Testing The Christian Apologists

Then why was I not a believer for the first 30 years of my life? And why did i walk into a church not expecting anything but being drawn to go? And why did I change after the 3rd time there, despite not even wanting to fit in or hang out with those people? And why to this day do I feel the change? Granted I have a lot of work(s) to do myself, but I wouldn't even want to do them were it not for the impartation of the Holy Spirit. The fact that you never ex[perienced similar things is in my opinion due to your overly rational mind. You simply won't commit to any belief without sufficient evidence. You never would have walked on the water...you would have sunk right away and Jesus would be saying "Ringo, stop trying to find evidence." Either that or He would have shown you Peter first, as an example of Faith and Trust vs Skepticism and overly rational thinking.And since you believe in the value of the message(only due to human consensus) and not the messenger, you likely would have rowed your own boat anyway.
add by edit: Oops, I was addressing ringo. It applies to you also, though Tangle. My apologies.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

No one denies that beliefs are possible.How many times have I said that my beliefs are irrational? Again, as I have pointed out to you several times in this thread I do not dismiss R.C. Sproul based on preconceived notions but rather on the utter absurd stuff he markets like the R.C. Sproul quotes in your signature. It is a dismissal based on the evidence of what he writes. Again and yet again. Do you ever actually read ANYTHING.How many times have I asked what a living Christ even means or what an active Holy Spirit even means? How many times have I failed to get an answer to either question from you or anyone else that markets such slogans?How many times have I asked how anyone can identify either of those alleged critters? How many times have I failed to get an answer? Again and again and again yet again. Do you ever actually read ANYTHING.How many times have I said I am a Christian because I was raised in a Christian family, educated in a Christian School, a member of a recognized Chapter of Club Christian, active in Christian communion and believe in Jesus teachings. What does "God is living and actively present" even mean? How can you tell those are actually facts?

The answer you fail to get is from God Himself. Nobody needs to prove themselves to other church members. Critics may say that sheep and zombies all think alike (or dont think at all) but I am charging you with refusing to accept an obvious answer and continuing to ask questions. It is why though you are a member--indeed a thinking member--by virtue of ritual, you have not experienced what many have claimed to experience and are asking us how we know.In an objective scientific sense, I can't objectively identify whether I absolutely have experienced either "critter". I don't need to. I have received confirmation through the experiences of others and the shared experience of all. I have also felt nothing and have on several occasions questioned what I felt, whether i felt anything, and even if I was not simply a victim of crowd brainwashing and confirmation bias.You won't get an answer from humans. Upon further reflection, you likely already have. The answer that you got from Joe Wood and from Socratic teachers was and is different from what many of us received. You were taught to endlessly question and to never accept easy answers. So why do you ask me for answers?

Why do you ask me to check my brain at the door?

Only because your brain is keeping you from believing anything unevidenced. I suppose in your club it's ok to question and doubt. In my club, it's ok to question but doubt leads to unbelief. I could have done mental gymnastics to get around that problem by redefining what it means to be a Christian, as you did...but I chose not to doubt. You, on the other hand, have no such restriction.

Have you asked yourself the same question?But isn't it amazing that you chose to believe in a god that was the god of your culture, probably the god of your parents and your upbringing? Just a coincidence?

There you go misrepresenting my position yet again Phat.Why do you feel the need to do that? How can I believe something when no one can even explain what it means?How many times have I asked "What does that even mean" only to fail to get any answers?AbE:Let me expand slightly.It's hard to identify what being alive means but there are a few characteristics.Living things take in fuel, convert it to energy and expel waste products but they also have a specific physical form and reproduce. They also transmit genetic material to a new generation and are subject to changes in genetics that can also be passed on.There are may things that have some of the characteristics of living things but not all. For example fire takes in fuel, converts it to energy, expels waste but it is not a living thing.So when someone says "Jesus is living today" does that mean Jesus takes in fuel, converts it to energy, expels waste, has a specific physical form, reproduces and transmits genetic material to a new generation and is subject to changes in genetics that can will also be passed on?If so, those are all things that should be detectable and leave evidence.Where's the evidence?Oh, it doesn't mean that? Then what does it mean?Edited by jar, : Se AbE:

It appears that God (or Jesus) or the 3rd member of the Trinity is Spirit. The question then becomes how do we know? We can but speculate. There is no evidence for Spirit, or spirit, or Caspar the friendly ghost, or ghostbusters or spooks. As I have mentioned before, there is no objective measurable evidence for such things. One could argue that this means that none of them are real. Many would agree with most of that, except for the One known as the Holy Spirit. Apparently you are agreeing with my assertion that you demand evidence before believing. And the answer is that you won't find the evidence that you seek and in my opinion won't ever find subjective confirmation within yourself due to your reliance on evidence. I can't know what you conclude. You claim that I usually misrepresent you, so I have no idea what you believe. As I said, there is no evidence. Perhaps God doesnt work that way. You have claimed in the past that God essentially saves everybody, or at least that people never start out damned. Which gets around that "problem". The Bible says that God is Spirit. Spirit is usully defined as alive. No, it doesn't take in fuel. It is its own fuel. It needs nothing from outside itself. Further, it expends no waste. Step One is whether or not IT actually exists. I have reason to believe it does.

What a very odd thing to say. Why would I believe anything of which there is no evidence? That would be very silly.
Should I believe in Coyote?
If not, why your unevidenced demon and not this one?

It usually happens that way, though not always. One of the cultures may actually have the right God, though we would never likely agree on which if any IT was. Ravi Zacharias came from a family of Hindu Priests and embraced Christianity though born and raised in India. He tackles Sam Harris (These are two of Theodoric's favorite scoundrels ) in his book, The End Of reason Ravi confronts Sam Harris clearly and effectively.

why one and not the other? Good question. Seems that people do in fact choose to some degree whether to accept one, the other, or none.

So you agree that belief in one is just as legitimate as belief in the other?

Notice no where in all that dogma did you offer any explanation of what anything means or any way to determine if any of those things exist. That's the issue so far with ALL of the Apologists and much of Christianity; it is nothing but word salad.

no, and I know you will accuse me of cultural bias, but the evidence shows that Jesus is not a cultural or white man "God". Cultural Gods are made up human myths. Granted some say Jesus is the same.But if any of the Gods that humans have written about are the right ones, Jesus is as open as any of them. He treats women right, does not appear as culturally biased, and mentions "the world" rather than simply one person. So he started with the jews but includes "whosoever" later on.

So, your only reason to accept one over the other is cultural bias.
Because all you stated was gobbledygook word salad. Maybe you might want to make a coherent argument.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.