Thought Experiment

Interesting...
I don't see where you actually did what Jesus said.

But, ok. Please show me in the bible where it says that those activities are what Jesus said to do.

Thank you.
I have repeatedly asked you to list the steps. This is the kind of dodge you reply with. I am as confidendt that you know the steops to Jesus as I am confident that you have empirical evidence for Jesus.

You cannot just keep stalling and waving your arms. At some point you have to show us the Ferrari or admit you do not have one.

And that time is long, long past :)
Those obviously didn't work for you, so please show me, in the bible, where those activities are what Jesus said to do.
Why? You are the Christian teaching me. Just list the steps for me so I can see what I missed.

Don't you know the steps?
By actually doing what Jesus actually said to do.
What are the steps?
But based on what you stated above, you have a problem with what you think Jesus said to do.
I did them. If I missed any then it is really weird that you will not explain them to me.
Stop for a while and let's focus on what you think Jesus said to do.
Ok - and....done.
I need you to show me where Jesus said to attend a variety of different churches, read the bible and pray for revelation.
I have no idea what Jesus said then - I got it wrong - care to correct me? Or just keep telling me to do vague things so you never really commit to anything?

Both are interesting from a psychological point of view.
You've repeatedly made it clear you don't want my evidence.
You mean by my repeated requests for evidence?
You want your own evidence,
No - I want to see yours.
but you also don't want to do what Jesus said so you can get your own evidence.
You refuse to tell me what Jesus said. Either you also do not know or you do not want to help me find God.

Again, both of those are interesting.
So, we first need to deal with this problem.
The problem is you have made claims of supernatural knowledge you cannot prove.
What cartoons are you watching?
I found very old, 1980's GI Joe cartoons on YouTube and I am loving it.

:)
 
I have repeatedly asked you to list the steps. This is the kind of dodge you reply with. I am as confidendt that you know the steops to Jesus as I am confident that you have empirical evidence for Jesus.
Ok. So you've read the bible twice. You've attended a variety of different churches and prayed for revelation, but you don't actually have any verses which would give you the basis for the 3 actions you engaged in..


I have stated my experience, and I have explained what the bible says, but you have repeatedly ignored me, and instead demanded something you refer to as empirical evidence, but when questioned about it, you have this further vague description.

Those 3 activities you engaged in... were they before or after we began talking about it?



You cannot just keep stalling and waving your arms. At some point you have to show us the Ferrari or admit you do not have one.
I already told you... I've never had a Ferrari. I do however have YHVH, who has me inscribed on the palm of his hand. Isaiah 49:16.


And that time is long, long past :)
So you have nothing else to base your 3 endeavors on?
This is clearly a problem.

Have you ever attended college? Do you know what the nature of learning consists of?

Jesus said in John 8,

If you continue in my teachings, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.

Now, without getting into a long drawn out pretzel twisting description of interpretation, etc....
If you were in a college class and the professor said that if you follow the instructions I give you, you will know the truth about this topic and that will give you freedom.....
What would be your thinking about it?


Why? You are the Christian teaching me. Just list the steps for me so I can see what I missed.
The goal is quite simple....

As I said before to Pixie, in my college classes, my professors would typically give a quiz to get a clearer perspective on what we actually know about the topic of the course we're taking.
So, I'm seeking to get a better understanding of your views, and understanding.

Is that a problem for you?

Don't you know the steps?
Yep.


What are the steps?
I want to know what the basis of the steps you used are.
You stated that you read the bible twice, attended numerous other churches and prayed for revelation.

This would give me the impression that you had a source for which you got the idea that those 3 things would result in you getting revelatory knowledge of YHVH and Jesus.


I did them. If I missed any then it is really weird that you will not explain them to me.
And what did you base what you did on?
Did a pastor tell you what you needed to do? Did you read in the bible these things are what you need to do? Where did you get those 3 activities from?
Ok - and....done.

I have no idea what Jesus said then - I got it wrong - care to correct me?
So you didn't actually read the bible?
What's going on here?
You're running around in circles with this.


Or just keep telling me to do vague things so you never really commit to anything?
I'm trying to get a better understanding of what you think was supposed to happen and why you chose 3 particular activities.

I'm not going to restate the same things over and over and over......again when you've previously established that you don't want to do so... apparently because you think that something tragic or deadly is going to happen to you.
I'm not clear about that last part either.


Both are interesting from a psychological point of view.
Why, are you a degreed psychologist, in a clinical practice?
Or is that something designed to make me think you should be trusted, in spite of your repeatedly made statements that you are clueless?

You mean by my repeated requests for evidence?

No - I want to see yours.
You have to come visit me to see my evidence.
And as I recall, you gave me an address to an insurance company office in DC, but never gave me an actual name I should request when I got there.

You refuse to tell me what Jesus said.
You keep telling me that you have read the bible twice, so you already know what he said.
It's all contained in the bible.



Either you also do not know or you do not want to help me find God.
All you need to do is change your mind about YHVH, Jesus, and believe him.
The bible is quite clear...

Repent and believe the gospel.

Whosoever shall call on his name shall be saved.

Believe in your heart that God raised Jesus from the dead and confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord, and you shall be saved.

It's been right in front of you the entire time.


Again, both of those are interesting.

The problem is you have made claims of supernatural knowledge you cannot prove.
The irony is that I actually have a basis for YHVH having made himself known to me.

The only way for you to get this knowledge is to turn to YHVH from your sin and place your trust in Jesus Christ.
And he will make himself knowable to you.
It's been this way since the beginning.

I found very old, 1980's GI Joe cartoons on YouTube and I am loving it.

:)
Ok. Thank you.

I grew up watching the old looney tunes and hanna barbera cartoons from the 30's through the 60's.
Best cartoons ever!
 
Ok. So you've read the bible twice. You've attended a variety of different churches and prayed for revelation, but you don't actually have any verses which would give you the basis for the 3 actions you engaged in..
At this point I have to assume that you just do not have any idea what Jesus said to do. I have asked repeatedly for you to tell me - teach me - to show me the steps to God. As a Christian I think this is your duty to God. You refuse - and yet bizarrely keep telling me to do what you cannot describe.

Unless you can list the steps to Jesus I just have to believe this is bluster to cover the fact that you have no idea what those steps are.

And if you are intentionally vague so you can reject whatever I said I did then that is a logic error called equivocating.

So - please either tell me the stopes or just admit that you have no idea.

Or keep claiming to know the steps to Jesus and claiming you have empirical evidence and refuse to share either.

You can keep telling me about the beautiful Ferrari you bought. I no longer believe you have one. And you treats that I will get run over by a non-existent Ferrari do not move me to action.
I have stated my experience, and I have explained what the bible says, but you have repeatedly ignored me, and instead demanded something you refer to as empirical evidence, but when questioned about it, you have this further vague description.
I know you have lots of subjective experience that is very real to you. The problem is you cannot show it to me. So until I have the same experience there is no reason to believe you - or anyone else who claims to have experience God or Allah or Shiva.

And your experience is not empirical.
Those 3 activities you engaged in... were they before or after we began talking about it?
Just...just list the steps to do what Jesus said. Please.
I already told you... I've never had a Ferrari. I do however have YHVH, who has me inscribed on the palm of his hand. Isaiah 49:16.
Its a metaphor. Let me help:

Metaphor: met·a·phor | \ ˈme-tə-ˌfȯr: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable.

Example: "But now, O Lord, You are our Father, We are the clay, and You our potter; And all of us are the work of Your hand." -- Isaiah 64:8

Isaiah is not suggesting we are all lumps of clay rolling about. It is as if we were like clay in God's hands.

Metaphor :)
So you have nothing else to base your 3 endeavors on?
This is clearly a problem.
Yes. Please help by telling me what to do.
Have you ever attended college? Do you know what the nature of learning consists of?
Yes.
So you didn't actually read the bible?
I've read it twice - Genesis to Revelations - one KJV and one NIV.
Why, are you a degreed psychologist, in a clinical practice?
No.
You have to come visit me to see my evidence.
Yes please.
And as I recall, you gave me an address to an insurance company office in DC, but never gave me an actual name I should request when I got there.
It was actually the HQ for the Dept of Agriculture :)
You keep telling me that you have read the bible twice, so you already know what he said.
It's all contained in the bible.
Then your experiment has failed. I read The Bible and nothing happened. And since you cannot tell me what I did wrong I have no idea what else to do.
All you need to do is change your mind about YHVH, Jesus, and believe him.
I will not believe anything without empirical evidence.
I grew up watching the old looney tunes and hanna barbera cartoons from the 30's through the 60's.
Best cartoons ever!
On this we totally agree - add in School House Rock and you have my childhood :)
 
Thank you for the reply. But I think you just proved my position that there is no real, empirical reason to believe The Bible over the Koran. You did not base your belief on facts. You picked the book you like best and just decided to believe it is all true.
How? I said there are real reasons and facts to choose Christianity over Islam and Hinduism.
I personally do not believe things just because I want them to be true. I believe what we can prove - like it or not.
I dont either, I used to be an agnostic. Though nothing can really be proven except your own existence and that only to yourself.
 
Let's say three men approach, each holding an ancient tome. The first says, "God is real! The truth is in The Bible. And I have personally experienced God" The second says, "Allah is real! The truth is in The Koran. And I have personally experienced Allah." The third says, "Lord Shiva is real!" God is real! The truth is in the Vedas. And I have personally experienced Shiva"

How would you go about figuring out which, if any, to believe?

Why would someone believe the Christian but reject the Hindu and the Muslim?
God is not the physical copies of books.
 
How? I said there are real reasons and facts to choose Christianity over Islam and Hinduism.
You did? Sorry - I must have missed that. I'll look through your old posts. Or you can restate if you like. Whatever is easier.

Sorry for my error.
I dont either, I used to be an agnostic. Though nothing can really be proven except your own existence and that only to yourself.
You are still an agnostic if you believe nothing can be truly proven and known to be true. That is a literal definition of agnostic. If you believe in God and believe nothing can be known then are are contradicting yourself I think.

Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena

I disagree. I think we can prove Mars is real by putting a robot on it and getting images back. I mean sure - its possible we are all in a simulation or something weird - but if you take it that far then there is no sense in building hospitals or bridges or medicines. And that seems silly.

I think the agnostic, Descartes position is interesting to debate philosophically. But its useless in solving problems or finding truth.

Thanks for the reply.
 
How? I said there are real reasons and facts to choose Christianity over Islam and Hinduism.
You did? Sorry - I must have missed that. I'll look through your old posts. Or you can restate if you like. Whatever is easier.

Sorry for my error.
I havent gone into the specifics on this thread I just stated that there are serious problems Islam and Hinduism. One serious problem with Islam and Hinduism is the problem with morality they both have. The Koran plainly teaches that it is perfectly moral to beat your wife and kill people who refuse to convert to Islam. The moral problem with Hinduism is that it teaches pantheism which is the belief that EVERYTHING is god. So if everything is god, then so was Hitler and Stalin, so what Hitler and Stalin did is also what god did, so what they did was not immoral and in fact nothing is immoral nor moral. If it was god that slaughtered all those innocent people then Hitler and Stalin were actually god doing those things. And there are other problems as well.
El Cid said:
I dont either, I used to be an agnostic. Though nothing can really be proven except your own existence and that only to yourself.
You are still an agnostic if you believe nothing can be truly proven and known to be true. That is a literal definition of agnostic.
No, an agnostic just doesnt know if there is a god or not. It has nothing to do with general reality.
If you believe in God and believe nothing can be known then are are contradicting yourself I think.
I did not say that nothing can be known, I am saying that nothing can be known with absolute certainty except your own existence.
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena

I disagree. I think we can prove Mars is real by putting a robot on it and getting images back. I mean sure - its possible we are all in a simulation or something weird - but if you take it that far then there is no sense in building hospitals or bridges or medicines. And that seems silly.

I think the agnostic, Descartes position is interesting to debate philosophically. But its useless in solving problems or finding truth.

Thanks for the reply.
How do you know that there is a correlation between what you observe and what is really there? Only if there is a personal God do you have a rational basis for believing that that correlation exists. If there is no God, then at the origin of the universe there were only objects so you have no way of knowing if a subject-object correlation was established. But if there was God, a subject, that created objects then that correlation was immediately established at creation.
 
I havent gone into the specifics on this thread I just stated that there are serious problems Islam and Hinduism. One serious problem with Islam and Hinduism is the problem with morality they both have. The Koran plainly teaches that it is perfectly moral to beat your wife and kill people who refuse to convert to Islam.
Would you agree, then, with the general proposition that having a serious objection to the morality taught by a religion is a good reason to reject that religion? (I agree with that proposition, by the way.)
 
Would you agree, then, with the general proposition that having a serious objection to the morality taught by a religion is a good reason to reject that religion? (I agree with that proposition, by the way.)
Generally speaking yes but you have to be careful because our moral consciences have been damaged. You may have to look at other types of evidence as well.
 
Generally speaking yes but you have to be careful because our moral consciences have been damaged. You may have to look at other types of evidence as well.
If you think that generally speaking, we can reasonably say "that moral teaching is objectionable or downright indefensible," but that there are some cases in which we can't reasonably say that because our moral consciences have been damaged, do you have some rule for separating the two cases? And do you have some account for how our consciences have been damaged in this specific way?
 
No, an agnostic just doesnt know if there is a god or not. It has nothing to do with general reality.
Philosophical agnosticism is the idea that nothing can be known.
The problem is the same as that with atheism - it denotes different things, depending on the context.
 
Back
Top