to it that took us to the moon and back multiple times is pretty impressive. I don't know if there is one most impressive thing, but I've listed a few that spans the ages.

 

Quote

 Most impressive thing that isn't man made?

 

Life

 

Quote

answer any of those questions and we can move on to the views that you all hold as your foundations through those kind of friendly conversations.

 

I think I've already done the foundational bit above.... 

 

Would you care to do this for you? Answer your own questions? Be an interesting comparison me thinks.

[WalterP]

To @WalterP

 

If you give a hypothetical, in my opinion it holds less weight then if you hold an actual case study.  The reason is because the hypothetical gets to make up the situation and the details as you see fit.  There's no reason to give it any credit or to consider the details of it deeply.  Yet hypotheticals are usually asked in a determined "you need to answer this" kind of tone.  I would rather there was an actual example instead of a hypothetical but I'll try to answer the hypothetical anyways.

 

(The hypothetical situation is that a Christian and a Muslim say the identical claim that God did something in their life.  The question being which one did God  actually do something so you know which god to follow).

 

Just for reference WalterP, earlier I said that God answered (or at least responded) to my prayers before I was Christian.  With this in mind I think it's very possible for God to act in anyone's lives, whether they believe correctly or not.  More then that though if a Muslim and I both said what God did in our lives I would say to believe them both, because at that point neither is making the claim of Christianity or Islam being the correct religion, only that God acted.  Since both Muslim and Christian say they believe in the same God, this hypothetical doesn't have to be an either or answer.

 

I would go farther then this though in the hypothetical.  Instead of Muslim who says they believe in the same God Christians do, let's say it was between a Christian and a Hindu.  These two have different beliefs about different gods.  Yet if they say they had an experience with God, even then both could be correct, because God doesn't act only if you believe correctly.  The Hindu would assume the Christian's experience was true but explain where it came from differently.  The same would occur with the Christian saying the Hindu's experience is true, but explain that the experience came from God instead of the pantheon of gods in Hindism.

 

If you want to compare religions you have to look at their beliefs and the texts of their books, not just their experiences.

 

My observations are not subjective.  They are observations.  

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Thank you for the above reply, LmtO.

 

I would like to respond by making two points, in two separate posts. The first being that you have rephrased the question that I put to you and then answered your rehash of my question - not my question itself.  We can see this by comparing my actual question with the question you substituted it with.  I wrote...

 

On the back of your truth claims I then asked how Josh could choose between your truth claims and identical ones made by a Muslim.  This was my one question to you. 

 

But you rephrased my question like this...

 

(The hypothetical situation is that a Christian and a Muslim say the identical claim that God did something in their life.  The question being which one did God  actually do something so you know which god to follow).

 

The question (my question) concerns only the decision JoshPantera should make on the back of identical truth claims made by a Christian and a Muslim.  I didn't ask anything about which God actually did something.  Nor did I ask about God's ability to work in the lives of believers and unbelievers.  The only point I would like you to address LmtO is the decision that Josh is going to make.  All he has to go on are two sets of identical truth claims, nothing more.  

 

Please answer my question, as it is written.  

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

My second point LmtO concerns the last line of your reply.

 

My observations are not subjective.  They are observations.  

 

I notice that you replied to Wertbag in this thread... https://www.ex-christian.net/topic/82588-bias-against-the-supernatural/ ...discussing the testing of claims.

 

You wrote...

Depends.  How are you testing the claim?  There are surveys and questionnaire that are designed and worded to get a certian response.  Then after they send out the surveys the results come back that most people agreed with the view they are trying to push.

 

If this is the way one kind of sampling test works then there would be scrunity on how tests in general are done.  How you test a claim is important.  If you test a thousand claims with a weighted and compnman's scale, then you will get the results you hope for every time.  It will point to no truth, only to what you want to hear.

 

You ask about how claims should be tested and you affirm that how a claim is tested is important.  So, will you stand by your own words and allow your own truth claims to be tested?  

 

Like this one?  "My observations are not subjective."

 

Please tell me if you are willing to have your truth claims tested in this forum.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

[Joshpantera]

15 hours ago, Lost_more_then_Once said:

When considering established truths you consider my observation to just be speculation and opinion.  Let me ask, how many observations does it take to establish anything?  With a bee sting, it comes and goes.  After it's healed there's nothing there to observe that it ever happened. The same is true with any other event and observation in life.  I'll say it again, I know God is real.  You don't have to believe me or agree with me.  But that is not a stance that is going to change based only on trying to spread seeds of doubt.  Give an alternative foundation (doubt holds no foundation so doesn't count) to way an alternative view by.  But if it comes down to trying to convince me to doubt and offer no other alternative foundation to build of of, and I'll pass. We can just agree to disagree.

 

That isn't what I told you at all. I told you in so many words that I only care about your honesty, not whether you believe or not.

 

The problem is that most christians are being dishonest. Intellectually dishonest. And most don't even realize it. You clearly still don't realize it now, even after I've tried to explain. A subjective experience doesn't reveal the truth of anything, it only reveals a subjective experience. You can choose to believe it. You can refrain from doubting it. But once you start telling others that it's true or absolute, you then become intellectually dishonest. And that's my point. 

 

You don't know whether or not a subjective experience is true. You just think that it's true. You could be entirely wrong. If you're up front about that with people in discussion then that would put you on better footing. The problem is that christians are encouraged by the bible and religious leaders to make these sort of dishonest claims about subjective experiences and opinions. It's not your fault, you're just going along with the bandwagon. Acting like others before you. My point is that they have been dishonest about their presentations. And you also share in that when you choose to further the dishonest approaches that have been taken place historically. 

 

Ellen G White was the founder of Seventh Day Adventism.

 

She was a Millerite, following the preacher William Miller in the 1800's. Miller is a paternal relative of mine. He predicted the 2nd coming a few times and failed, obviously. Along comes EG White after the "Great Disappointment" of 1844. She's a women who had been hit in the head with a rock as a child. People now see signs of her probably suffering frontal lobe epilepsy. But back then, what people saw was a girl who recovered from a brain injury and then started having elaborate visions and other subjective experiences. She was hailed as a modern prophet and the SDA church grew up around her in the wake of 1844. My family went along with this and were SDA all the way back to it's origins.  

 

It turns out that most her "visions" were to do with pictures and illustrations from religious books that were in her personal library. She also apparently plagierized a lot of medical information from books she owned, as if they were visions from god on health, fitness, diet, etc., etc. Now do to the brain injury, I don't know if she just wasn't aware of the fact that she was having visions of things she'd read or seen. As feed back, coming back at her in her own mind. It may not have been malicious, devious, or down right deceptive. But it happened. And to this day there are people who think that everything she wrote was divinely inspired. Oblivious to the surrounding facts and scenarios that strongly point the other direction. 

 

Subjective experiences are ok. I'm not knocking them. 

 

But I'm giving you a warning about how far they can be taken in terms of truth and knowledge claims. You could be honest and admit that you don't know for sure what any subjective experience means. It could mean anything.

 

An honest theist, is an agnostic theist!!!!

 

I know several. It reveals their intelligence to others. They understand the limitations of knowledge and certainty. But prefer to believe anyways. You'd be on much better footing if you so chose to adjust your own position. This is just an FYI to your own benefit in debates and discussions.