I was wishing to post a comment but could not find a topic to which it specifically belongs - it is relavent to almost all of the topics on your site. I'm not sure if this is the best way to address the question/comment to you and if it's not, please tell me the best way to do it from now on.
Anyhow, to the point:
I was reading through many of the posts on various topics and I noted that several times, you (among many others - you are simply the easiest to directly reach) stated that the Bible was written by men. Specifically I saw this comment in a long transaction between you and "biblicalwitness" concerning the "Plea to TRUE Chritians". Anyways, what i would like to know is:
What is your basis for stating that the bible was written by men?
What proof can you offer that the Bible was written only by men?
What is your proof that the Bible was NOT inspired by God and written through men?
And why do you base your beliefs of the origins of the Bible on this proof?
If I worded anything too confusingly or nosensically, sorry, please let me know and I will do my best to rephrase it.
Again, I apologize if this is not the best way to ask you this question - please tell me if I need to do otherwise (like find a forum to post it on, etc.). Feel free to post this as a forum topic or what-have-you, I am not necessarily directing this question at just you. Actually I am quite curious to see how anyone responds to this topic.
Thanks in advance for any response,
JB
These letters were published between January 2001 and February 2010. To view recent posts, go to The Main Blog at ExChristian.Net
274 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 274 of 274Anonymous 7:13AM said: Sounds like David is a "True Christian(TM)" since he believes in Talking Snakes and Donkeys, and Angel insemination and virgin births, and rising from the dead, and miracles from above.
Yep, David Poole is a True Christian, not one of those "Fake Christians (TM)".
Reply: Thanks for the compliment
Dave Poole
David said "I have to admit this sound’s like a trap but OK. Send your question/comment to the below listed email."
It's not a trap, it's a legitimate challenge to you. I would prefer to post it here rather than sending it via email. I just didn't want to waste my time articulating it if you had no interest in responding.
The challenge
At exactly 9:00 PM, Pacific time, on Wednesday, May 3, 2006, I vividly pictured a scene in my mind for about ten seconds. The scene can be accurately described in one short sentence. Ask your god to relay that sentence to you, then post it here. That's it.
Discussion
The odds of you guessing such a sentence are effectively nil. Moreover, it would be impossible for you to obtain it covertly, as I have told absolutely nobody, nor have I even spoken it or written it down. Therefore, if you were to post a sentence describing the scene I pictured, I would immediately need to revamp my entire worldview, because that event would be completely inexplicable within my current worldview.
Note that if you were to get it right, the ONLY person it would have an immediate and profound effect on would be me (as it's unlikely that anybody else would believe me), and the ONLY effect it would have on me would be to make the possibility of some supernatural force or entity seem suddenly very plausible. I would not get rich. I would not become famous. I would merely get "religion" (or, minimally, be suddenly very receptive to it).
If you choose not to participate, please explain why; and simply saying that "God cannot be tested" will not suffice. Has your god not chosen to reveal himself and to perform much more fantastic miracles for the purpose of convincing non-believers? What would be the harm in doing this one small thing to gain another believer? Are you afraid it might open the flood gates, causing millions of similar requests to pour in from non-believers the world over? What would be the harm in that? Would it overwhelm god? In any case, shouldn't you let god decide how to handle it?
I request that you provide a direct and honest description of your actions, regardless of how you choose to handle this. If you ask your god to reveal the information to you (which I openly *invite* him to do, by the way), I would like to know what, if anything, you hear back from god. If, on the other hand, you decided not to even ask, I'd like to know why.
Deal?
To Jim Avro,
I accept your challenge. I do not know what will come of this butI will let you know. BE advised that the only computer access I have is through work so it may not be until Monday that I can get back to you. Talk to you soon.
Dave Poole
David, take your time. Thanks for accepting my challenge. You are the first to do so. (I've issued very similar challenges many times, and not once has a Christian given me a serious reply.)
I'll check back next week.
Let the record show that I, "boomSLANG", hereby declare that I have NOT known David Poole his whole life. The only thing I know with a high degree of certainty about him, is that he is a person just like the rest of us.
Question: Everyone--- How do you recognize any other person or being? You set limits on them, both on the physical AND the personality..i.e...the "self". Think about it.
Sound about right?
David Poole: "That is not the only experience I have had with God. I have had several other very meaningful encounters."
Question: David Poole, seeing as how "God" is presumably "timeless"; "infinite"; "omniscient"; "omnipotent"....i.e..."limitLESS".....how do you "know" that what you experienced was in FACT a "God", and not just in your head? If you can describe the experience by putting limits on it, then God is most certainly not "limitless".....yet, if you can't describe the experience but you could "feel it"---then how do you know it was in fact NOT Allah, Ra, Osiris, Budda, The Great Pumpkin, Thor, John David, Mithra, Mothra, whom you "felt"? Or even better yet, how can you be sure it was not the one and only "Satan", himself, who has deceived/is deceiving you?
boomSLANG.
DAVID,
If you can talk to God and he answers back, why would you need a computer. Just ask God to post it.
Also, please ask God to blink his eye and eliminate all pain and suffering, and get rid of that stupid Satan guy!
Dan (Who has a long list of requests)
I believe Zeus was trying to *strrr-ummmm* my ancient heart strings today by making an almost miraculous connection with me at the bus stop...or maybe it was Thor or Hestia?
Anyway, overhead their was a strike of lightening and a great clap of thunder that rattled me bones, right at the same exact time a large advertisement on the side of the bus pulled to a stop right in front of me which boldy proclaimed: "Go Greek"!
I guess that should be considered a sign from the great Zeus on Mt. Olympus. I pondered only for a second then went on my way.
ORRR...it COULD it be the OT Christian God was converted while waiting around the last 2,000 years and is now really a Greek god and not a Hebrew God anymore. Dare say?
Well, as imagined, all of this is only relative to those people who decide to live by faith in self-made assumptions and baseless notions of make believe.
Even though one tries to have so much faith (but always fails to have enough of it!)it requires the mind of a child to know it.
Guess that counts me out.
MAYBE the ancients biblical writters were wrong and could not understand the Real Greek Truth back then.
MAYBE the TRUE way to eternal bliss is to believe that Zeus is highest in the ranking of a hundred other "Sky Fathers" and has been kicking their divine asses and taking down names.
Also, I think they believe Zeus commanded that Gaia is the highest Mother and he says we have turned our backs on her. She is mad at this world and he will make us pay in horrific agony for failing to honor her twice a day. Rain and earthquakes, famine and fire...for the bad children of Earth.
She is a jealous Mother, but she loves us. She can kill whomever she would like in an instant if it serves her purpose, but She loves us. We should stop raping her of her precious resources or else she is going to come back and destroy half of the planet in a fit of rage and revenge and return it primitive muck once again.
She has plans though, for the other half that was good and followed only Gaia, she will rise them up to live in the new world that she creates perfectly in 1,000 years. Unity and Peace forever.
This prophetic message was brought to you by me...just now!
So I am writting it down to share with all those who are lost and without love and that many may know this truth ages from now.
These are the words of the great Gaia...Mother of ALL! Promising to guide you to eternal light. Stop following those man made false images and idols, these unoperable gods have no control over HER. Stop carrying your false labels to identify your stripe or cult.
Gaia is love. Bow to her, every Knee...or spend your life floating aimlessly in space and time being tormented and twisted by gravity and black holes.
She loves us. But BEWARE!
(illogical improvising is required)
Here is the Truest and complete MYTHICAL story as told by ancient Greek men as they wer inspired by mother Gaia, for her children of the Earth and her own powerful divine children that rule over all of nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twelve_Olympians
HOWEVER...one must make absolute assumptions in order to believe THIS particular religious faith is the Ultimate Truth and should be adhered to by ALL people in this world. Have enough faith yet?
They are right...everyone else is wrong. Jesus is all there is for those struggling with Earthly life and even believing that is just impossible! Let them bang you over the head with their bible, like a gang or a cult that initiates you by dunking your "old" self away, the words are like a sword of swift justice that cuts out your BRAIN while they sucker you in by selling false hope and religious lies.
Humanity is alive but not well. It requires our attention. Religious people pretend to be exceptional for their faith as claiming to have a divine connection with a holier-than- thou cosmic dictator that made evil for his own purpose and hides behind a unknown throne somewhere in a nearby galaxy, but wants us to "know" him.
He offers his mortal servants an unsuitable set of teachings to live by and promises torture to those who fail his life long course.
Bible god is ALL LOVING? Sure he is, go on and follow him right into your own delusional oblivion.
Okay, I've tried it. But the superaliens don't speak to me or move me emotionally for some logical reason.
It is delusion you know. Religious faith is a belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence.
JB's question is not even valid, if you follow Zeus or Hades.
Zeus bless you all as he rains down upon us all his mighty primordial anger and eternal righteousness! Forever.
NOT!
You know, I am wondering about the thousands and thousands of people who died today after praying and begging for a bit of food or a much needed cure.
Help is not on the way from any god above...it is down the earthen path where compassion and humanity meets on Survival Lane.
We all know the hidden truth about myth and religion, but living beyond the ancient legends of fantasy requires people to be honest and unselfish, to let go of our own assumptions.
I am open to change, unlike the self-righteous religious folks whom proclaim to know it all because of a dusty old man made religious journal called the bible.
Critical thought and honest inquiry moves us beyond the dead end of blind religious faith to experience the eyes-wide-open adventures of discovery and freedom.
Hope this helps ya JB.
Dano makes a good point. He said to David "If you can talk to God and he answers back, why would you need a computer. Just ask God to post it."
But PLEASE ask god to use the "Other" button! If he posts as Anonymous, we won't know it's him!
To Jim Arvo,
I will use any button I want, and if you don't like it you can go to hell!
(Danonymouse)
To Boomslang,
Boomslang said: Question: David Poole, seeing as how "God" is presumably "timeless"; "infinite"; "omniscient"; "omnipotent"....i.e..."limitLESS".....how do you "know" that what you experienced was in FACT a "God", and not just in your head? If you can describe the experience by putting limits on it, then God is most certainly not "limitless".....yet, if you can't describe the experience but you could "feel it"---then how do you know it was in fact NOT Allah, Ra, Osiris, Budda, The Great Pumpkin, Thor, John David, Mithra, Mothra, whom you "felt"? Or even better yet, how can you be sure it was not the one and only "Satan", himself, who has deceived/is deceiving you?
Reply: As you stated God is limitless, omnipotent, omniscient, etc. I am sure He knows how to make things very clear to us simple minded humans. I can describe every experience in perfect detail. Am I putting limits on it? I am not sure I know what you mean by that. All I know is that I describe it as I remember it. If that is “putting limits on it” then fine. How do I know it was God and not some other deity? I know, what else can I say? No one knows a man’s heart except God, and I heard things that only someone with that access could know. How do you know that you love your family? How do you know they love you? Is it the feeling, or is there some definitive test that can prove you love your family? When you know, you know.
Dave Poole
Ahh David, you are one sackless fundie...lol. Are you still wearing diapers who still needs to be tucked in by your sky fairy? Get a clue. I thought that you were leaving like ahhh a month ago. Can't resist uh?
Well, I will be standing by to see your *cough* debate with Jim Arvo "tsk, tsk." What great pleasure.
To South2003,
How am I a sackless fundie? Please explain. I asked you before but perhaps you missed it, is your testimony anywhere on this sight? Please provide the link if it is or type it out for us. I'll be looking for my "sack" while I wait.
Dave Poole
"I'll be looking for my 'sack' while I wait."
LMAO! Holy shit!...that was actually pretty damn funny.(being serious)
David Poole: "I'm sure He knows how to make things clear to us simple minded humans."
1) Speak for yourself.
2) There are thousands of religions, and hundreds, if not thousands, of denominations within Christianity. Yes, "things" are definitely "clear" and concise.
David Poole: "All I know is that I describe it as I remember it. If that is 'putting limits on it' then fine."
Looks like God is not "limitless"---so maybe you're being stalked by a finite/temporal being, or maybe you're dreaming.
BTW, many people can remember and "describe" their dreams. I once had a dream I was a pirate in a past life....::Shiver me timbers!!!::....
David Poole: "How do I know it was God and not some other deity? I know, what can I say?"
What can you say? You could "say" that you might be wrong, but since your conviction won't allow it, you just completely nullified your Faith in God. If you "know", then you don't need "Faith". Let the record show that David Poole does NOT have Faith in God. He is not a "real Christian". (I have a fire resistant body suit if you want to borrow it, I don't need one anymore)
David Poole: "No one knows a man's heart except God, and I heard things that only someone with that access could know."
Bzzzzzt! There's nothing in your "heart" except blood, valves, tissue, and muscle....so you must be refering to your brain, I take it? David Poole would obviously have "access" to David Poole's brain. I mean, that is much more likely than a man-ghost looking into your brain, and talking to you about what it sees. (If you're having conversations with yourself, there's drugs for that. Seriously, if you hear voices in your head, I'd see about that. Soon. Charles Manson heard voices...yikes!)
David Poole: "How do you know that you love your family. How do you know they love you?"
I know it BASED on how that love is reciprocated, and vica versa. Furthermore, if for some reason my love not reciprocated, I won't call a family meeting and set them all on fire. My love for them is NOT conditional. They are physically there for me when I need their support, and I for them. If I should need help in the form of action, they give it.....they don't sit around on their asses KNOWING I need help, and then make be beg for it.(pray)
God 'less.
David said "...When you know, you know."
But... people also "know" when in fact they do NOT know. Muslims, "know" that god is in fact Allah. Alien abductees "know" that aliens are for real. The average person "knows" that they see color over their entire visual field. Amputees sometimes "know" that they can still feel their limbs. The world in replete with such examples. Does this not justify being very skeptical of someone's claim to "know" something if it cannot be independently verified?
God said "I will use any button I want, and if you don't like it you can go to hell!"
That was very predictable, god. I thought you were supposed to work in mysterious ways. You even remembered to use the "Other" button. Good for you. I hereby grant you one brownie point on the existence scale. (You only need about 1.0E23 more to officially exist.)
To Jim Avro,
You are right. All those people do "know" that they are right. And your skepticsm is appropriate. I have no other answer than to say that I "know" it was real.
Dave Poole
David Poole: "Reply: That is not the only experience I have had with God. I have had several other very meaningful encounters. Of course the "logical" people out there in cyber space would write it off as a rush of endorphins or some neurons in the brain misfiring. Please do me the service of not speaking about what I have experienced and seen as though you have known me my entire life. Thanks."
You've got to be kidding, are you literate?
I'll type re a l l y s l o w for you. You are attempting to place your subjective "feeling" to an unknowable and undefinable "god".
First of all, your feeling can not be an objective litmus test, anyone else can use, because you are unique biologically speaking, so, all you can hope to do here, is attempt to persuade people, that you have a legitimate belief based in logic, but... your belief is "not" logical, albeit you have the right to continue to believe in my opinion. I just fail to see the benefit.
Secondly, until you can "define" god, and you "can't" which was the point of the last post, you CAN'T say, your feeling is "pointing" to a "god". It could just as easily be pointing to aphrodite, the goddess of love. I am not talking about endorphins, I am talking about your total and complete inability to "define" a "god", while you run around, telling everyone you have found "god".
How do you find, locate, describe, assign feelings to... an object (god), that you can't describe?
Please do me the service of not speaking about your logical prowess, and how your belief is fully supported by logic. I have heartburn, is that "god" or "Satan". I feel peaceful warmth, is that "aphrodite" or some other "god".
Read your bible, El of the OT was a cranky and jealous god, who killed the masses, but at least there wasn't any hell. The NT god, Yahweh was a little more generous, by sacrificing his son on a blood spit for humanity, but, then again, he created hell. Which of those two gods, do you worship, I'm sure you have picked one. Is it the NT god, because you have more to gain as a gentile.
To Boomslang,
Could I be wrong? Sure, I could be wrong, I would bet anything that I am not but I can accept that I am. Until that other god who has been passing Himself off as bible God slips up (I don't really think it is naything else but THE GOD), I'll stick with Christianity.
That whole the heart only pumps blood thing; do me a favor, look up the word metaphor ('me-t&-"for)and then re-read that section of the post.
Dave Poole
To Boomslang,
I would like to apologize for that sarcastic statement in the above post. It was uncalled for. Or at the very least could have been phrased more respectfully.
Dave Poole
"El is a northwest Semitic word and name translated into English as either 'god' or 'God' or left untranslated as El, depending on the context. El is used extensively in the Tanach(Old Testament) to refer to the God of Israel as well as heathen gods.
In the Levant as a whole, El or Il was the supreme god, the father of mankind and all creatures and the husband of the Goddess Asherah as attested in the tablets of Ugarit.
The word El was found at the top of a list of gods as the Ancient of Gods or the Father of all Gods, in the ruins of the Royal Library of the Ebla civilization, in the archaeological site of Tell Mardikh in Syria dated to 2300 BC. He may have been a desert god at some point, as the myths say that he had two wives and built a sanctuary with them and his new children in the desert. El had fathered many gods, but most important were Hadad, Yaw and Mot, each of whom has similar attributes to the Greco-Roman gods Zeus, Ophion and Thanatos respectively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/'El
"The name Yah is composed of the first letters of YHWH." That means, Yah, is YHWH, and Yahweh. Therefore, El is big daddy, the father of Yahweh.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Judaism#Yah
"The name YHWH was not always applied to a monotheistic God: see Asherah and other gods, Elohim (gods) and Yaw (god)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yahweh
Just thought I'd throw that out there before some reply came back, that these two gods, El and Yahweh, were the same exact god in the bible.
GOD: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. (Merriam-Webster)
I just attempted, with a little help, to define the undefinable. How'd I do? I am illiterate....so...you know...consider that.
And for the record I am not trying to convert anyone. EVERYONE has made it very clear that they will NOT be converting to Christianity. There. NOw that that is out of the closet we can move on.
My beleif is not logical? OK. I don't agree with you, but that's OK. I still know what I have seen, and to write off what I have seen as coinscidence or chance is the very definition of illogical. Please calculate the odds of a hole in someones heart closing up the day after it was prayed for. Please calculate the odds of a runaway teenager who had been missing for three days and then walking into a prayer meeting in a house he had never been to while members of his church were praying for his safe return. Present me those odds and then we will discuss how 'logical' thise things could happen if not for some "divine intervention".
Dave Poole
To Dave8,
My post got out there before I saw your new post. That is all very interesting. I personally choose to not use wikipedia only because anyone out there can add or create anything they like on the site. I have been there a few times and have even put a few things on there myself. Perhaps there is someone out there using my resource information to argue with someone else. That's scary, isn't it.
Dave Poole: "GOD: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. (Merriam-Webster). I just attempted, with a little help, to define the undefinable. How'd I do? I am illiterate....so...you know...consider that."
Actually, I am beginning to understand now. You haven't ever taken a logic course.
Perfect: "Being complete of its kind and without defect or blemish;"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
To know something is "Perfect", one must "also" be "Perfect". Uh, are you "Perfect" Dave? When, you say, you have a "feeling" or a "vision", is it a "Perfect" vision, or... are you experiencing your subjective vision of feeling from your "imperfect" self?
Subjective: "Taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias;"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Objective: "Undistorted by emotion or personal bias; based on observable phenomena;"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
If your god is "Perfect", then your god it "Objectively Perfect". How do you, as a subjective being, rid yourself of your emotion, and personal bias... Your "personal bias", is what creates "you", without the elements of your biological makeup and environemtal experiences to give you identity, etc., which make up your "personal bias", you cease to exist. Hence, you will never know perfection, if you are still living in your subjectively ridden body, thus, you can't possibly... with logic, know a perfect "god".
You can know your own personally biased and built god, however, call your god heartburn if you want.
David Poole: "GOD: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe."(Merriam-Webster)
Hey, wait a minute...?...? I don't see the words "Jesus"; "Holy Ghost"; "El"; "Trinity"; "Son"; "Yahweh"...or "LORD" in that definition. David?....are you a Universalist?
(I still have that fire resistant suit if you want it..LMAO!)
Let me add, call your god heartburn if you want, but its not the Perfect god you suggest exists. So, whatever god you create, it will never be the objectively true god, of someones' imagination... Well, until someone calls themselves "perfect", and then of course, I will call them "god", or self-centered, whichever seems to fit the profile.
Oh, you don't like wikipedia... okay, here's another source, which references archeological evidence...
"Dictionary of Gods and Goddesses, Michael Jordan 2004"
El:
Origin Western Semitic regions and Israel (northern Hebrew tribes) [Syria, Lebanon and Israel]. Creator god.
Known Period of Worship circa 2500 BC to 700 BC.
Synonyms et elyon (most high god); et sadday (god of the mountain); et olam (everlasting god); et betel (god of storms), Il [Southern Arabia].
Centers of Cult(s) Tirzah, Samaria, Bethel, Dan and many local hill shrines.
Art References none extant other than from later artists.
Literary Sources Vetus Testamentum; Qum'Ran Textx
Modeled on the creator god of the Canaanites, Il, represented by the bull and revered by the Hebrew tribes who settled northern Palestine. According to some Ugaritic (Ras Samra) texts, not the original creator but the offspring of an older principalk, El-Eb (god of the father). In Biblical texts the word el comes to be used in a descriptive sense as a qualifying epithet meaning "lord".
Possibly El came to represent the sum of all the creator spirits of the northern tribes. Israel was unwilling to part with the name against pressure from the southern state of Judah (see YWHW), but the name fell into disuse after suppression of Israel by Tiglathpileser II (Assyria). The Hebrew term Elohim may denote an "upper tier" of great gods while Elim applies to a lower order of deities.
Note: Biblical traditions were carried by the southern state of Judah. The impression is given that El is a distant, vaguely defined figure perceived in human form-"he" is able to see, hear, walk and touch-though no images in human form seem to have been created. El was apparently symbolized in Israel from circa 922 BC again by the bull calf (I Kings 12), probably emulating the Canaanite precedent. The voice of El is said to be like thunder, the clouds are his chariot, and he waters the mountains from heaven.
Bottom line, there Dave, is your god a bull calf or not... if not, then there are two gods in your bible, at minimum, and depending on how you fit Jesus into the picture, there are possibly three, notwithstanding you chucking out Satan as having god like powers.
To Dave8,
No, I have never taken a logic course. I am not an optometrist but I know how an eye works. I also am not trained in early childhood psychology but I am doing quite a decent job of raising my daughter.
Dave8 said: To know something is "Perfect", one must "also" be "Perfect". Uh, are you "Perfect" Dave? When, you say, you have a "feeling" or a "vision", is it a "Perfect" vision, or... are you experiencing your subjective vision of feeling from your "imperfect" self?
That is not making sense to me. It must be the illiteracy. Anyway, to know something is perfect one must be perfect. Does that apply with anything else? To know something is “large” one must “also” be “large”. No, that doesn’t work. Let’s try again. To know that something is “round” one must “also” be “round”. No, that does not work either. This should work, it sounded so logical when you said it. Let’s try one more time. To know something is “imaginary”, one must “also” be “imaginary”.
I understand that you are saying that I CAN NOT know that God. Dave8, I am a 27 year old white male, you do not KNOW this. However, the fact that you do not KNOW, makes it no less true. You will just have to take that on faith, based on the words that you are reading.
Dave Poole
P.S. Do you have any logic tests handy
To Dave8,
You said: Let me add, call your god heartburn if you want, but its not the Perfect god you suggest exists.
You must be PERFECT yourself to KNOW that my God is not perfect. Logically speaking of course.
Dave Poole
To Boomslang,
Thanks for the offer, but I think I will be OK. I’ll let you know if anything changes.
Dave Poole
David Poole: "That is not making sense to me. It must be the illiteracy. Anyway, to know something is perfect one must be perfect. Does that apply with anything else? To know something is “large” one must “also” be “large”. No, that doesn’t work. Let’s try again. To know that something is “round” one must “also” be “round”. No, that does not work either. This should work, it sounded so logical when you said it. Let’s try one more time. To know something is “imaginary”, one must “also” be “imaginary”."
Okay, no logic course, then I have to communicate better. Yes, the rule applies accross the board.
We are talking about perception, Dave. My degree is in the behavioral science, so, forgive me for assuming that most people who enter into such arguments are versed in subjective perception.
When you see a large round ball, and someone else sees the exact same ball, you are limited by your biological "eyes", and "senses". YOUR senses, are "UNIQUE" to you alone, no two people in the world have the "exact" same biological senses, because our physiologies are different even if slightly, thus, no two people see the exact same large round ball. Now, notionally, can two people say, hey, there appears to be a large round object, collectively called a ball by many cultures, yes. But, they do not "perceive" that large round ball, in the exact same manner, as their biological "lenses" are different.
Not only are we subjectively inhibited by our unique biological senses, we have different experiences and knowledge. Therefore, I may consciously search for a word to describe large round ball to you, but, that doesn't mean your mental filing cabinet is going to pull the exact same thought I am perceiving based on my own experiential knowledge, you are going to do your best to recall my description with your own unique knowledge based on experiences.
Again, you suggest that you are capable of perceiving a perfectly objective god. However, you have no "standard" by which to compare a "perfect" god. You have lived your whole life, as a subjective human being, gathering information through your uniquely "different" and non-perfect biological senses, and based on your unique knowledge base.
In short, you "collect" information from birth to build your knowledge base, and its a unique knowledge base, and you, like everyone else, apply that knowledge to your environment.
If you assert god pushes his objectiveness onto humanity, then, I suggest, that humanity will "paint" that objectiveness with their subjective views, to the point, that no two people can say, that they have experienced a "perfect" deity. You can't experience something objectively, if you are perceiving through subjective lenses.
Likewise, if you suggest god is within us, and pushes outward, then, I'd have to say, I can't ever get into your mind, and thus, however, you personally "think" about your god, I will never really be able to perceive, because its modelled in your mind, and you can't portray anything in this natural environment, that I will perceive in my subjective view, objectively equal to your insights.
Thus, a "Perfect" god, can 'never' be known, "Universally" equal, and thus can not be corroborated.
Oh, and while we are at it. Just to close the loop, I don't know if you are a mainstream christian or not, but... mainstream christians, place "god" in a transcendent reality, thus, a supernatural being, outside of this natural universe. Thus, your example resides in this "natural" universe, not in a "transcendent" and "supernatural" universe.
Logically speaking, we can never prove or disprove something that exists in a transcendent reality, where a "supernatural" god, is said to exist. However, if a christian had that belief, then, they need to drop their "experiences" at the door, when they attempt to prove their god, based on their "Natural" experiences, as... their "god" doesn't reside in this "Natural" universe, according to them.
David said "Please calculate the odds of a hole in someones heart closing up the day after it was prayed for."
I know you intended your question somewhat rhetorically (that is, you are really just asserting that the odds are small, right?), but I'm going to interpret it literally, just to show what it would take to provide a meaningful answer. In order to calculate such odds, I would need the following information at minimum:
1) How certain was the diagnosis?
2) How certain was the remission?
3) How many times had this condition been observed in the past?
4) How many times had this condition corrected itself in the past (both with and without prayer), and how long did it take on average?
5) How many prayers were issued, and at what times?
6) How long after the initial diagnosis did the condition disappear?
You see, if one is to actually compute meaningful probabilities, there are many factors to consider. Without this information, the "odds" are nothing more than subjective impressions, which can be notoriously far off. As one specific example, let's suppose that 100 days lapsed between diagnosis and remission, and that remission occurred the day after it was prayed for, as you stated. Then, without the above considerations, you would likely jump to the conclusion that the odds were no better than one in a hundred that it would have happened that way. However, if prayers had been issued at other times as well, perhaps one EVERY intervening day, then the likelihood approaches 1, which is not very impressive.
David: "Please calculate the odds of a runaway teenager who had been missing for three days and then walking into a prayer meeting in a house he had never been to while members of his church were praying for his safe return."
Again, there are many many considerations if you want a meaningful probability. How many houses had the teenager visited? How were they distributed? Were they all in the same proximity? How many groups of people were praying for his return?
I should also point out that I've been assuming that events unfolded as you described them. Now, I'm not calling you a liar. But it's human nature to distort facts and to remember only those things that conveniently fit your pre-existing worldview. Stories tend to get better with retelling.
Finally, if I were you, I'd wonder about other prayers that have gone unanswered. Why was the teen returned home safely when thousands of children die of cancer, despite the heartfelt prayers of the parents and even entire communities? How often do abducted or lost children return home safely when prayed for? If you have some evidence that the odds go up appreciably when prayer is involved, I'd like to know about it.
To Jim Avro,
First of all, I have no reason to lie. Let me answer your questions in order.
1) 100%
2) It has been 11 years so far
3) Just the 1 time
4) Just the 1 time after prayer
5) Diagnosed once, confirmed a week later on a Wednesday. We prayed at service that night. His mother brought him back the following day and it was gone. Several routine checks at X month intervals and nothing.
In response to your final question I can only say I don't know. I have no idea. Some will say "it was God's will" or that "they were called home". "His ways are mysterious", is also popular. All of these excuses have alwlays been and still are unsatisfactory for me. But I can't stop beleiving just because I don;t have all the answers.
Dave Poole
David Poole: "You must be PERFECT yourself to KNOW that my God is not perfect. Logically speaking of course."
Well, the logic class continues. No, no, Dave, its easier than that. I know that you don't have the exact same thoughts as me, based on neurological processing with is also biologically dependent, and of course, I hope you would agree, that we have both lived two different lives, and picked up information and experiences differently. Your knowledge, and your cognitive processing, and your biological lenses, are "not" the exact same as mine. Thus, I am not perfect, and neither are you, we are both unique.
However, Dave, that's the point. You, being, unique, with a subjective perception, can not logically support the statement that you can "gain" an "objective truth", in this "Natural" universe, again, you have to be able to "overcome" your subjective limitations, i.e., physiological, neurological, informational/environmental, etc. in order to see a "theoretical" perfect being, or experience.
Again, unless you actually believe you are perfect, with perfect knowledge, you don't have the capability to "know" perfection. Even if "I" personally saw something, I would "paint" it with my knowledge to become something I have experienced previously. Then of course, I would test that hypothesis, using my senses. If I experienced, something, I had never experienced before, but could not define or explain the event, then at a minimum, I would have to acknowledge, that what I experienced was based on my subjective perception. Knowing I don't have any Perfectly Objective Universal knowledge, I could not logically state, that what I experienced, in fact, had to be a "perfect" being.
A baby, with no knowledge, is in much the same situation. They have experiences every day, and subjectively pull in new information using their senses, but when they find something new, they look to their parent or caregiver to give them a word to describe and anchor that image in their mind. A child, that is never given a "name" to label an experience, etc., may either choose to ignore it, or persistently attempt to give it a name. All experiences we have, aren't "understood", I have moments when I know the phone is going to ring, but I am not sitting around looking for a god, nor do I call that experience "god", which by definition can not exist by mainstream christianity in the "Natural" realm anyway.
If I don't have a term for an experience, I continue to seek further knowledge on the event. Again, check your definition, you said "Perfect" god, as a subjective perceiving human, I accept that whatever event I have, can never be known in an "objective" manner. If god is "Perfect", then god, is beyond my understanding. If god, is as mainstream christianity states, "transcendent", then I can never "reach" or "interact" with a god, from this natural reality.
To Dave8,
Real quick, I have to leave. Again, I am not trying to prove anything about the existance of God. And I understand what you are saying about perception. To use your example of the round object. Two unique people may see two different things when looking at the same object. But ones PERCEPTION does not define its reality, existance or characteristics. It exists on its own. Perceptions are unique, each one different, so perception is not a good measuring device. I may be unable to PERCEIVE that God is perfect. But my lack of perception or insight does not detract from Gods, or anythings, true characteristics.
Maybe that made sense, maybe not. Either way I need to leave. I will catch up tomorrow if I come to work (it is supposed to be a beautiful day)
Peace to all. (no God or prayers, just peace)
Dave Poole
To Dave8,
I can concede the point that I do not know perfection and therefore can not KNOW that God is perfect. I can not say with full assurance that I know. Obviously that knowledge is beyond our reach. I will also agree that God is beyond both of our understanding. You can’t create everything in the universe and not be a little complex. But I also have to say that a transcendent being would have the means to communicate with us in a way that would be as real as anything we can touch or see or whatever.
I really need to go. Thanks for the lesson.(zero sarcasm)
Dave Poole
David Poole: "But ones PERCEPTION does not define its reality, existance or characteristics. It exists on its own."
So, you're not a proponent of "perception is reality?", I take it, hehehehehe. Agreed.
However, perception is based on knowledge, and thus, knowledge creates our reality, wouldn't you say. So, the more knowledge we have, the greater the understanding of our reality, and thus existence. The reverse argument would be, if a person had no knowledge, would their perception of reality be extremely limited to their immediate sphere of senses? I would say, yes, much like a babies perception of reality, is limited, every play peekaboo, where a childs' face lights up once you seem to appear out of thin air? The child, can't perceive anything greater than direct line of sight, because of a lack of knowledge.
If a child never learns, spatial recognition, or pertinent information regarding reality, then to them, everything is magical. Like you said, perception doesn't define reality, but to that infant, their subjective reality is all magical, and like many adults who believe in such matters, they claim it as "truth", and not only just "truth", but "Objective" truth.
Again, I am not going to argue that reality doesn't exist, I may however, argue, that humanity doesn't have the necessary capability to perceive "reality" in its totality, much like you experience catching a ball, which you may describe as catching a ball, someone else, may suggest they just caught umpteem gazillion molecules... whose to say they are wrong... only someone omniscient would be able to tell them different. At the more "macro" level, we have more clarity, and predictability, and thus validation methods, the more reductionist we get, the harder to validate claims, notwithstanding, taking extremely small particles and blasting them through a particle accelerator and making them larger for observation.
Personally, I believe we can find truth, and find a modelling technique to unify our understanding of this reality. And then, there are others who believe, that we can't ever really know this reality, and thus, need to fall back on "faith", in the unknown & unknowable.
Infants have a need to "know", its why they continue to ask questions throughout life, doesn't it seem unnatural to tell someone to quit thinking, in order to find true peace? Especially, when we are naturally designed to anchor ourselves in this reality, based on our ability to "know" our environment.
David Poole: "But I also have to say that a transcendent being would have the means to communicate with us in a way that would be as real as anything we can touch or see or whatever."
A transcendent being, remains "transcendent", but, even transcendence is a hypothetical. Using the same logic as earlier, with subjectivity and perception, how can a person create the "notion" of "transcendence", when all they have ever known has been in this "natural" universe, and according to their subjective senses?
Well, its late, but I'll leave you with this. Sometimes, its more important, to know, what you can't know, than to claim you do know, what you can't possibly know ;-)
Let's see now, David Poole was asked to "define" his "God", and this is what he came up with:
"GOD: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped as creator and ruler of the universe. (Merriam-Webster)
My original response was: "Hey, wait a minute...?...? I don't see the words "Jesus"; "Holy Ghost"; "El"; "Trinity"; "Son"; "Yahweh"...or "LORD" in that definition. David?(meaning David Poole)...are you a universalist?"
So....David?(meaning David Poole).... are you a universalist? I mean, I don't see anything that ties into Christianity in that definition. Nothing. So, when you get back, would you care to tell the class how you know for a fact that it's the "Christian" deity(s) that you are chatting with? And just out of curiosity, what language is used for these conversations between you two gentlemen? Thanks.
Don't like Wikipedia?
Okay, here's a book: The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (Biblical Resource Series)
To Dave Poole about the heart, blood, emotions, thoughts, etc., etc., etc.
The ancient Greeks believed that the heart, the most noticeable internal organ, was the seat of intelligence and memory as well as emotion. This belief was passed on down the ages and became the basis for the English expression "learn by heart," which is used by Chaucer (1374) and must have been proverbial long before that. "To record" reminds again of this ancient belief in the heart as the seat of the mind. When writing wasn't a simple act, things had to be memorized; thus we have the word record, formed from the Latin re, "again," and cor, "heart," which means exactly the same as to learn by heart—Biology 218
Many classical and medieval philosophers and scientists, including Aristotle, considered the heart the seat of thought, reason or emotion, often rejecting the value of the brain.
The Stoics taught that the heart was the seat of the human soul
Today we know more about the heart, but the expressions in our language continue on as metaphors. Today it's a metaphor, but the ignorant writers of the Bible would have considered these ideas about the heart to be literal.
David asked: "is your testimony anywhere on this sight?"
Hey David, go search for it. It’s in the Archives. Plus, when you do, I would love to see you reconcile your beliefs into it. By the way, I'm a staunch Atheist and I don't give a damn about your imaginary Sky daddy. What I care about is the brainwashing of this religion that has fester the human race.
And as for the worn out miracles, I remember asking you for collaborated evidences and to date, I don't see one. Where are your peer reviews? Give us the name of the Hospital that performed the procedure. Are there any CAT scans, MRIs? Cough your shyte up or shut it. Yep you are sack less. It’s like carrying water in a basket.
To South2003,
Wow, quite a "warm" response to a simple question. You could easily tell me where it is but instead you want to play coy and be difficult.
As far a the evidence. I made a few calls and was unsuccessful finding that kid with the hole in his heart. Someone else also asked for proof about my bank acounts. Like I would post personal bank information on the internet for the whole world to see.
Anyway, if you really want evidence of my witnessed miracles I guess I will take a page from South2003 and say "Hey South2003, go search for it."
Dave Poole
To webmaster,
WM said: Today we know more about the heart, but the expressions in our language continue on as metaphors. Today it's a metaphor, but the ignorant writers of the Bible would have considered these ideas about the heart to be literal.
I understand that they were being literal. And even though they were not accurate with that part of the message I don't think it detracts from the context.
Dave Poole
To boomslang,
I am not a Universalist. I thought the definition was fine and acurate the way it was. I will get a more in-depth definition if you want.
Dave Poole
David (Poole),
(Even though I know that you know exactly where the problem lies with your definiton, I'll play along with your cute little game)
David, your definition is ambiguous, as it does not make reference to the Christian God, whatsoever. A Muslim could just as easily blubber "I thought that definition was fine and acurate the way it was." Of course, they'd be PRESUPPOSING "Allah" the exact same way that you PRESUPPOSE "Christ".
But anyway, yeah, just out of curiosity, find me a dictionary entry for "God" that makes direct reference to "Christ", and none other god.
(Side note: I know that you use the bible as a science journal, but in this case, could you please not use it as a "dictionary"? lol! Thanks.)
To boomslang,
Yes it does not mention the Christian God. But it still is acurate.
Dave Poole
I'll work on that other definition. But is there really a point if I do. Be honest.
To boomslang,
Yes it does not mention the Christian God. But it still is acurate.
Dave Poole
I'll work on that other definition. But is there really a point if I do. Be honest.
Okay.
Okay.
David, is "acurate" accurate?
(No, my Ad hominem doesn't mean God doesn't exist, but it's soooo fun! lol)
Yes, the definition you provided is accurate to the generic commonly accepted noun, "God". The problem remains, however, and you know what it is. Find me an entry that delineates Jesus Christ as the creator and ruler of the Universe. Thanks.
boomSLANG.
David said: "Anyway, if you really want evidence of my witnessed miracles I guess I will take a page from South2003 and say "Hey South2003, go search for it."
David, the topic was not about my testimony, was it? But for your information, I don't hand over "here is my testimony" to a fundie who will go on and on probing with the "gawd thermometer."**rolling eyes** It's nauseating to say the least. It’s been 2 yrs and anymore (regurgitating) comments coming from a fundie regarding it is null and void.
As for your so call miracles – which you mentioned in another thread damn near 2 ½ months ago (maybe 3), in which I asked for evidence. Well, here we are again with the same old worn out tired dragging, and tattered *tsk* miracles – that, if someone was to dedicate the time and google, they will find it, lets say on www.snopes.com or some other “Holy Mary of the Rosary” site. So fundie, I can furnish my testimony at will, so can you do the same? See below:
David said: "As far the a evidence. I made a few calls and was unsuccessful finding that kid with the hole in his heart.
p.s. “that kid” I though was “your friend”
To South2003,
That kid (his name is Aaron and I lost touch with him after he went to college) was a good friend when we were in high school and going to the same church. After school we moved, started families and began our lives. People grow apart, it happens. Do you still talk to every person you went to high school and college with?
Anyway, your right. You do not have to just hand over your testimony to anyone. I did not think it would be a big deal to show it to me since you have already posted it for the entire world and left it open to scrutiny. Maybe you could help me find my friend and we'll see if he has the MRI's still.
You also told me that you were a staunch atheist. I'm glad you mentioned it because I couldn't tell based on your posts alone. Not to worry, you won't get any "fundie, sackless, two-faced, hypocritical, ding-bat" Christian conversion lectures from me.
Dave Poole
XOXOXOXO
David: "Do you still talk to every person you went to high school and college with?"
Of course I do. The important ones. Get it *wink*
David: "I did not think it would be a big deal to show it to me since you have already posted it for the entire world and left it open to scrutiny." blah blah blah
On occasion, the Christians pukes up on it and it's fine. Just don't need another addition. If you do happen to find it, read and keep it moving.
Davis: "Maybe you could help me find my friend and we'll see if he has the MRI's still."
Maybe.................not. Must I help you look for everything? Plus, you’re the one with this incredible claim. *Psst, but I know you were being sarcastic though.
David said: "You also told me that you were a staunch atheist. I'm glad you mentioned it because I couldn't tell based on your posts alone."
Was there a another way I could have made it known to you? Like, until there are evidences for this non-evident deity (don’t matter which one) yada, yada, yada, therefore, I won’t hold my breath.
To South2003,
You said Christians occasionally puke on your testimony; I must admit I worry that exchristians will puke on my things as well. That’s the risk you run by posting your life on the internet.
You still talk to the important ones? That’s great. I can’t seem to find time to do that with my job (55-60 hours a week) and outside activities (church, my band, and school). Either you have a lot of free time or there were not a lot of “important” ones, get it *wink*.
When I contact my friend I will ask him, but you could give me the information I would like quite easily, but choose not too. How old are you?
Dave Poole
(kisses)
Dave Poole, lets say you find the MRIs, and it shows an amazing recovery. Tell everyone, how you can associate that recovery with a "deity" please. That is the genesis of asking you for the definition of your god. If you can't provide us with enough tangible evidence to attribute that recovery to your "god", whatever you want to label it as, then that recovery could just as easily be attributed to Aphrodite.
Your inability to define "one" god, with enough attributes to identify "it", shows you can not have a relationship with that "entity". If there is an experience you have in this natural world, then its not from a transcendent "god", its from a "natural" god.
If you can not define your god, then you can not "locate" your god, either in the transcendent realm, or this natural realm, miracles at that point are useless claims as you can't tie them to your god.
If you want to play testimony 20 questions, why don't you just ask your questions if you have them. Personally, I have nothing to hide, you don't know me I don't know you.
I'll let you know though, I have no problem saying, "I don't know" at some point, but because I don't know, doesn't mean I give it a name "god", that can't be defined, that's assinine. However, it may be harder for the one who is claiming a "god" exists, to state they don't "know" something, because then their entire god concept becomes arbitrary, and unstable knowledge, fuzzy logic comes to mind. Anyhow, can you readily admit that you don't know if your "god", saved your friend, or do you hold to the "belief", based on your "faith" in Aaron's word (knowing he can't define god either), that your "god" saved him.
There's a difference between belief based on "faith", and belief based on "knowledge". Do you have a belief based on your "faith" in Aarons' word, or do you have a "belief" based on "knowledge". Okay, while you are defining "god", why don't you take a shot at epistemological limits, and your threshold for accepting something as knowledge.
To dave8,
I have stated many times on this site that I do not know. And like I said yesterday, I concede the point that I can't say I "KNOW". There are many things that I do not know. Did God heals Aaron's heart. Based on the evidence I say yes. Can I say that I "KNOW" that? Nope. But I do believe it, in all it's illogical glory.
And I can't prove by the evidence alone that his heart was healed by God. But I never claimed that that would be proof of His existance. I first mentioned it as something I witnessed and "beleived" was God's work. And I still do believe it. It was the others who wanted to see it, I believe, to only discredit it. I am not playing the victim here but I feel that would have been the case.
Dave Poole
David Poole(from post 5/5/06 9:24 PM):
"I have stated many times on this site that I do not know. And like I said yesterday, I conceded the point that I can't say I 'KNOW'."
David Poole(from post 5/4/06 5:59 PM):
"How do I know it was God and not some other deity? I know, what else can I say?"
To boomslang,
That statement is true, but according the statment will not hold up to Dave8's criteria for "KNOWING". I still believe 100% that it was and is The Lord
Dave Poole
That's good. Okay, then can we finally conclude, once and for all, that just because David Poole believes on his "Lord", the Christian Deity "Jesus Christ", that it doesn't mean Christianity's absolutely true; that he could be worshiping the wrong deity; that he takes what he believes on "faith" only; that so-called "miracles" could be improbable coincidences; that evolution is both theory AND fact; that people's lives can have meaning without a "God"?
If we CAN conclude these things, then why are you here? If we can't conclude these things--STILL, then you're wasting everyone's time, including your own.
Let's have it.
"I still believe..."
I think this whole discussion has come down to this: you believe.
And you are entitled to that position.
David: "You said Christians occasionally puke on your testimony; I must admit I worry that exchristians will puke on my things as well."
Well David, you don't have to post here. This site was SPECIFICALLY set up for ex-Christians. Just like an AA organization is set up for those who want to stop abusing alcohol. Have you ever seen an unbeliever walk into a church and scream you guys are wrong? You have not begun to respect and understand the plight many took to do away with religion/relationship/gods, whatever you want to call it and many come to this site with their minds shatter and broken to tell it all.
We are at liberty to post our “coming out so to speak” and it is not your place to spout "That’s the risk you run by posting your life on the internet." How about your life David, honestly, who is behind that curtain? Are you hiding behind your portentous religious club? Does your religion tell you to suppress who you are and sweep shit under the carpets, then talk to yourself and read a book and all will be well? Does it also teach you to hold on to some reputation for a counterfeit reward and live an unnatural life? Why would anyone adhere to such claptrap? (These are all questions).
From reading the rest of your posts to boomSlang, you have not one shred of evidence for a deity except for your own subjective "feelings." I get goose bumps too. Maybe it's god **rolling eyes** So, what I can see is that one must "try" and experience/feel your god plus, you can’t even define a god. What I ponder is whose god you will define when you get around to it. Hilarious!!!
You can hold your beliefs if it keeps you in check. For those who are willing to be honest with them selves will continue to come here to free their minds of the brainwashing.
As for A/S/L
Age: 39
Sex: Female
Location: North Carolina
To boomslang:
If we CAN conclude these things, then why are you here? If we can't conclude these things--STILL, then you're wasting everyone's time, including your own.
Ultimately this whole site is a waste of time. It's just people talking about there opinions. Nothing productive occurs here at all. Not that there is anything wrong with that. People do need support when they've endured difficulties. But all we do is talk. It's entertainment and nothing more. I come here because things have been slow at work.
TO Sout2003:
YOu said: We are at liberty to post our “coming out so to speak” and it is not your place to spout "That’s the risk you run by posting your life on the internet."
You are at liberty to post your experiences, you are also at liberty to hear from others who may agree or disagree with you.
You asked: How about your life David, honestly, who is behind that curtain? Are you hiding behind your portentous religious club? Does your religion tell you to suppress who you are and sweep shit under the carpets, then talk to yourself and read a book and all will be well? Does it also teach you to hold on to some reputation for a counterfeit reward and live an unnatural life? Why would anyone adhere to such claptrap? (These are all questions).
No. Nothing to hide here. Nothing counterfeit. (These are all answers.)
Dave Poole
David: Ultimately this whole site is a waste of time. It's just people talking about there opinions. Nothing productive occurs here at all.
So why are talking to us and why waste your “free time” Move on to another site – somewhere out there and chit chat....it just won't be here, especially when you dismiss individuals’ life stories and pain as "waste of time and unproductive" But you can’t can you? You seem to have a need to come back to read our wasted opinions and unproductive posts.
hummm
David: "You are at liberty to post your experiences, you are also at liberty to hear from others who may agree or disagree with you."
Lets take a look at Liberty aka Authorization:
1)The WM has the liberty to scrub your posts and he does not have to accomodate you.
2)He also has liberty to make sure that you do not have to waste anymore of your free time here with unproductive ex-Christians posters. Would you like some help David> Let me get the door.
David Poole: "Ultimately this whole site is a waste of time. It's just people talking about there opinions."
However, opinions become facts when corroborated by a number of people, and verification efforts can lend predictable results consistently. Now, someones' opinion may not be consistent with logic, nor may it be testable to a great degree. However, there does exist information that is predictable, and worthy of understanding. You may not want to believe that because it conflicts with your immediate presupposition of a "god" being the mover and shaker behind the curtain of reality.
David Poole: "Nothing productive occurs here at all."
Absolutely true, for those who are not capable of being open minded and flexible enough to spot consistencies in information. For those, who are going to hold onto a belief based on "faith", this site holds nothing for them, except pity - at least by me.
David Poole: "Not that there is anything wrong with that. People do need support when they've endured difficulties."
The best way to move through conflict, is to understand the conflict, and the basic underlying principles that failed. In religion, predominately, one may allow themselves to be abused because they are trained to accept themselves as downfallen by sin, without the ability to become whole again. Uh, this is why some children get molested and don't report the case there David, they are made to feel as the abuse is warranted because they are sinful and deserving. Just because you may not have bought off on the whole idea of original sin, and the religiously touted "Fact" that everyone falls short and is deserving of nothing, doesn't mean that the message isn't taken literally by many others.
David Poole: "But all we do is talk."
And to you, talking is nothing I suppose, but... if you had an education you'd realize that information is the key to your life. Can you name something in your life, "anything" that doesn't contain information. No. So, ignorantly, by stating that just "talking" has little merit, its foundations on information, is the basis for your very being, hence, one might speculate on the informational worth of your "life", as you make that comment in a semi-nihilist fashion.
David Poole: "It's entertainment and nothing more. I come here because things have been slow at work."
I come here, because some people have no idea what type information is valid for specific functions in life. To watch them make posts, without having that information, is purely entertaining.
To David Poole,
You accepted my challenge to you earlier. Have you asked god about it? I'm about to extend the same challenge to another visitor who claims to regularly have conversations with god. Should be interesting, no?
To Jim Avro,
I have prayed about this. The second day I received a passage from Acts 16:16. I am not sure if The Lord "gave" me this or if I just remembered it, but it sprang to mind quite fast. Anyway, the passage tells of how Paul and his posse came upon a woman with a spirit of divination. Paul then proceeded to cast it out, making the men who were profiting from the woman very angry. The woman was making money reading people's minds and revealing things to them that only they would know. Sounds like our situation here. Anyway, this left me with more questions than answers. Paul cast this spirit out but I am not sure why. Divinity is not a fruit of the Spirit so that may be why he cast it out. But Paul also had a tendency to be a bit of a "pill" and may have just had a "bug stuck you know where". But to conclude this rant, no I have not "heard" anything. The first day I started praying I got an image but I am pretty sure it was just my imagination. I will keep praying and let you know, but so far, Nothing.
Dave Poole
David Poole said "But to conclude this rant, no I have not 'heard' anything. The first day I started praying I got an image but I am pretty sure it was just my imagination. I will keep praying and let you know, but so far, Nothing."
Well, David, that was the most honest reply I ever received to such a challenge. You get some points for that. It does raise an interesting question, however. How do you distinguish between your imagination and messages from god? Of course, it is my strong suspicion that it's always the former, and never the latter. The only way I could hope to distinguish the two is via content--hence my challenge. But how do *you* think that you can tell the difference?
To Jim Avro,
Another tough question. I guess you have to use good judgment in deciphering that. When your wife tells you that she loves you how do you know she means it? How do you know she is not just saying it? You could argue that you can tell she is sincere based on her actions. But how do you know she is not pretending? There comes a point where you have to take it on faith, when you have to believe it as opposed to knowing it.
How do I know the difference between God and my imagination? There are lots of times when I am not sure, and I always chalk those up to imagination. And there have been times when the experience was so undeniably real and significant that it had to be God, or maybe it would be better to say that it could not be my imagination. I know that many out there would say it is foolish to claim those experiences as God if you can not say with 100% assuredness that it is God. But based on the events that occurred and the intensity of those events there is no doubt in my mind that it was indeed God. I do realize that this is only significant to me but that is the best I can answer your question.
Finally, I will continue to pray in regards to your request (I have to admit that the last few days I have been a little preoccupied with some other events and have slacked off a bit in regards to your prayer request). Please write it down or take whatever measures are necessary to ensure you do not forget what your vision was. I will let you know what, if anything, I hear.
Dave Poole
David,
Your analogy is not apt. You liken the problem of discriminating between imagination and communications from god with determining whether a speech act of a person (my wife, in this case) is an accurate description of the person's cognitive state (whether she loves me). I think it's a poor analogy because the first is a problem of determining the *origin* of a message, and the second is a problem of determining the *accuracy* of a message. Note that you did not liken your problem to how I might determine whether something I heard originated in my imagination or from my wife; i.e. distinguishing between an auditory hallucination and the real thing. But that would be a closer analogy, would it not? I think you did not go that route because I would have many options available to me that you would not. I could simply ask my wife if she had said something. I could ask others if they overheard. I could ask my wife to repeat what she said in the presence of another observer. So, clearly, you are dealing with something that does not have ANY of the characteristics of physical communication that we enjoy with real people.
But even your strained analogy does not really work in your favor. How do I know that my wife means it when she says she loves me? It's *not* purely a matter of faith, as you suggest. People can and do profess "love" all the time and do not mean it, or intend something far less substantial by it than I would. Therefore, those words in isolation do not mean much. What matters is a long history of actions that are consistent with those words. It is therefore a far more empirical thing than most people are willing to admit.
In summary, I can verify both the *origin* and the *content* of messages from a real person in ways that you apparently cannot from your god. But, I can hear you say, you actually can do the latter--you *can* attest to a long history of behaviors that are consistent with the message, for god behaves according to his word. (Am I close?) But I don't buy that, because that history of behaviors rests upon the very same murky foundation as the communication itself--e.g. you have *faith* that certain occurrences were a direct result of god involvement. You cannot verify a single one. (Believers often point to the extreme improbability of specific events as "proof" that it required divine intervention. However, no such claim that I have examined has held up to scrutiny--most fail because of faulty statistical inferences.)
As for the scene I imagined, I will not forget it. I've used the same scene for quite a while now. For the sake of keeping this experiment "pure", it's important that I do not write it down or tell anyone. This actually raises an interesting question, however. Suppose you say "God told me you were imagining X", and I say "Nope, not even close." How would *you* know whether I was telling the truth? Well, there's a relatively high-tech way I could set up the experiment to achieve that end as well, but I won't pursue that until it gets to that level. Thus far nobody has even hazarded a guess.
To Jim Avro,
I understand your point. Talk to you later when I hear (or don't hear) something.
Dave Poole
Reincarnation has found a home back where it belongs- in Christianity of course!
Don't let the Bible bashers fool you. They've built a house of cards on the shifting sands. And all I've got to worry about is mixed metaphors.
Dave Poole 05/15 at 3:23 said "I am not sure if the Lord 'gave' me this or if I just remembered it..."
Not sure? Hmmm. Why aren't you sure? This is why we don't believe christians here.
To Slingshot,
Dave Poole 05/15 at 3:23 said "I am not sure if the Lord 'gave' me this or if I just remembered it..."
Not sure? Hmmm. Why aren't you sure? This is why we don't believe Christians here.
That is right, I was not sure. And I said that. I can admit when I am not sure of things; I can admit when I don’t “KNOW”. Can you? So many non-believers say they are enlightened; that they won’t be fooled. “We need proof”. “We only believe what we can see”. “We put their faith in ‘SCIENCE’”. It wasn’t too long ago when people SAW a flat horizon and assumed the world was flat. It wasn’t too long ago when people SAW the sun move across the sky and assumed that the sun revolved around the earth. It wasn’t too long ago that people thought meat turned into flies because that is what they SAW.
“No, no, David. It’s different”. “We know so much more now”.
Do we? Are we so much more enlightened? Or have we just found new things to misunderstand? Will people 200 years from now be laughing at what we “KNEW” the same way we look back at our predecessors and scoff at what they “KNEW”?
Wait. That was a silly question. I forgot that non-believers knew everything. My bad.
Dave Poole
Please forgive that last line in the previous post. It was less than productive. I was weak.
Dave Poole
You don't get it, Dave. When you say that you are not sure, I can't help but wonder if you really have a "relationship with Christ." If you did, then it seems to me that you would know his voice from that of your own mind.
I know this post is old, but I have to add some too.
If the Bible was inspired by God, HE would have known that earth is round before man did, and not have "four corners". He would also have known that the man jesus met who had epilepsy- was not possessed by demons. These are just 2 things out of the multitude of things the "inspired word of God" didn't inspire man to write down. Or did God not know these things either? LOL!
The burden of proof lies with the people that claim the Bible was inspired by God.
If i said the Bible was written by a bunch of witches, i would have to somehow proof my statement. If i can't proof it then my statement would be a 'claim', not fact.
Nobody can proof that the Bible was somehow inspired or dictated by God 'himself' (why does God appear to be 'male' in the Bible?)...to me it's also quite telling that MEN wrote the Bible.
Not a single woman author to be found anywhere. Was God sexiest?
Ahhh....just one more human emotion among many attached to the biblical God...
Post a Comment