Importance of relationship with Christ

robindch

> All Christian denominations are quite clear on: the deity of Christ

Check out the well-known Nestorian Heresy and plenty of other heresies down through the centuries. In fact, the exact divine (or not) nature of Jesus has been one of the most argued-about issues within the thousands of different christian denominations.

Going through the rest of your post, I get the feeling that you didn't really understand what I wrote -- you seem to have difficult separating the form of a religion from its content. You are talking about content. I am talking about form.

BrianCalgary

A few problems here Robin.

1) if you don't accept Christs deity then you can not be a Christian because you are denying who He is. So no Christian denomination has ever denied the deity of Christ.

2) Which proofs do you deem acceptable. You accept proofs of a Big Bang, yet do not accept the proofs given by peoples personal testimonies of their encounters of a livng God.

3) No I can't be fooled on matters relating to my Saviour, because I am His sheep and I recognize His voice.

4)Explain the difference between form and content?

robindch

> So no Christian denomination has ever denied the deity of Christ.

As I said above, there are plenty of denominations who call themselves christian for whom the deity of christ is an open question. It's only in your particular denomination that you are not allowed to question it. They have just as much a right to use the label 'christian' as you do.

> No I can't be fooled on matters relating to my Saviour, because I am His sheep and I recognize His voice.

Just as muslims who have similar experiences to yours attribute it to allah or Mohammed, and Indians who have similar experiences to yours attribute it to Ganesh, Vishnu, Brahma, Siva and others, and other people in other places atrtibute it to their own local god or gods. And yet, everybody still insists that they are right, just as you are, and that they can't be fooled, just as you can't be. And yet everybody says a different thing. Somebody must be wrong, musn't they? Or are you the only person who is completely right in this, and all the millions of people who have had similar experiences elsewhere are all wrong?

> You accept proofs of a Big Bang

Quoting from my message of yesterday evening:

I don't "believe a whole load of unprovable theories". I do tentatively accept the accuracy of various ideas about the world -- gravity, electricity etc -- but only when I've examined the evidence for myself, fully aware that none of them are provable, because the concept has no meaning in science. If I haven't examined any evidence, then I have no opinion on whatever the topic is.

So, just to recap: I do not accept proofs because proofs DO NOT EXIST. I really wish that you and other religious people could make a special effort to understand this point. Or, alternatively, simply explain why it's not understood.

> , yet do not accept the proofs given by peoples personal testimonies
> of their of their encounters of a livng God.

Again, they are not proofs (you don't seem to understand the meaning of the word). They are stories that people tell about experiences that they've had. Experiences which have been received through their senses and interpreted by their (sub-)conscious minds. You are choosing to interpret what your senses have experienced as 'god' and are flatly refusing to accept that it may have had a different cause or a different interpretation.

There has been plenty of interesting research done on these stories that people tell and the experiences that they've had. You can read a short account of it here:

http://www.bidstrup.com/mystic.htm

You still say that it's impossible for you to make a mistake in any of this? Even though it's your own fallible brain that's doing the experiencing and the interpreting?

4)Explain the difference between form and content?

...when you tell me why you seem to think that accepting evidence is a bad thing.

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

I believe that the deity that people who describe themselves as christians imagine they believe in, is virtually impossible because their beliefs are vague, contradictory and unsustainable. The problem is not with the deity, but with people's beliefs concerning the deity.

I have a large circle of friends and a much larger circle of enemies. They all have a fuzzy view of me to some degree and most of their accounts are contradictory. Except my nemesis The Greymalkin who sadly knows everything there is to know about me, of course.

So although my dad and my wife would disagree over some large aspect of my being like say, my temper, they both know me. This is possible because I am not a set of abstract Platonian principles floating out there waiting to be deduced by a person. Christianity, uniquely amongst the major world religions argues that God, like me, is a person.

You don't need to know me perfectly (only God and my number 1 enemy can manage that) to have a vibrant relationship with me.

Robindch wrote:

..in the few instances where any solid meaning can be wrung from them anyway. This leaves a belief in god resting on the strength of people's conviction alone. This is not a very solid foundation.

The Barthian proposition of the knowable person of Christ as the basis for theology, leaves most of these issues by the side of the road. Earlier you said that your criticism was more directed towards individuals belief than the God they believe in and I think that is clear here Robin. You seem to be addressing some late Victorian idea of who God is with the tools of the positivists. It bears little resembelance to the faith I live or share with the Christian communities I live in.

Robin wrote:

Finally, religion is completely explainable as a fascinating social phenomenon including aspects of language, music, psychology, belief, politics, biology and many other areas. You simply don't need a god around the place to produce all the effects that people claim, any more than astrology needs to work in order to have lots of people believing in that.

Anthropological and sociological explanations can go a long way to clarifying the causes of faith but you need to acknowledge the clear logical imperative that a socio-historical anthropological explanation does not rule out the existence of the God or gods there believed in. Your statement is true but your conclusion goes too far.

Let me put it this way; an evolutionary observation of a brain that encourages humans to extrapolate supernatural explanations for events would be perfectly in line with the claims inherent in say, the Christian God. (Please don't read this as an attempt to slip ID in through the back door- I am firmly in philosophical territory here).

Even if you reject that, the sufficiency of "logic", "reason" or any other bright myths of the modern era is severely called into question if they are left foundationless as an Enlightenment Era materialism of the type you embrace tends to do.

robindch

> You don't need to know me perfectly (only God and my number 1
> enemy can manage that) to have a vibrant relationship with me.

Not what I was talking about, as I suspect you know.

> You seem to be addressing some late Victorian idea of who God is with the
> tools of the positivists.

Not really. I'm just dealing with the properties of the deity that you and your religious on this board say they believe in, as extracted in long q+a sessions. I largely agree, though, in your assessment that this is a Victorian view, given that the earlier part of her reign was the period during which religion in began to disestablish itself successfully and began its evolutionary phase as a vibrant decentralized cultural force interested only its own propagation, rather than a static centralized one. Ever wondered, btw, why there are so few catholics around here spreading the word?

> Even if you reject that, the sufficiency of "logic", "reason" or any other
> bright myths of the modern era is severely called into question if they are
> left foundationless as an Enlightenment Era materialism of the type you
> embrace tends to do.

Lovely sentence. What does it mean? That you think that being reasonable is just for ungodly sissies?

Mr. Logic

robindch wrote:

Ever wondered, btw, why there are so few catholics around here spreading the word?

That's an interesting one. If the majaority of Christians on this site protestant that merits discussion as statisically it should be the other way around.
What do Protestants feel more motivated to spread the word?

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

Not what I was talking about, as I suspect you know.

Of course. You reject this argument because it deals with the content and not the form of religious studies. The only difficulty is that you are incapable of launching any sustained attack on the credibility of Christian belief unless you move out of the territory of religious studies and into theology.

Robin wrote:

Not really ...I largely agree,

So are you addressing the inconsistencies within stated perspectives of individuals who claim to know a personal God, the god of Victorian middle class morality or actually engaging in a theological discussion about the importance of relationship with Jesus?

I don't think you quite know what you intend to do.

Robin wrote:

why there are so few catholics around here spreading the word?

Back when I moderated the first time, there was a Catholic co-mod. He got tired of the disputes that tend to occur here, as every successive mod has. Perhaps the Roman tradition builds bull**** detectors into her members.

My "lovely sentence" intended to argue that the epistemology you so confidently assert, a kind of naive materialism hiding under the cloth of skepticism has been shown to be wearing nothing. The foundations of individual Christian belief that you lambast are shared by the modernist, Enlightenment myth you proselytise with.

Thus, I ask again, the unanswered question- why are BC's conclusions about the world, gathered by processing sense data, any less weighty than your conclusions about the world, gathered by processing sense data?

IFX

BrianCalgary wrote:

A few problems here Robin.
2) Which proofs do you deem acceptable. You accept proofs of a Big Bang, yet do not accept the proofs given by peoples personal testimonies of their encounters of a livng God.

There are a number of reasons why this one should be ruled out.
Firstly Brian, you do accept the proofs given by peoples personal testimonies of their encouters with Scientology or Islam, either do we. So it is simple being consistent to do the same with Christianity.

Secondly, this violates the rules of logic, it is anecdotal evidence.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic4.html

Thirdly, it also begs the question whether if you experience / imagine something in your head existing does is it actually exists. If I imagine the big bad wolf and he scares me, does the big bad wolf exist?
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic2.html

Usually for the proof of existence, more than an experience in the one's mind is required. If we assume God exists than we have to assume the Big Bad wolf also does.

IFX

Excelsior wrote:

Thus, I ask again, the unanswered question- why are BC's conclusions about the world, gathered by processing sense data, any less weighty than your conclusions about the world, gathered by processing sense data?

I would be interested in a scientific experiement to investigate this sense data but I can't see how one would distinguish between this type of sense data and mild schizophrenia.

robindch

> Thus, I ask again, the unanswered question- why are BC's conclusions about
> the world, gathered by processing sense data, any less weighty than your
> conclusions about the world, gathered by processing sense data?

I'm not saying that mine are any more weighty -- in fact, exactly the opposite and I've posted it twice in the last two days -- are any of you guys reading this? To say it for a third time: my conclusions are tentative, unlike Brian's (and I suspect, yours too) which as far as I can make out are infallible and different from each other.

It's Brian who's insisting that his are weightier than mind and I'd like to know why. Specifically, what I would like to understand is how somebody can assert that it is impossible for them to make a mistake. A response like "I am a sheep" doesn't suggest that much independently-minded thinking has been done about the topic

BrianCalgary

IFX wrote:

There are a number of reasons why this one should be ruled out.
Firstly Brian, you do accept the proofs given by peoples personal testimonies of their encouters with Scientology or Islam, either do we. So it is simple being consistent to do the same with Christianity..

I have stated many times that I firmly accept the encounters of Scientologists, Muslims, etc. The question is who are they encountering and what is the fruit of those encounters?

IFX wrote:

Secondly, this violates the rules of logic, it is anecdotal evidence.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic4.html

You point to this site quite often. I can not find your point. Instead of pointing us there explain in your own words what is illogical and how?

IFX wrote:

Thirdly, it also begs the question whether if you experience / imagine something in your head existing does is it actually exists. If I imagine the big bad wolf and he scares me, does the big bad wolf exist?
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic2.html

Usually for the proof of existence, more than an experience in the one's mind is required. If we assume God exists than we have to assume the Big Bad wolf also does.

It is relatively easy to distinguish that which is real and that which is not. When I dream about being at Old Trafford and I wake up and I'm in my own bed, it was a dream. When the Holy Spirit descends upon you and gives you a vision, that my friend is real.

When you are stopped from getting off a bus in the early evening, that is real.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> Thus, I ask again, the unanswered question- why are BC's conclusions about
> the world, gathered by processing sense data, any less weighty than your
> conclusions about the world, gathered by processing sense data?

I'm not saying that mine are any more weighty -- in fact, exactly the opposite and I've posted it twice in the last two days -- are any of you guys reading this? To say it for a third time: my conclusions are tentative, unlike Brian's (and I suspect, yours too) which as far as I can make out are infallible and different from each other.

My conclusions and Excelsiors are not different, and yes our conclusions on the existence of a triune God as communicated to us through His word, the Holy Bible, are infallible. Just as the snow on the ground outside is infallible.

I can go out and touch it, taste it and feel it's coldness and wetness.



I find it strange that you argue so vehemently for the non-existence of God and the origins of the world and yet you say that your conslusions are tentative?

robindch wrote:

It's Brian who's insisting that his are weightier than mind and I'd like to know why. Specifically, what I would like to understand is how somebody can assert that it is impossible for them to make a mistake. A response like "I am a sheep" doesn't suggest that much independently-minded thinking has been done about the topic

Mine are weightier because I have experienced God through my senses. I have spoken to Him He has spoken to me. I know He exists.

The idea of a Big Bang is nothing but an unprovable theory. God has proven Himself to me. So do I hinge my eternal salvation on a God that has shown me His existence or on an unprovable scientific theory that offers absolutely nothing?

If you are going to quote me do it properly 'I am His sheep' not A sheep. There is a huge difference. I follow my shepherd Jesus Christ, fully trusting in Him to guide me on a life in service to Him.

I am quite capable of making errors. But not on the existence of God. He is real.

Are you capable of erring on His existence?

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

my conclusions are tentative, unlike Brian's (and I suspect, yours too)

Firstly, I dispute the idea that in any meaningful way, your views are tentative and BC's are not. Both views constitute your worldviews and a change in them would be a major upheaval for both of you and crucially, both of you are unwilling to consider such revolution without a mountainous cause. Interestingly, both of you wish to proselytise your views.

Secondly, the shape of your worldviews are different in a way that must be brought into account. You invest belief in an intellectual mechanism that you might call skepticism. BC invests his belief in a person that he might call Christ. The way one expresses belief in a structure is neccesarily different to the way one expresses belief in a relationship. Both beliefs are equally foundational as your worldview and I think as such, talk of tentativity is shallow.

robindch

> My conclusions and Excelsiors are not different [...]

Yes, they are different. You assert the truth of creationism, while he does not.

> Just as the snow on the ground outside is infallible.

Er, snow is infallible? Don't you remember my point from yesterday that you must feel it, then interpret the feeling. And that senses and interpretations are quite easy to manipulate? Snow is no more infallible that the purple dinosaurs or whatever that people think exist when they're drugged up.

> I find it strange that you argue so vehemently for the non-existence of
> God and the origins of the world and yet you say that your conslusions
> are tentative?

Yes, what's strange about having a tentative point of view on some topic backed up by plenty of evidence and being able to expound the point of view?

And yet again, I don't say that god doesn't exist. I do say that god as described by the people here almost certainly doesn't for the reasons which I've posted earlier and which, by and large, have been ignored in follow-up posts. Try this one again:

Look at it this way: there are thousands of christian denominations around the world all saying different and contradictory things about the god they believe exists. By logic alone, most of the gods that they believe in must not exist, hence by diminishing chance, it's highly unlikely that any particular description of god is the right one. Hence my belief that any particular christian god that's being described to me probably doesn't exist.

> I am quite capable of making errors. But not on the existence of God.

The people who know they can never be fooled are always the easiest to fool

IFX

BrianCalgary wrote:

I have stated many times that I firmly accept the encounters of Scientologists, Muslims, etc. The question is who are they encountering and what is the fruit of those encounters?

Fair enough, sorry if I misunderstood you there. That's interesting view you have. We might take that in a separate thread sometime.

BrianCalgary wrote:

You point to this site quite often. I can not find your point. Instead of pointing us there explain in your own words what is illogical and how?

Anecdotal evidence is a classic logic fallacy. For example, someone could say that Canadians like ice skating, I would say how do you know that? They could say, my cousins are from Canada and they like ice skating. However, this prooves nothing. As you know, many Canadians may not like ice skating.
Anecdotal evidence prooves nothing.
A more logical approach - if it is impossible to ask every Canadian - is to create a sample set. The sample set should include a variety of Canadian people and then use this for a basis. A margin of error should also be included to factor in the probability of error between the sample set and the entire population of Canada. It's hard to deduce anything from a sample set unless you have a good appreciation of the use and misuse of statistics.

Now, you keep on talking about the positive impact Christ makes on people's lifes. But what is your sample set? What is your margin of error?

Furthermore, you are avoidng the question of the negative impact Christianity makes on people's lifes.

BrianCalgary wrote:

It is relatively easy to distinguish that which is real and that which is not. When I dream about being at Old Trafford and I wake up and I'm in my own bed, it was a dream. When the Holy Spirit descends upon you and gives you a vision, that my friend is real.

When you are stopped from getting off a bus in the early evening, that is real.

I don't agree with this. My friend thinks he's amazing at Soccer and no matter how many times people tell him or show, he still thinks he's amazing. There are many examples I'm sure you have yourself and people not being able to accept reality.
We see the world / life for what we want, not for what it is.
We are biased and subjective - it's human nature. I cannot distinguish if God is real or not, not human can, you can ascertain an opinion that's all.

Furthermore, let's suppose I am wrong, and you are right.
God exists, and Jesus Christ is son. It doesn't change the crux of my point:
the feelings you or any Christian experience do not proove that God exists. Let me elaborate.
Suppose everybody thinks like me and experiences no feelings from God or Christ. Can God still exist? Of course. On the other hand,
suppose everybody thinks like you and regularly experiences these feelings you describe, is it possible for God not to exist. Of course.
These feelings or lack of feelings proove absolutely nothing accept that some of us think / feel something and some of us don't.

Thank for your reading down this far. Enjoy your evening.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> My conclusions and Excelsiors are not different [...]

Yes, they are different. You assert the truth of creationism, while he does not.

We both agree that God created all things. We only disagree on the how, which is unimportant because it is not provable.

robindch wrote:

> Just as the snow on the ground outside is infallible.

Er, snow is infallible? Don't you remember my point from yesterday that you must feel it, then interpret the feeling. And that senses and interpretations are quite easy to manipulate? Snow is no more infallible that the purple dinosaurs or whatever that people think exist when they're drugged up.

The idea that the snow on the ground is fact. Everyone who is currently in this region sees it and is affected by it. Everyone who experiences the living Christ is affected by His existence as well. I disagree with you on 'interpretaing the feeling'. The snow is cold, when it melts it becomes water and is wet, as it warms up it gets heavy, etc, etc.

When one experiences God, there lives change. They are affected in different ways, yet the transformation happens. Nothing to interpret.

robindch wrote:

> I find it strange that you argue so vehemently for the non-existence of
> God and the origins of the world and yet you say that your conslusions
> are tentative?

Yes, what's strange about having a tentative point of view on some topic backed up by plenty of evidence and being able to expound the point of view?

And yet again, I don't say that god doesn't exist. I do say that god as described by the people here almost certainly doesn't for the reasons which I've posted earlier and which, by and large, have been ignored in follow-up posts. Try this one again:> I am quite capable of making errors. But not on the existence of God.

The people who know they can never be fooled are always the easiest to fool

You may be able to back it up with plenty of evidence interpreted from a view that there is no God. But the conclusion can never be proven.

The existence of God can be; on the testimonies of the millions that have been touched by Him.

You choose to ignore such evidence.

You asked before on my views on the participants on the creation thread.

My conclusion is as follows: God is a creative force behind all existence. The scientist who does not take into account this fact is going to come to a wrong conclusion. The scientist who does take into account God, will arrive at the correct conclusions. The scientists who do not take into account God's influence always make a statemnt that God does not come into science because we can not prove nor disprove His existence, (therefore we will ignore Him).

Whereas how can you ignore millions of testimonies to His existence? And then compare to a drug induced vision of a purple dinosaur?

BrianCalgary

IFX wrote:

Fair enough, sorry if I misunderstood you there. That's interesting view you have. We might take that in a separate thread sometime..

It would spark some debate:)

IFX wrote:

Anecdotal evidence is a classic logic fallacy. For example, someone could say that Canadians like ice skating, I would say how do you know that? They could say, my cousins are from Canada and they like ice skating. However, this prooves nothing. As you know, many Canadians may not like ice skating.
Anecdotal evidence prooves nothing.
A more logical approach - if it is impossible to ask every Canadian - is to create a sample set. The sample set should include a variety of Canadian people and then use this for a basis. A margin of error should also be included to factor in the probability of error between the sample set and the entire population of Canada. It's hard to deduce anything from a sample set unless you have a good appreciation of the use and misuse of statistics. .

A cursory drive around the city on an afternoon in the winter would validate the question as to whether or not we like skating, a scientifically conducted poll is not really necessary.

IFX wrote:

Now, you keep on talking about the positive impact Christ makes on people's lifes. But what is your sample set? What is your margin of error?.

My sample set would be every Christian I have ever spoken with. Why do we need to conduct a measurable poll, with proper question to ask that can be manipulated. Whenever I gat called by a pollster there is always one or two questions that I refuse to answer, because it manipulates me into a response that is not necessarily true.

IFX wrote:

Furthermore, you are avoidng the question of the negative impact Christianity makes on people's lifes..

Is it Christianity or a particular congregation that has th enegative effect? My own brother was turned oiff Christianity by the actions of a few people in a congregation, not on what God did. There is a difference.

IFX wrote:

I don't agree with this. My friend thinks he's amazing at Soccer and no matter how many times people tell him or show, he still thinks he's amazing. There are many examples I'm sure you have yourself and people not being able to accept reality.
We see the world / life for what we want, not for what it is.
We are biased and subjective - it's human nature. I cannot distinguish if God is real or not, not human can, you can ascertain an opinion that's all..

In the case of your buddy, there are many people who can see his quality as a footballer, there are other witnesses that would render a similar view and pass judgement on the topic. We do it twice a year on our club evaluations.

The example of God's interventions in peoples lives are consistent with the character of God as portrayed in the Bible and consistent with each other as they convey a positive impact.

IFX wrote:

Furthermore, let's suppose I am wrong, and you are right.
God exists, and Jesus Christ is son. It doesn't change the crux of my point:
the feelings you or any Christian experience do not proove that God exists. Let me elaborate.
Suppose everybody thinks like me and experiences no feelings from God or Christ. Can God still exist? Of course. On the other hand,
suppose everybody thinks like you and regularly experiences these feelings you describe, is it possible for God not to exist. Of course.
These feelings or lack of feelings proove absolutely nothing accept that some of us think / feel something and some of us don't.
Thank for your reading down this far. Enjoy your evening.

I disagree, the experiences that people have raise the question of what did you experience it and what effect did it have? Enough people have the experience of a changed life through Christ that brings credence to their claims. The claims and experiences and results lead to the conclusion that there is a God and He does exist.

robindch

> The idea that the snow on the ground is fact.

I'm going to give up on trying to explain the difference between reality and perception. You think they are the same and you seem unable to accept that they are not, and that you may therefore be able to make a mistake. Oh, well.

> The existence of God can be; on the testimonies of the millions that
> have been touched by Him.

So, you're saying that something exists simply because people say it does? And that lots of people who give "testimony" about astrology means that astrology is true also?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> The idea that the snow on the ground is fact.

I'm going to give up on trying to explain the difference between reality and perception. You think they are the same and you seem unable to accept that they are not, and that you may therefore be able to make a mistake. Oh, well.?

My experiences with God are not 'perception' they are real, as real as the snow. I don't understand why you refuse to accept that fact. There is no differnce between the snow and God, both are real.

robindch wrote:

>> The existence of God can be; on the testimonies of the millions that
> have been touched by Him.

So, you're saying that something exists simply because people say it does? And that lots of people who give "testimony" about astrology means that astrology is true also?

I'll say it agin. People experience things through astrology, and other gods; what did they experience and what is the fruit of those experiences?

robindch

> My experiences with God are not 'perception' they are real

In that case, you do not understand much about how your brain works and as I said above, I've given up trying to explain it, since you're simply denying that there's anything there to understand.

> People experience things through astrology, and other gods; what did
> they experience and what is the fruit of those experiences?

The perceived things with their senses and interrpreted them with their conscious and sub-conscious minds. Just like you did. And then they acted upon their decisions. Just like you did. The only notable thing is that they came to a different conclusion from you. And you do not accept that you could have made a mistake in this and your mind seems clamped closed, even to the suggestion.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> My experiences with God are not 'perception' they are real

In that case, you do not understand much about how your brain works and as I said above, I've given up trying to explain it, since you're simply denying that there's anything there to understand.

> People experience things through astrology, and other gods; what did
> they experience and what is the fruit of those experiences?

The perceived things with their senses and interrpreted them with their conscious and sub-conscious minds. Just like you did. And then they acted upon their decisions. Just like you did. The only notable thing is that they came to a different conclusion from you. And you do not accept that you could have made a mistake in this and your mind seems clamped closed, even to the suggestion.

And how open is your mind to the idea that all of us Christians could be dead right in the existence of our God and our experiences of Him?

I can no sooner accept that my experiences with God are a figment of my imagination as I can deny the fact that I was out shovelling the stuff on Saturday night.

IFX

BrianCalgary wrote:

A cursory drive around the city on an afternoon in the winter would validate the question as to whether or not we like skating, a scientifically conducted poll is not really necessary.

Incorrect, it would verify that the people who were out that day like skating.
I agree scientific evidence is not necessary as it is a trivial question, but if it a serious question such as the after effects of Chernobyl , scientific and statistical analysis are most definetly necessary.
Are you seriously trying to say anecdotal evidence is logical?

BrianCalgary wrote:

My sample set would be every Christian I have ever spoken with. Why do we need to conduct a measurable poll, with proper question to ask that can be manipulated. Whenever I gat called by a pollster there is always one or two questions that I refuse to answer, because it manipulates me into a response that is not necessarily true.

That's quite a narrow sample set. We need to conduct a measurable poll if we are interested in the truth. We need to also have an appreciation of statisics maths, logic otherwise it can be easily manipulated.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Is it Christianity or a particular congregation that has th enegative effect?

Both.

BrianCalgary wrote:

In the case of your buddy, there are many people who can see his quality as a footballer

Only his Mum and granny, everyone else thinks he is rubbish and that he lives in dreamland!

BrianCalgary wrote:

The example of God's interventions in peoples lives are consistent with the character of God as portrayed in the Bible and consistent with each other as they convey a positive impact.

Is that before or after they consult with the bible? What is the before or after percentage? What sort of "control" is there? For example, suppose we gave them another Bible, which we made up and it was completely different and we called this Bible 2. The purpose of this was to act as a "control". Suppose we split the sample set up between the standard Bible and Bible 2, would their claims be any different?
This would be some sort of objective analysis. None of your analysis seems to be objective, you seem to be constantly looking for evidence you are right and not that you are wrong.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I disagree, the experiences that people have raise the question of what did you experience it and what effect did it have? Enough people have the experience of a changed life through Christ that brings credence to their claims. The claims and experiences and results lead to the conclusion that there is a God and He does exist.

Incorrect, the exact same could be the case if he was a delusion. You're logic is flawed. People may experience better lives by believing in God, but it doesn't mean their belief is correct.
God may just be another placebo effect.

BrianCalgary

IFX wrote:

Incorrect, it would verify that the people who were out that day like skating.
I agree scientific evidence is not necessary as it is a trivial question, but if it a serious question such as the after effects of Chernobyl , scientific and statistical analysis are most definetly necessary.
Are you seriously trying to say anecdotal evidence is logical?
.

Absolutely. The example of skating will show that there are people out skating on that day, no one can be sure if they like it or not.

But if you can go out on any weekend afternoon and people are skating it is quite logical to conclude that people must like it, if it is an activity of choice and they are choosing to do so. We can also conclude that peopel like to ride their bikes on sunny afternoons in the summer, by the plethora of bike paths and the number of bikes. No technical poll needed.

IFX wrote:

That's quite a narrow sample set. We need to conduct a measurable poll if we are interested in the truth. We need to also have an appreciation of statisics maths, logic otherwise it can be easily manipulated..

How many would you need to satisfy your poll? 50? 100? How many do you think I am talking about?

Lets just say that so far there has been a God experience in 100% of all Christians that I talk to. I conclude therefore that the present trend is the trend most likely to continue.

IFX wrote:

Both...

I'd like to hear how Christianity wrecked someone?

IFX wrote:

Only his Mum and granny, everyone else thinks he is rubbish and that he lives in dreamland!

Meant quality as being bad quality as well:) Poor fellow. I see it quite often in our club. My heart goes out to the dreamers

IFX wrote:

Is that before or after they consult with the bible? What is the before or after percentage? What sort of "control" is there? For example, suppose we gave them another Bible, which we made up and it was completely different and we called this Bible 2. The purpose of this was to act as a "control". Suppose we split the sample set up between the standard Bible and Bible 2, would their claims be any different?
This would be some sort of objective analysis. None of your analysis seems to be objective, you seem to be constantly looking for evidence you are right and not that you are wrong.

Describe what you mean by control? Do you mean on our sample set or on our subjects?

When you are as old as I am and have had the pleasure to have met Christian and Non-Christian alike from all corners of the Earth and have heard their testimonies, the only conslusion that can be drawn is that there is a caring and loving God who wishes to help you improve your life. If I never not once saw transformed lives I would really question my faith. But there isn't a year that goes by that I don't hear of somone else being saved by Christ.

Come up with a set of questions and I would be happy to conduct a survey here in Calgary of you would like.


Incorrect, the exact same could be the case if he was a delusion. You're logic is flawed. People may experience better lives by believing in God, but it doesn't mean their belief is correct.
God may just be another placebo effect.[/QUOTE]

IFX

BrianCalgary wrote:

Absolutely. The example of skating will show that there are people out skating on that day, no one can be sure if they like it or not.

But if you can go out on any weekend afternoon and people are skating it is quite logical to conclude that people must like it, if it is an activity of choice and they are choosing to do so. We can also conclude that peopel like to ride their bikes on sunny afternoons in the summer, by the plethora of bike paths and the number of bikes. No technical poll needed.

Anecdotal evidence is not logical and neither are analogies. If you think they are, you do not understand logic.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic4.html
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic6.html

BrianCalgary wrote:

How many would you need to satisfy your poll? 50? 100? How many do you think I am talking about?

Lets just say that so far there has been a God experience in 100% of all Christians that I talk to. I conclude therefore that the present trend is the trend most likely to continue.

You choose who you talk to, your sample set is skewed, go to another part of the world or your city and you will easily find 50 or 100 people who think the opposite.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I'd like to hear how Christianity wrecked someone?

Take it in a separate thread. It's going off the point. It irriates many people,check out the atheism forum for example.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Meant quality as being bad quality as well:) Poor fellow. I see it quite often in our club. My heart goes out to the dreamers

So you agree it is possible for someone not to be able to tell the difference between reality and delusion. You should revise your God hypothesis

BrianCalgary wrote:

Describe what you mean by control? Do you mean on our sample set or on our subjects?

It's scientific terminology for increasing the accuracy in experimentation. In what you described, you don't know how much the Bible is influencing the person's experience of the God so that it is consistent with God. Therefore unless you have some way of measuring it, saying things like their experience is consistent with that described in the Bible is meaningless.

BrianCalgary wrote:

When you are as old as I am and have had the pleasure to have met Christian and Non-Christian alike from all corners of the Earth and have heard their testimonies, the only conslusion that can be drawn is that there is a caring and loving God who wishes to help you improve your life. If I never not once saw transformed lives I would really question my faith. But there isn't a year that goes by that I don't hear of somone else being saved by Christ.

That's great, but there isn't a year that doesn't go by that I don't hear of someone benefitting from the placebo effect. They are both excellant delusions.

BrianCalgary wrote:

Come up with a set of questions and I would be happy to conduct a survey here in Calgary of you would like.

That would take a lot of time, I'm afraid.

There's plenty of arguments for Christianity, but not of them are logical. They all contain logical fallacies.

robindch

> I'd like to hear how Christianity wrecked someone?

I knew one person (vaguely) who committed suicide in the late 80's because he fell in with a sect which proclaimed itself as the one true version of christianity -- where have we heard that before? Anyhow, he left a suicide note to the effect that he was killing himself because he was unable to face a future which he knew was true. One other member of the sect commented to me that "he wasn't strong enough" when told of his suicide. An unpleasant story, but they're the facts.

Less dramatically, one could discuss the vast number of people who've suffered or died because politicians and christian leaders tell lies about public health. Here's an quote from an article in the current edition of The Lancet (free registration) which hits the nail pretty much on the head:

The increasing influence of conservative political, religious, and cultural forces around the world threatens to undermine progress made since 1994, and arguably provides the best example of the detrimental intrusion of politics into public health.

I could continue giving you many more examples -- local, national and global -- but you get the idea.

robindch

> And how open is your mind to the idea that all of us Christians could be dead
> right in the existence of our God and our experiences of Him?

It's completely open -- no slagging, Excelsior, please. All you'd have to do is to show the slightest bit of evidence outside (a) stories in an old book and (b) completely normal human hopes, expectations and anthropomorphizations. After all, he's supposed to have created the universe, so he should be able to do something more impressive and convincing than making guest appearances on toast, condensation in windows, stains in concrete etc, etc. Makes him look powerless, vain and, dare I say, rather silly from where I'm sitting.

> I can no sooner accept that my experiences with God are a figment of my
> imagination as I can deny the fact that I was out shovelling the stuff on
> Saturday night.

As you wish. Though I will sign off on this topic by saying that you have refused to consider that I may be right, while I will happily change my opinion if it ever looks like you might be right. Who's being closed-minded?

And thanks for the data point as well. Up to this evening, I wasn't aware that anybody would deny, at least in some areas, the existence of sensation and interpretation as processes in the human brain.

Excelsior

robindch wrote:

Yes, they are different. You assert the truth of creationism, while he does not.

Hold up a second. I am a creationist. I believe the universe and all that is in it was created by Yahweh.

I am not however, a Creation Scientist. (I am more of a scientist than most of them though )

JustHalf

Excelsior wrote:

I am not however, a Creation Scientist. (I am more of a scientist than most of them though )

And only a Computer Scientist at that!

JustHalf

IFX wrote:

I think it is fundamental to most theists or atheists it is generally good to keep somone alive, and it is pointless to this thread debating that.

But this is not a proof, sir!

The problem here is, you talk about how bad it is that Christians spread unproven dogma, but have no problem with acts of charity which start with are built on similarly unproven assumptions! Your points are inconsistent with each other.

If a Christian provides bread and, along with it, provides the Gospel, they (hopefully) do so in good faith based on their understanding of reality. You, based on your own understanding of reality, demand that they stop until a question they believe already answered, is answered.

It is important to note that reality is independent of both of your understandings. If the Christian's view is the best approximation of the Universe, then any effort to stop the spread of the Gospel is standing in the way of God, and this is probably the dumbest and most evil thing you could possibly do.

Here are two great secrets of the universe... firstly, nothing has been proven with axioms and secondly, as a human being you carry around immense cultural baggage that dramatically shapes what your own assumptions are. I don't think you really understand either.

To demand that Christians stop spreading the gospel and restrict their charity behaviour to a manner which sits well with secularism is to be intolerant and unwise. For on what basis would you then permit spreading the gospel in ANY case?

If the spread of all unproven ideas are banned, we will never speak (and if taken literally, the ban contradicts itself).

IFX wrote:

This thread.

Be more specific, sir.

IFX wrote:

Straw man.

Fragment. Please revise.

By the way, when you use abrupt sentence fragments it does nothing but make you appear obnoxious.

IFX wrote:

I never said they were explicitly weak people, please read the thread. They are in a weak position, low education literacy rates, starving. Again there is agreement that they are in a weak position as why is Brian or whoever going to help them in the first place?
And I repeat, if I was in their position, I would fall for the Christian spin too. So I am no weaker or stronger than them.

It's not a straw man. Just because I'm hungry doesn't mean I'm going to start believing whatever the hell people tell me.

Are you honestly telling me that you are not strong enough in your convictions that you will BELIEVE anything you are told when hungry? Seriously?

Obviously if a person must claim to be a Christian to gain the bread in this hypothetical example, then that is a despicable act on behalf of the person holding the basket. But you have denied that this is what you are discussing.

Instead you seem to be having a fit over the things that people believe in their heads, and your crisis is removed entirely from the reality of their actions. If a Christian gives a man bread, but without doing so, still believes that telling them the Good News of Jesus is as or more important, as far as I can tell from your writing you would have a problem with this. Why should this in any way affect you?

If I am wrong in my theory, then please stop using the phrase "a Christian believes" to refer to your problem, and refer to a particular action they commit in the external physical world.

IFX wrote:

Straw man 2. They are not forced conversations, there is no condition of conversion for food. I never said there was. They are simple extremely biased versions of the facts or extremly biased education they are receiving.

Who? Where? What? You have yet to provide an actual example, or even a clear hypothetical one.

IFX wrote:

You don't appear to know what I am saying.

As you don't seem to either, at least I'm not alone!

IFX wrote:

Ok, firstly we cannot generalise for atheists in the same way we cannot generalise for Christians. Some Christians would believe it is just as important to give food as it is to give the bible, some would think it always more important to give food. Note - my critism is only towards Christians who think promoting their belief system is just as important as giving a starving person food.

However, as there is variance amongst Christians to my food / bible question there would be variance amongst atheists to your question.

Don't feign offence on behalf of all atheists when discussing a single, hypothetical atheist in an example where he has already given bread and we have established other things about him.

I'm leaving the rest of your post for later, but I give no guarantees on whether or not I'll get back to it. I'm getting a bit tired of being lectured on logic by someone who incorrectly characterises my arguments as being logical fallacies (and refers me to URLs so that I may learn!), particularly when their own arguments are so loose, ill-defined and just plain shoddy, and whose tone is so damn blunt and rude.

Excelsior

IFX wrote:

my critism is only towards Christians who think promoting their belief system is just as important as giving a starving person food.

I am a Christian who has a job description primarily defined in terms of seeking social justice. If give a starving person food I am promoting my belief system.

To remix your favourite sentiment, IFX, to argue that one should consciously seperate the motivation from the action is, well, illogical. It is the Gospel that prompts me in my work and the work is shaped by the Gospel.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

do you stone disobedient children? do you wash your hands after touching anything a woman who's having her period has touched? do you kill gay people?

Excelsior

I'm sorry. I might have forgotten to write, "I'm a Christian".

See, I am a Christian. So the answer is no on all counts.

(Presuming of course, your post is directed at me)

IFX

Excelsior wrote:

I am a Christian who has a job description primarily defined in terms of seeking social justice. If give a starving person food I am promoting my belief system.

To remix your favourite sentiment, IFX, to argue that one should consciously seperate the motivation from the action is, well, illogical. It is the Gospel that prompts me in my work and the work is shaped by the Gospel.

Straw man. One should not consider spreading their spiruatual dogma as important as giving a starving person food.
As for your point: "one should consciously seperate the motivation from the action is, well, illogical" is incorrect. Even though it's going off the OP, it's not illogical.

Dades

Mordeth wrote:

do you stone disobedient children? do you wash your hands after touching anything a woman who's having her period has touched? do you kill gay people?

Of course he doesn't.

Excelsior like every other sane Christian has used his inherent moral compass to exclude bible teachings that are clearly immoral. Of course this raises the question as to how the word of God can be a sole source of morality for humans, given that they apply their own moralities to it to avoid stoning children and such like.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> I'd like to hear how Christianity wrecked someone?

I knew one person (vaguely) who committed suicide in the late 80's because he fell in with a sect which proclaimed itself as the one true version of christianity -- where have we heard that before? Anyhow, he left a suicide note to the effect that he was killing himself because he was unable to face a future which he knew was true. One other member of the sect commented to me that "he wasn't strong enough" when told of his suicide. An unpleasant story, but they're the facts.

.

Robin, I am coming to the conclusion that you have no idea what a Christian is. You have failed to mention the denomination, and you even call it a cult?

This is not a proof of any kind where Christianity has caused the suicide.

robindch

> I am coming to the conclusion that you have no idea what a Christian is.

A christian is somebody who calls themselves a christian. It's a self-selecting group with no universally agreed pre-conditions. Saying that only "people who accept christ" (or anything else) are christians is only your definition and the definition may not be shared by others who may not accept that piece of dogma. You may not be comfortable with that definition, but it's the only one that fits *all* christians, not just your denomination.

And yes, this group fitted my definition of a "cult" -- a small group lead by a one guy in a moderately military fashion. This guy said that he'd received many messages from god and had written a few books which some people found very convincing. And who's to say that he wasn't speaking with the real god? Certainly, his disciples said that he was unable to make a mistake in this. They referred to it as the infallible "Gift of Discernment" if my memory serves me correctly.

> This is not a proof of any kind where Christianity has caused the suicide.

His beliefs lead directly to his death as above. His beliefs were developed and fully supported within a framework which he believed was truly christian. Therefore christianity was a direct contributory factor in causing his death. You may say that this is not christianity, but he believed as sincerely as you do, that he was infallible in knowing god's will and was prepared to act upon what to him was sure knowledge. Again, apologies if you find this uncomfortable, but you did ask!

robindch

As a postscript to the above, out of interest, just after I posted the above, I did a google search for the guy who lead the cult. Turns out that there are a few small web pages where he's remembered, one of which quotes from a book which he wrote towards the end of his life and ten or fifteen years after the events I noted above. The quote runs as follows:

Anyone writing about spiritual life runs the risk of seeming to claim an inner knowledge or a degree of understanding that the reader does not possess.

Please believe me when I say that I am making no such claim. Twenty five years ago I might have thought so, although even then I hope I wouldn’t have been so stupid as to say it. But a quarter of a century and a third of my "thinking life" on, I could not dream of it.

If I know and understand anything now, it is that I know next to nothing and understand still less.

I sincerely wish that he had written that last sentence in his earlier books. Not claiming infallibility might have made all the difference.

.

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> I am coming to the conclusion that you have no idea what a Christian is.

A christian is somebody who calls themselves a christian. It's a self-selecting group with no universally agreed pre-conditions. Saying that only "people who accept christ" (or anything else) are christians is only your definition and the definition may not be shared by others who may not accept that piece of dogma. You may not be comfortable with that definition, but it's the only one that fits *all* christians, not just your denomination.!

Your definition of a Christian is wrong. A Christian is one who has accepted Christ as their saviuor. A person who recognizes Jesus deity.

If those getting involved in the cult would have read and studied scripture they would hae recognized the fasle teachings of the cult. (you still haven't mentioned who it is BTW:) )

robindch wrote:

[

robindch wrote:

[> This is not a proof of any kind where Christianity has caused the suicide.

His beliefs lead directly to his death as above. His beliefs were developed and fully supported within a framework which he believed was truly christian. Therefore christianity was a direct contributory factor in causing his death. You may say that this is not christianity, but he believed as sincerely as you do, that he was infallible in knowing god's will and was prepared to act upon what to him was sure knowledge. Again, apologies if you find this uncomfortable, but you did ask!

His beliefs led him to suicide, but not his Christian beliefs, because he was not Christian.

robindch

> Your definition of a Christian is wrong. A Christian is one who has accepted
> Christ as their saviuor. A person who recognizes Jesus deity.

No, you have produced a definition of a christian which suits you. It is not the definition that other people use. And I'm sure that this guy had "accepted christ as his saviour" anyway, so even using your restricted definition, he was a christian.

> His beliefs led him to suicide, but not his Christian beliefs, because he was not Christian.

Well, we're getting nowhere quickly here! All I'm saying is that he believed that he was a christian and he believed that he possessed -- just like you -- the ability never to make a mistake. Unfortunately -- just like you -- he is unable to consider for one second the possibility that he might be wrong. No offence, by the way. Just stating a fact!

> you still haven't mentioned who it is BTW

There's enough info in what I posted that it's not too difficult to work out who the cult leader was.

Out of interest -- not dealing with specific details of belief here, but just as a general question -- do you think that it's a good thing or a bad thing that some people say that it's impossible for them to make a mistake?

BrianCalgary

robindch wrote:

> Your definition of a Christian is wrong. A Christian is one who has accepted
> Christ as their saviuor. A person who recognizes Jesus deity.

No, you have produced a definition of a christian which suits you. It is not the definition that other people use. And I'm sure that this guy had "accepted christ as his saviour" anyway, so even using your restricted definition, he was a christian.?

That is not MY definition it is a biblical definition.

Christ says that in order to be saved you must be born again, the only way to the Father is through Him. He is the mediator between man and the Father.

He is the once and for all sacrifice for sin.

robindch wrote:

[> His beliefs led him to suicide, but not his Christian beliefs, because he was not Christian.

Well, we're getting nowhere quickly here! All I'm saying is that he believed that he was a christian and he believed that he possessed -- just like you -- the ability never to make a mistake. Unfortunately -- just like you -- he is unable to consider for one second the possibility that he might be wrong. No offence, by the way. Just stating a fact!.?

And JC is a scientist because he calls himself one? (no offense JC)

robindch wrote:

[> you still haven't mentioned who it is BTW

There's enough info in what I posted that it's not too difficult to work out who the cult leader was.

Out of interest -- not dealing with specific details of belief here, but just as a general question -- do you think that it's a good thing or a bad thing that some people say that it's impossible for them to make a mistake?

I still have no idea who you are talking about. Why the hesitance to reveal the identity?

TO say that you cant make a mistake is a delusion. However to say 2+2=4 is something that is fact and to say it is not mistaken. To say that there is snow on the ground outside is not mistaken. To say that there is god who reveals Himself through the word of the Bible is also not mistaken.

So lest you miss it again, who is this cult leader and which cult?

The world of boards.ie awaits eagerly your response
Brian

IFX

From my Oxford dictionary.
Christian:
A person who has received Christian baptism or is a believer in Christianity.

Asiaprod

BrianCalgary wrote:

And JC is a scientist because he calls himself one? (no offense JC)

Good guess, and also no offense JC. Are we correct Robindch?

robindch

> That is not MY definition it is a biblical definition.

You know as well as I do that there's no definition of the word "christianity" or "christian" in the bible -- that's why people make up their own definitions to suit themselves, just as you do and just as the cult did. The definition that I gave (which is identical to the second part of IFX's) just allows you both to claim to be christians

> And JC is a scientist because he calls himself one? (no offense JC)

JC can and does call himself what he likes. Arguably, it would be more realistic of him if he didn't call himself a scientist because he is thunderingly ignorant of science -- a quality not normally found useful in the day-to-day business of science -- but he can and does apply the word to himself. It's up to other people if they want to attribute something to this self-applied label: to me it suggests that he is a liar, to other people it suggests that he should be respected.

> To say that you cant make a mistake is a delusion.

Hmmm... Two days back, in this post you said that in one specific area, it's absolutely imposslbe for you to make a mistake. I'm glad to see that you have changed your position and now agree that you could be mistaken in your belief

> However to say 2+2=4 is something that is fact and to say it is not mistaken.

We've been over this before in the creationism thread. "2+2=4" is not a fact and as a representation, is not always true either (though you disagreed with me back then).

> So lest you miss it again, who is this cult leader and which cult?

As I said yesterday, there's more than enough info in what I've posted that the cult leader can be identified quite easily.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

Your definition of a Christian is wrong. A Christian is one who has accepted Christ as their saviuor. A person who recognizes Jesus deity.

The problem with that definition is how do you define who has accepted Christ as their saviour?

The boy Robin is talking about might have accepted Jesus as his saviour under his own definition of what that means, but under your judgement of what that means he did, since he joined a cult and then killed himself.

So the question is if someone geniuninly believes that they have accepted Jesus as their saviour, does that mean they are a Christian, or are there external rules to this, and if there are then who defines these rules?

BrianCalgary

Robin:
I can be mistaken, but not on the existence of God. Nor can I be wrong on the esistence of yourself. You are, your posts and uor other correspondence proves it. Although we have never met in person I have an understanding of your character. Just as I have with God.

Wicknight:
All one can do is trust that someone has accepted Christ. The proof of that comes out in the fruit they bear and the life they live.

I spend the odd week in the summers volunteering as a counselor at a Christian camp. One year I had group of 13/14 year old boys. Most of whom went to a Christian church, attended a Christian school, professed thei rfaith in front of all parents, but their lives certainly did not reflect the faith they professed.

Matthew 7
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

Many will claim to know Christ but really don't. The judge becomes Jesus. The Bible warns against false teachers:

matthew 7
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?

The only way to know who is and who isn't a false prophet is to test their words against the word of God.

I know a guy who ran off with another woman, said God told him to. Well, we have a false prophet because the Bible tells us that 'what God joins let no man seperate', God doesn't like divorce so why would he instruct someone to do it?

When I was working as the chaplain for our pro soccer team here in Calgary, I was wathced very carefully by the players when I first started. They were testing me to see if I was really practising what I preached and that my motives were what I claimed them to be. It took three seasons before I felt that trust to be complete with all the players and staff and ther ehave been some good permanent relationships as a result.

I preached and lived the gospel and still do. I will however screw up periodically.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

All one can do is trust that someone has accepted Christ. The proof of that comes out in the fruit they bear and the life they live.

So how do you know the person Robin is talking about had not accepted Christ?

BrianCalgary wrote:

I know a guy who ran off with another woman, said God told him to. Well, we have a false prophet because the Bible tells us that 'what God joins let no man seperate',

I would imagine the man would say "no man" did seperate them, God seperated them

BrianCalgary wrote:

God doesn't like divorce so why would he instruct someone to do it?

I would also image that the thought that God doesn't like murder crossed Abraham's mind when God instructed him to slay his son Isaac.

God tells humans not to kill other humans, yet God himself kills humans all the time, often hundreds of thousands at a time. He also instructs humans to kill other humans.

If God instructed you to leave your wife, or kill your child, would you?

robindch

> [BC] I can be mistaken, but not on the existence of God.
> To say that you cant make a mistake is a delusion.

In that case, you are delusional. And according to yourself, mind, not even according to me!

> Nor can I be wrong on the esistence of yourself.

You could be completely mistaken. I could be any other rational poster wearing a funny hat, or indeed, I could be JC, but with brain with works from time to time (and a caps-lock key that doesn't).

As before, you deny that you interpret your experiences to produce conclusions and instead, seem to produce conclusions without any thought. This isn't a good way to go, and it's an observation which may go some way towards explaining some of the more unusual conclusions you've reached.

> I will however screw up periodically.

As we all do, on every topic, from time to time. It's just that some are more prepared than others to admit the possibility of human error, and adjust our confidence in ourselves to suit this faintest of all possibilities, that we may, after all, be wrong.