I would not.
Faith is personal. It is not my place to criticise, or refute someone else’s faith.
Despite popular Christianity, I do not limit God to Christians.
I am a Christian, that is all.
Richard
1 Like
Ahhh! The Symmetry Argument: “If all can’t be true, and all claim the same kind of evidence, then none can be trusted.”
- So, Gary, because you don’t believe “the evidence”, no one should?
- That’s not just a question, it’s a trap. Do you seriously believe that an objective method can validate a subjective faith?
Not liking what I saw in myself (in my teens), I begged for His intervention to change me… and I have changed.
I certainly do not believe there is any objective evidence. I do think subjective experience/evidence can provide certainty (which is a subjective experience in itself). But personally I strongly link certainty with entitlement and since I see that as evil rather than good, I don’t believe in certainty and thus am not a fan of the common Christian idea of assurance.
But what can I say? People are different. And what they need is different. And perhaps for some people their need for certainty is more important than the danger of entitlement. For me that simply isn’t an option. I can only see Christianity as a good thing when entitlement has no part in it, and that means assurance/certainty just isn’t an option for me. But I don’t need it.
2 Likes
So everyone’s supernatural beliefs are personal. We should accept everyone’s personal supernatural beliefs (some would call them superstitions) as equally valid. Wow. What a world of chaos. Imagine taking your child to the ER and the doctor tells you he plans to fix your child’s ruptured appendix by offering a sacrifice to the Sun god.
I suggest respecting everyone’s right to supernatural beliefs but insisting that universal truths be proven with objective evidence.
1 Like
How do you know that the invisible presence you perceive within you is not just you, your inner dialogue?
Would you believe in the resurrection of Jesus based solely on your subjective perception of his presence within you? (If no historical evidence existed.)
There is no evidence for the supernatural in any meaningful concrete way and that includes no proof that God even exists, let alone that they can exist within anyone.
(a) I have never perceived his presence within me and don’t remember ever claiming that I did.
(b) I believe Jesus was resurrected whether I perceive his presence or not.
3 Likes
Ok, there is a difference between religious beliefs and stupidity. I do not encourage “supernatural” healing, even in Christian circles, eve thought I have peformed such. Your argument is unsympathetic and asumes both falsehood and delusionment.
I really do not wish to justify my, or anyone else’s beliefs, or whther there is more to them than blind faith and delusion. The process is neither simple nor mystical. My faith is as near reality as your undersanding. However, I do not consider myself an authority to judge, dismiss, o ridicule anyone else’s faith.
On this occasion you are out of line. Do not try and force me to be likewise.
Richard
The inner testimony of the Holy Spirit/Jesus is a central teaching of evangelical Christianity (at least it was when I was younger). According to this belief system, if you cannot perceive His presence you are most likely not a true Christian.
Are you an evangelical?
I respect everyone’s right to liberty of thought and free speech. If you believe supernatural claims by faith, that is your choice and I respect it. However, if you claim there is objective evidence for these supernatural claims, on the other hand, I am ready to debate you. Your call.
Do you believe His words?
That’s what it comes down to. There is no proof, no certainty, there is just trust.
“Amount”? How do you get an “amount” of a person (Person)?
Amen.
1 Like
It wasn’t originally; that came in with Pietism, which essentially moved the focus of faith from Christ to one’s own experience.]
Debate away, but’
Unless you have lived my life there is nothing to debate, unless it is my sanity and objectivity, neither of which are within your sphere of diagnosis.
Richard
Methinks you are the victim of mixed metaphores.
The “person” identity does not describe shape or form. Its usage in Trinity jargon is specific and unique.
Richard
It’s too good and pure to be me. John 10:27: “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.” That might not be good enough for some, but the voice of the Lord is far stronger than any man-made babble or arguments to me. To quote (paraphrase) Lewis again: “words, words to be let out into battle against other words.”
If you want a little more, in my view the world is not reducible to the material. The world also loses it beauty, value and meaning and spirals into nihilism without God. Fortunately, God necessarily exists and God’s existence is demonstrable and has been accepted by the majority of the greatest thinkers throughout world history. My greatest transformative experiences with the Lord have been via the Gospel message.
Vinnie
2 Likes
Depends who is looking and what their criteria might be.
I would refute both your claims, but maybe my experiences do not match yours.
It is difficult to give concrete or definitive proof of something that resists all attempts at doing so, until, or unlss you make that first leap of faith. After that the need for the proof disolves leaving God free to reveal Himself in his own, very personal way.
it is this paradox that defeats both science and the empiracle orientated mind.
Richard
2 Likes
I’m a bit confused. This is the 2nd thread we’ve had where someone has asked for absolute proof. It sounds to me like there are some trolling plans @moderators . It’s not cool to ask ridiculous questions. One might call it “sea lioning.”
2 Likes
Given your post to Mark, summarizing your “Truth”, it seems clear to me that you don’t need any thing I might say to make or improve your case. About your post, even ChatGTP said: “Gary just laid out his whole playbook: reduce everything to “no independent eyewitnesses + hearsay + hallucinations,” then insist on lab-style proof.”
1 Like