ISRAEL PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

[Fish153]

Redneck--

I truly believe you know the difference between those two verses mentioning "fools". The Proverbs mention what a fool is in many places. It is referring to a person who does "foolish" things.

 

"Hmmm. Let's see, Packers vs. Jets. I'd like to bet my house on the Jets please".

That is an example of a "fool".

 

When the Bible says "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools" it is referring to people doing a "foolish" thing.

 

Saying to someone "You fool!!" for no reason except your own anger and resentment reveals a character bent on evil, and led by it-- that person is on the WRONG ROAD and is in danger. That is calling someone a FOOL for no reason.

 

I think though that you KNEW the difference before you even posted though.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Redneck--

I truly believe you know the difference between those two verses mentioning "fools".

You've demonstrated that many of the things you truly believe are inaccurate.  What I truly believe is that an omniscient god ought to damn well be able to say what he means and mean what he says.  Instead we've got a god who needs the likes of you to explain everything because he couldn't articulate his way out of a sentence fragment with a whole bucket of verbs and nouns.

[Fish153]

No. He doesn’t need me to explain. Most understand fully what he means but some choose to argue with it. Everyone knows the difference between someone doing foolish things, and someone calling someone a “FOOL” out of anger and spite. No one ever had to “explain” that difference to me. I understood the difference immediately.

 

Just as I knew immediately that Jesus telling me to remove my eye if it offended me was not to be taken literally. If someone wants to argue that Jesus did mean it literally they are being “foolish” and they know it.

 

[Fish153]

Redneck—

By the way, you asked if I have ever been a Muslim. No I haven’t. And no, I have never prayed to Qun Am. The Muslim faith acknowledges Jesus was a great teacher and prophet. But Jesus said He was the Son of God. The Muslims say God has no Son, so why don’t they call Jesus a liar? Or deluded? It doesn’t make sense. How can they revere someone who is contradicting their beliefs with His very words?

[walterpthefirst]

49 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

No. He doesn’t need me to explain. Most understand fully what he means but some choose to argue with it. Everyone knows the difference between someone doing foolish things, and someone calling someone a “FOOL” out of anger and spite. No one ever had to “explain” that difference to me. I understood the difference immediately.

 

Just as I knew immediately that Jesus telling me to remove my eye if it offended me was not to be taken literally. If someone wants to argue that Jesus did mean it literally they are being “foolish” and they know it.

 

 

Fish,

 

 

Can please you provide any objective evidence for the claim highlighted above?

 

Or is this something else from inside your head, which you 'know' only by faith?

 

 

Walter.

[Fish153]

Redneck—-

 

This is from several posts back—- but how are you and others coming up with a line of people 200 miles long for the Exodus? You are basing that all on everyone being what? 10 people across shoulder to shoulder? Where did that information come from? I have no proof 2 million people left Egypt— but how do we know what “formation” they were in?

 

Do you like the information because it makes it seem more impossible? What if they left en masse? I really ask this seriously because it seems a lot of arguments are based on some “supposition” someone has made— and it has been accepted because it “fits” your argument of the impossibility of such a large group of people leaving Egypt.

 

Again, I can’t prove otherwise either, and fully admit that “The Exodus” has never been proven archaeologically. BUT, what proof does anyone have that they would HAVE TO be in a line 200 miles long? I’m just wondering what factual evidence has been presented to prove this.  Thanks.

[Fish153]

Walter—-

 

Easy. A ”fool” in Proverbs is someone who does something “foolish”.  “A fool and his money are soon parted” for example. But when Jesus says not to call someone a fool he uses “Raca” which means “worthless”. To yell “FOOL!” at someone is basically to say “you worthless bastard!”(Raca).

 

When God calls someone a fool He is not cursing at them with emnity. He is stating they are acting “foolishly”. “The fool has said in his heart there is no God” (Psalm 14:1). God is saying they are arriving at their conclusion in a foolish manner.

 

There is a huge difference between telling someone they are acting foolishly (for instance, warning someone about foolish bets) and calling someone a worthless bastard (Raca).  Everyone I have ever talked to has understood this. Jesus is warning us not to curse our brethren in anger because it shows a wicked heart.  Easily understood—- unless you want to make an issue of it, and accuse God of calling people worthless bastards when he says they are acting foolishly. Which of course He is not doing in the least.

 

[Astreja]

2 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Walter—-

 

Easy. A ”fool” in Proverbs is someone who does something “foolish”.

 

You mean, like preaching to a group of Ex-Christians?  

[walterpthefirst]

12 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Walter—-

 

Easy. A ”fool” in Proverbs is someone who does something “foolish”.  “A fool and his money are soon parted” for example. But when Jesus says not to call someone a fool he says uses “Raca” which means “worthless”. To yell “FOOL!” at someone is basically to say “you worthless bastard!”(Raca).

 

When God calls someone a fool He is not cursing at them with emnity. He is stating they are acting “foolishly”. “The fool has said in his heart there is no God” (Psalm 14:1). God is saying they are arriving at their conclusion in a foolish manner.

 

There is a huge difference between telling someone they are acting foolishly (for instance, warning someone about foolish bets) and calling someone a worthless bastard (Raca).  Everyone I have ever talked to has understood this. Jesus is warning us not to curse our brethren in anger because it shows a wicked heart.  Easily understood—- unless you want to make an issue of it, and accuse God of calling people worthless bastards when he says they are acting foolishly. Which of course He is not doing in the least.

 

 

No, you've misunderstood me completely, Fish.

 

You've just posted YOUR understanding of scripture.

 

That's not what I asked you about.

 

 

I asked you how you know that MOST OTHER PEOPLE fully understand what God means.

 

To know that you would have you know what's in their minds.

 

And you don't and you can't, can you?

 

 

So, your claim to know that most people fully understand what God means originates, not from them, but from you.

 

Which is why I asked you if this another thing that you 'know' by faith.

 

 

Do you see where you've tripped up?

 

And would you now like to retract your claim about knowing what other people know and understand about God?

 

Hmmm... ?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

42 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Redneck—-

 

This is from several posts back—- but how are you and others coming up with a line of people 200 miles long for the Exodus? You are basing that all on everyone being what? 10 people across shoulder to shoulder? Where did that information come from? I have no proof 2 million people left Egypt— but how do we know what “formation” they were in?

 

Do you like the information because it makes it seem more impossible? What if they left en masse? I really ask this seriously because it seems a lot of arguments are based on some “supposition” someone has made— and it has been accepted because it “fits” your argument of the impossibility of such a large group of people leaving Egypt.

 

Again, I can’t prove otherwise either, and fully admit that “The Exodus” has never been proven archaeologically. BUT, what proof does anyone have that they would HAVE TO be in a line 200 miles long? I’m just wondering what factual evidence has been presented to prove this.  Thanks.

 

That's something of a double standard on your part, isn't it Fish?

 

You happily make faith-based claims (from inside your head) that are unsupported by objective (factual) evidence.

 

But you'll ask us for objective evidence when it suits you.

 

Shouldn't you put your own house in order first?

 

By stopping the faith-based claims and by starting to present objective evidence when asked for it? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Fish153 said:

By the way, you asked if I have ever been a Muslim. No I haven’t. And no, I have never prayed to Qun Am.

So then you have no idea what the Muslim experiences when he senses the spirit of Allah upon him.  You have no idea what the Buddhist feels when she meditates and reflects upon the everlasting compassion of Quan Am.  Because you have only your own experience. 

 

So, to recap: you believe in a god you can not even establish actually exists, based on what is written in a holy book you can not establish is actually reliable,  even concerning the very god it purports to illuminate; and you have nothing more to support the veracity of your own claims but your own experience.  None of this qualifies you to speak to the truth or falsehood of anybody else's god.  

 

Now, you go right on ahead and believe whatever the hell helps you sleep at night.  But go into it knowing that you believe it simply because you believe it.  You don't believe it because it is true; you believe it because you want it to be true.  But, at the end of the day, you believe. 

 

You don't know a god damn thing. 

 

You don't know a god damn thing about anybody else's god.  You don't even know a god damn thing about your own god.  What information you have comes from an unreliable source and is filtered through an equally unreliable experience.  You don't know a god damn thing about anybody else's religion, having experienced nothing but your own personal version of christianity. 

 

You simply don't know a god damn thing, however hard you might hope, guess, prayer, wonder, and wish you did.  You believe.  And nobody else is under any obligation to agree with you.  That is the end of it. 

 

It's time you bring a little more honesty and humility into these discussions. 

 

Have a good day, 

John

[Fish153]

Astreja—-

I am catching up on what people have posted. No— I did not grow up in a “Christian” household. The only person who even talked about God was my Grandmother. She would pray Psalm 23 before she went to sleep. When she said “the Lord is my Shepherd..” I pictured a German Shepherd in my mind, because I didn’t know what a Shepherd was.  This was when I was younger.

 

But even when I was 16 a friend mentioned Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and I asked “who are they?” He was a Mormon and looked at me in amazement that I didn’t  know the Gospels.

 

So what I am saying is I was extremely ignorant about the Bible and Jesus growing up. I gave a kind of testimony in another post before, but I could share more if you want. When I was 17 a change took place in me that I can only call miraculous. And I have never been the same since.  Of course, people on this board call it “a set of coincidences that led to an emotional experience”(or wording to that effect). But I know better. I was alone in my room— just me and the gospel of John.

 

There was no altar call, no emotional music, no other people to encourage me into emotionalism, and no one praying for me. I was “born-again by the Word of God..” That day is engrained in me SO deeply that it is impossible to deny. Despite attempts to call it some “emotional delusion” I know beyond a doubt that the Holy Spirit entered my Heart.

 

No— I have no “facts” to prove this, and much of it is purely subjective. But I know what happened, and 49 years later I still know it was REAL. Can I prove to you it was real? No—- I can’t. All I can really say is what the blind man in the Temple told the Pharisees “Once I was blind, but now I see”.

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 minute ago, Fish153 said:

Astreja—-

I am catching up on what people have posted. No— I did not grow up in a “Christian” household. The only person who even talked about God was my Grandmother. She would pray Psalm 23 before she went to sleep. When she said “the Lord is my Shepherd..” I pictured a German Shepherd in my mind, because I didn’t know what a Shepherd was.  This was when I was younger.

 

But even when I was 16 a friend mentioned Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and I asked “who are they?” He was a Mormon and looked at me in amazement that I didn’t  know the Gospels.

 

So what I am saying is I was extremely ignorant about the Bible and Jesus growing up. I gave a kind of testimony in another post before, but I could share more if you want. When I was 17 a change took place in me that I can only call miraculous. And I have never been the same since.  Of course, people on this board call it “a set of coincidences that led to an emotional experience”(or wording to that effect). But I know better. I was alone in my room— just me and the gospel of John.

 

There was no altar call, no emotional music, no other people to encourage me into emotionalism, and no one praying for me. I was “born-again by the Word of God..” That day is engrained in me SO deeply that it is impossible to deny. Despite attempts to call it some “emotional delusion” I know beyond a doubt that the Holy Spirit entered my Heart.

 

No— I have no “facts” to prove this, and much of it is purely subjective. But I know what happened, and 49 years later I still know it was REAL. Can I prove to you it was real? No—- I can’t. All I can really say is what the blind man in the Temple told the Pharisees “Once I was blind, but now I see”.

 

 

What happens inside your head is of no interest to us, Fish.

 

We do not accept any claims originating only from within your mind because you have no way of supporting these claims with anything outside of yourself.

 

You could be telling us the truth or you could be lying - we have no objective and factual way of knowing.

 

This is not a judgment of your character but an acknowledgment of two things.

 

First, we are all fallible human beings and are liable to be mistaken, even about things we think we are sure of.

 

Secondly, nobody can know for sure what's in the mind of another person.

 

Therefore, what you claim to know as real cuts no ice with us.

 

Objective evidence or it didn't happen. 

 

[Fish153]

John—-

 

I will repeat what I said in an earlier post. I do not have exact numbers— however what I am stating is true: Far, far more Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Sikhs become Born-again believers each month than Born-again believers who turn back to become Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or Sikhs. In fact, MOST born-again believers Deconvert— they do not become Muslims, etc.

 

Why do so many Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs become Born-again Christians? Because they find their religion to be empty, and headed by a “God” who doesn’t love them. Almost every Muslim or Hindu that I have heard testimony from says it was “love” that drew them to Christ. Many Muslims are coming to faith in Christ in India and Pakistan right now.

 

Hinduism is responsible for the “caste” system in India. They believe that the “untouchables” have reincarnated into their lives due to past evil. The Brahmins have exalted status— they did good things in their past life. It is a system of great evil, consigning thousands and thousands to “untouchable” status. When these people hear that Jesus loves them as they are and ACCEPTS them they are overjoyed and run to Christ.

 

You are greatly mistaken John— if those religions are so wonderful why do so many convert to Christianity? As I stated, once you have tasted REAL DARK CHOCOLATE you cannot turn to a substitute to replace it. That is why most Born-again Christians remain Christians, and so few convert to other religions after being Born-again.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Fish153 said:

I will repeat

Yes.  That seems to be one of the few tricks you have. 

 

The rest of your post is irrelevant as it is mere assertion and speculation which does not prove a god damn thing about the truth or veracity of your beliefs.  At best, it does little more than support the claim that certain people like your religion more than their own--a claim which is not yet even under dispute.

 

Try to understand what my previous post was saying to you, instead of focusing everything through the lense of it being said against your religion.  

[Astreja]

32 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Astreja—-

I am catching up on what people have posted. No— I did not grow up in a “Christian” household. The only person who even talked about God was my Grandmother. She would pray Psalm 23 before she went to sleep. When she said “the Lord is my Shepherd..” I pictured a German Shepherd in my mind, because I didn’t know what a Shepherd was.  This was when I was younger.

 

But even when I was 16 a friend mentioned Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and I asked “who are they?” He was a Mormon and looked at me in amazement that I didn’t  know the Gospels.

 

So what I am saying is I was extremely ignorant about the Bible and Jesus growing up.

 

Interesting.  Apparently I had more experience than you with the Bible, and 10 years earlier (I was familiar with all the major story arcs by the time I was seven).  No one told me to read it; I found it in a bookcase and read it on my own because I was always looking for more reading material.  I actually found out about death by reading an article in a child-development paperback that was entitled "How to tell your child about death."

 

No members of my family professed any notable religious faith, although my mother once went to an Easter Sunday service.  No family prayers, and nothing that I ever perceived as a wholehearted belief in a god or gods.

 

It came as a bit of a shock to me when I realized that a lot of my elementary school classmates believed the Bible stories.  I just didn't get it.  I think I was about seven or eight when I mentioned to the older brother of the boy next door that the hell story would be a good way for governments to control people - the idea of a hell actually existing, though, was too mind-bogglingly weird for my tastes.

 

And that's why every attempt to proselytize me simply bounces off without making a dent.

[Fish153]

Walter—

 

Sorry to to argue with you but I think what happens in my head DOES interest you, or you wouldn’t continue to post in this thread. You see, none of the deconverts here can give you “objective evidence” for their deconversions either.

 

They share their emotional experiences, facing the fact that they don’t believe. They speak of inner suffering and realization (purely subjective) that they don’t believe the Bible any more. But if one could TRULY,factually, disprove the Bible there would be no board here. But much of the reason to not believe the Bible here is subjective, not factual at all. You expect me to prove things when you REALLY CANNOT disprove them either.

 

There is no way you can prove Jesus is NOT in Heaven right now, any more than I can prove He IS there. And you know this. Sure, you can scoff, and say it is absurd— but you REALLY don’t know for sure if He is there or not.  One of the people on this very board mentioned how deconverts still struggle with concepts like hell that they were “brainwashed” with—- but can you PROVE no future hell exists? Just because you say it is absurd and stupid doesn’t remove it if it IS real.

 

So again, I think that what is in my head DOES interest you. “How can he continue to believe in that crap?!!?” you might ask. And others may secretly be looking for reassurance that their deconversion was the right thing to do. “What if it all winds up being true in the end, and I rejected salvation?” One might ask.

 

If you weren’t interested you’d head to another area of the board. If I was on a board and some dude was going on and on about his adventures with Easter Bunny I would head to a different thread. Why? Because I know for sure there is no Easter Bunny. If you were SURE there was no Jesus you would write me off and go to another area of the Board. But you know what I think? Despite your posts you really aren’t 100% sure Jesus doesn’t exist. You say it’s all a myth— yet if you truly believed it was all a myth you wouldn’t even debate it. Just like me with the dude thinking he’s talked to the Easter Bunny. I’m not going to debate him because I am 100% sure there is no Easter Bunny. It would be useless to debate with him.

 

 

 

[Astreja]

Methinks the Fish doth protest too much.  One of the most egregious cases of special pleading I've seen in a long time - makes excuses for every belief except his own.

 

Perhaps we can never know something with 100% certainty, but as things currently stand I believe with 100% certainty that hell is fictional, Jesus did not come back from the dead, and nothing awaits us after our deaths.  And those perspectives inform how I perceive and act in the world.

[Fish153]

Astreja—

 

So you are not a deconvert? I didn’t realize that. Are you saying you have just never believed? You weren’t a believer who then deconverted? Sorry for my ignorance— perhaps you stated that and I read right past it. Can you clarify? Thanks.

[Fish153]

Astreja—

 

Are you sure that you are 100% sure those things don’t exist? You’re not believing in them doesn’t remove the fact they exist— if they do. Your not believing in them  doesn’t erase them. This is a super bad example but I can believe 100% that the IRS will never come after me, but that doesn’t make the IRS non-existent.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I won't speak directly for anybody else here, @Fish153; but I doubt anyone here really cares what goes on inside your head.  Most of us are here because we understand what it was like to wrestle with the contradictions, obfuscations, and outright lies of the christian religion.  But we also know that there are many others here, lurking around, who are still struggling--questioning the validity of their beliefs, the reliability of their scripture, the "truth" of their god. 

 

We are not here for you.  We are here for them.

 

I doubt any of the members here really even care that you believe the Easter Bunny was nailed to a basket because of your sins, but hatched again from an egg on the third day and lives forevermore.  I certainly don't.  But we do care to present our counter-arguments to your claims, so that those lurkers who come here seeking will see just how spurious and downright ignorant your claims are.  

 

Again, you're free to believe whatever you'd like about our motivations for offering you our efforts, time, and counter-arguments; but now you know the truth.

[Astreja]

29 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Astreja—

 

So you are not a deconvert? I didn’t realize that. Are you saying you have just never believed?

 

That is correct - despite the fact that I had unfettered access to the Christian message from a very early age, I never believed.  It has always been just a story to me.

[Astreja]

24 minutes ago, Fish153 said:

Astreja—

 

Are you sure that you are 100% sure those things don’t exist? You’re not believing in them doesn’t remove the fact they exist— if they do. Your not believing in them  doesn’t erase them. This is a super bad example but I can believe 100% that the IRS will never come after me, but that doesn’t make the IRS non-existent.

 

I am sure enough for my own satisfaction.  My knowledge may be < 100%, but my belief and behaviours are solid.  I consider the hell myth to be a human construction, deliberately formulated to frighten people into subservience, and it is incapable of frightening me in any way.

 

But if someone attempts to use that myth against me, it creates an extremely negative impression of that person in my mind.  They're either scared and gullible, or smug and abusive, but definitely not someone I want to know better.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 hours ago, Fish153 said:

No. He doesn’t need me to explain.

Then why are you here explaining?  If he is capable of explaining it himself, let him do so.  

[midniterider]

1 hour ago, Fish153 said:

Astreja—

 

Are you sure that you are 100% sure those things don’t exist? You’re not believing in them doesn’t remove the fact they exist— if they do. Your not believing in them  doesn’t erase them. This is a super bad example but I can believe 100% that the IRS will never come after me, but that doesn’t make the IRS non-existent.

 

Not believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster doesn't remove the fact he exists.