I can't imagine not believing in God.

by MsGrowingGirl20 643 Replies latest members private

InterestedOne

tec wrote:
not a chance (of my own choice at least) am I going to play that game.
It's not a game.
InterestedOne

FingersCrossed wrote:
There is a God-shaped hole in each of us...
Not true. I have no God-shaped hole in myself.
still thinking

I wonder what shape it is?
OnTheWayOut

Etude makes a good point. I can't imagine the God of some JWN posters' imaginations actually existing and not telling someone to do something to prevent the tragedy of Sandy Hooks Elementary School. Even a whacko calling in a bomb threat would have prevented that tragedy.
Therefore, it is obvious that such a God doesn't exist.
AGuest

First... pin STRIPES... not a pin.
Blew my mind that none of them got that, even Still, dear tec (the greatest of love and peace to you!). Well, I mean, I can kind of understand EP not getting it: in addition to his... mmmmmm... selective (though I realize that might not always be his choice)... memory... he's a "mans' man" (or so he wants everyone to believe) and so probaby has absolutely NO idea WHAT shirts he actually owns... let alone how to describe them. I know of men who thing green is gray or brown. Could be a similar case here (although, methinks it's not quite that).
Once he looks at it, though, perhaps he'll get it. Either that, or pehaps Still will fly down/up, show it to him, and explain what he owns (you know, like many us girls often have to do for boyz - something E probably experienced in a previous life). Though the fact that Still didn't get it either makes me seriously doubt that.
I will find... and post a link to... the response. Then, I will share, on the other thread, how I am to proceed with this (sigh - oh, yeah... had a pretty in-depth discussion about this topic this time).
Peace!
A slave of Christ,
SA
tec

Sorry I've been off-line for a sometime while contemplating the horror of Newtown, CT and why some believers did not get advance warning of it or at least a clue of the purpose for the deaths of those innocent young children and brave adults or the pain their families have and will forever experience. I trust every one of us (no exceptions) feels terrible about it. But only some of us can seem to derive that there is a "higher" reason or purpose for this tragedy.
The only purpose that can come from this tragedy (that I can see) is if it wakes some people up to the cause of such tragedies, and a solution is actively worked toward. That doesn't make it any less of a tragedy though.
Unfortunately, what happened there is going to continue to happen in lesser and greater degrees, until the cause for such action is known and treated/healed.
OK, yes. You're right to the point that I can't find specifically that statement. However, you imply it when you say things like: "[Cofty] has arguments [your terminology for what he calls evidence]... all of which are circumstantial. He has no concrete evidence. Indeed, his position is that there is not enough evidence for him to believe in the existance of God." What you're really saying is that he seems to have something (non-evidential) that indicates no support for the idea of God. At the same time, you have evidence that supports the existence of God. The part that is left unspoken is the part that someone cannot contradict your assertion that God exists because they DON'T have any evidence that he doesn't exist.
Okay, what I am saying is that Cofty (or someone else) has no evidence 'against' that applies to the Christ and God I know. Evidence against the god of the bible, or of religion, perhaps. But I would not argue with that, anyway. Cofty has evidence that is false, from where I am standing. He also does not have anything concrete. If you recall, I stated way back at the beginning, that my evidence (such as testimony accounts, in the bible or elsewhere) is also not concrete... unless it is confirmed by the Spirit.
At one point you say: "Of course it is evidence. It is just not evidence for you. It is just not the KIND of evidence that you WANT." So while earlier you called it "arguments", when it applies to you, you call it evidence, only it's a different kind of evidence. It's like calling it a different kind of truth, even though you used the term: "Truth is truth." I thought we had made the point that different (contradictory) truths in support of an argument cannot exist, that something either is and will always be true or that if it fails to remain true it was never true to begin with. You are making "evidence" arbitrary simply by pointing to who states it. If it's from you, it's evidence (although only the kind that you can confirm and not others). If it's from the opposing view, then it's simply a circumstantial argument.
Allow me to be more consistent then in my wording:
According to what i understand, Cofty has false evidence... or rather his evidence is against the god of religion/god of the bible... but not the Father of Christ. He also does not have anything concrete. And if you recall, I stated way back at the beginning, that I also do not consider evidence such as testimony accounts, in the bible or elsewhere to be concrete either... unless/until it is confirmed to me by the Spirit.
But wait, there's more: "Cofty does not believe... because He sees (and/or accepts) no evidence for God. He has stated so himself." What I understood he thinks is that existing evidence (whatever there is to have) does not support that idea that God exists. It's not a lack of evidence; it is the existence of evidence that does not support a God. What does that mean that he "accepts no evidence for God"? It may mean to you that he accepted "evidence for God", it would be of higher value than if he actually had evidence that says God is a shaky proposition. That inequality does not make sense. At the outset, both arguments have equal weight. In the end, they would not if one of the does not hold up.
Hopefully I have clarified to you that I find Cofty's evidence as false... and in any case, to be against the god of religion(take your pick, there are many of these) or the god of the bible. Not against the Father of Christ.
Finally, you put the nail in the coffin when you state: "The evidence that he has against God is still evidence... but that does not mean that his evidence hold[s] up. Because none of it is concrete... not even for him." OK, not only are you saying that he has evidence that God does not exist and that it is evidence (a change from arguments?) but it does not hold up (to you) and is insufficiently concrete. You even beg for evidence that negates something on other subjects, that begs for evidence for the negative: "Please point out where this is written, that the apostles were illiterate." I did, but you still use the same arguments you used with Cofty (that it doesn't hold up) to discount it. You have basically ignored the historical evidence that suggest this was the condition at the time for people of that class and fail to mention where in the Bible there's any indication to the contrary.
Okay... again, false evidence...
(using the word evidence does not mean that I think the evidence is true... but for the sake of clarity, even though this entire conversation is spawned off a simple point, I will try to remember to clarify what I think of someone else's 'evidence' before i use the word)
Second... you stated that the bible said they were illiterate, when it does in fact state specifically that one of the apostles wrote things down. Even using your historical sources, this apostle could absolutely be the exception to that rule. So you actually have no source to state that they were all illiterate. But you do state it as if it were a fact.
"You keep saying this... but I am not relying on that document [the Bible]... I stated that the authority is Christ." Yes I keep saying that and you really are relying on it. And as I pointed out, aside from removed and not so reliable secular evidence about Christ, the ONLY source for Christ is that document, the Bible. You can deny it all you want, but I'm still seeing your hand in the biblical cookie jar. So while you can minimize the Bible's prominence for you as a significant, no, major foundation while acquiescing to its errors, you really can't escape the quandary of the reasons for your faith.
Etude, you truly cannot state what I do or do not rely upon. You can 'think' that you know, but you have to impose your thoughts upon me, overriding my own knowledge about myself.
I have stated that the testimonies in the bible helped to tell me about Christ. I had to go TO Him, to actually know Him; to actually be able to state that He is the source and foundation of my faith.
Your acceptance of evolution of the species is not based on a book that told you about it. Your acceptance of evolution of the species is based on what you see for yourself. (I mean, unless you're just relying on the scientists and such, then your acceptance could be based on something flawed and you would never know it)
"I'm not sure you can identify the errors [in the Bible]for certain... unless you have the source to go to to learn the truth." Yes you can – be sure, that is. Many of the errors in the Bible are pure inconsistencies and contradictions within it, and they are not "minor". You know that you and I have at our disposal a vast source of information to confirm if translation errors are mostly responsible for the errors in the canon. They are not hard to find. I imagine that something the Spirit tells you can help you bypass them as unimportant. What it can't do is explain how you can rely on the ONLY source that explains that Spirit when it's full of errors.
Etude, I believe you were referring to 'internal' errors; such things that are not what we can see because they contradict one another in plain text. As you said:
It's pretty messy, unless a voice guides you to the good parts and steers you away from the bad ones. I'm sorry, but I don't have such an advantage. I really would love to tap into some sort of supernatural knowledge that could provide me with uncommon information
The above is what I was responding to. Obviously you are referring to two different things. One thing that you cannot know... and another in the post above it, that these errrors are not hard to find.
While those errors may not make any difference in the message of love and peace Christ preached, they don't assert that those messages were actually spoken by Christ instead of being handed down by an extraterrestrial civilization that happened to appear to him and the apostles. OK, I know you would consider the voice of the Spirit as a separate source within you (nothing that anybody else can confirm) beyond the Bible. But you must admit that there appears to be a problem when that source or at least the nature of that source is only found in your head and in the Bible that may fail (due to internal errors) to substantiate it's veracity and therefore the Spirit ever existed.
But it is not found only inmy head (or even in my head to begin with. But rather within the spirit within me... spirit to spirit... that is the communication)
People can and have confirmed this for themselves.
That some cannot and have not (yet) means what to those who have?
"I am one of those people, giving witness to what I know, experience, hear." No, no, no, no. I didn't ask who, I asked by what means and how can I learn and experience what you know. So far, you haven't given me any indication that what you know is anything but self-contained. And I do believe that you have suggested that what I have to do in order to come to your state is "ask", "seek", "knock" and maybe wait for as long as it takes. What has ever given you a hint that I have not done those things, most probably for longer than you have?
First, if you did so, then why did you stop asking?
Second, if you did so, then why do you seem incredulous that there is something like this to 'tap into' to begin with?
Why can't you admit that there's a good argument for a better way than this waiting limbo for God to show up and really say something meaningful to us today?
There might be a good argument.
That does not make it a true argument though. This, I know, because I know that God DOES show up... and DOES speak... all through His Son, to those whose faith is in Him.
In a way, I'm happy for you in your continual spiritual state of bliss. But really, I've come to be much more realistic and realize that the same degree of satisfaction can be achieved in other ways and with a little more information about where the answers are not, so as to not waste my time. That's the main reason why I don't plunge into your version of spirituality.
I am not in a continual state of bliss, lol, though I appreciate the sentiment ("in a way, i'm happy for you"). I can, however, look to Christ to continue to teach me to give and to receive peace, and love, and mercy, and compassion and forgiveness, and truth. As well as learn what those things actually mean.
But you do what you need to do, and I will do the same.
I have no problem or condemnation or anything with you or your choices ( I mean, as long as those choices cause no harm to me or to others )
"You could have the same means as I do... Christ. But as long as you do not think he is even real or alive or that he can speak... then how can you have faith in him?" So basically, I have to simply accept that there is (was) a Christ (no evidence required other than the Bible and some feelings) and simply say to myself that I have "faith" in him; actually convince myself that He is real and talks to me. Yes, I believe that is the very thing some religious people do and what brings them who speak in tongues, worship Christ with snakes, kill Drs. who perform abortions and start "holy" wars. They all have justification for the same reasons you believe. They too "hear" things. They too seem to know what the "message" is from Christ and God.
No, you do not have to simply accept. I cannot speak for you. I have given you the only advice that I know... to look at Christ. Perhaps if you looked at Him to see God, you might have the answers to some of those 'evidences' that are given against the idea of God.
Historians are divided, with many thinking that the man DID exist... they make no statement as to whether or not He was more than just a man. The many testimonies about Christ are witness to Him. So there is evidence that He existed. Whether you accept that evidence or not though... that is up to you.
I do accept it. Helps, for me, that I also heard the truth of what Christ taught and saw that truth reflected in real life. I loved Him (as much as I could from hearing about Him) based on this. I followed Him based on those teachings. I'm not sure how much faith i had then... but I believed... based on the truth and the love in His teachings and deeds, and therefore in Him. He came as the Truth... and so I knew to look to Him over anything and anyone else FOR the truth- including anything written in the bible, anything that another man or church teaches. Christ first (as one would expect from the truth and the image and the word of God); all else second (or perhaps not at all).
Like I said though, I never asked for the Holy Spirit (the gift that Christ said God would give to those who ask) for a long time. I didn't know what it was. I didn't think I was worthy of whatever it was. I also did not know that I wanted what would come with that (the new covenant, what seemed like a life-changing event with no turning back). So it is little surprise that I did not receive such until I DID ask. When I asked, I put full faith in that i would receive (without setting a time limit or any limits for that matter - I gave myself to God), and I DID receive. As promised.
As for anyone else... not everyone who calls themselves a Christian IS a Christian. Regardless of how that simple statement makes some gnash their teeth. If you want to know if something might be from God or not (that someone else claims)... then test the claim against Christ, and against love. Simple.
"My mother always believed that the Holy Spirit is Christ." OK, explain that. Do you mean that as long as she's been self-conscious she has believed that? Based on what? It seems like based on nothing. She simply always knew.
Well, honestly, I do not know. Those 'always believed' were her words. (actually I think her words were 'always thought')
It might seem to you that it was based on nothing, because you don't believe in the Spirit. But her understanding was not given to her by her church, and despite how many people read and study the bible, it is not something that tends to be learned from the bible either. She understood it... she tried to share it with me, and I could not 'hear' it, because I was listening to the witnesses.
But, not you. You have evidence that gives you the "faith" to believe that.
Yes. I could not hear that before. I can now... but I did need the 'sight tool' to help me. Anything to do with the Holy Spirit was a tough one for me. Too much conflicting noise/doctrines surrounding it. I could not get past them.
The Spirit is quiet. You actually have to listen.
The 'harlot" is loud. WTS is part of that harlot.
So in a way, you never "asked", "sought", "knocked" or waited for your belief, you simply and without any preconceived inclination came upon this evidence and then developed the "faith" to believe.
I believed based on the truth I heard in the teachings and deeds of Christ... which eventually helped me to go TO Him as he stated to do. Which I started to do when I stopped studying with the wts, set the bible aside, and put my faith in God and His guidance.
So I absolutely did ask, seek, knock and wait... to hear... to have the faith and ears to hear... and to be able to also put faith IN what I heard. I did not care how long i waited, , though I trusted Him to keep his promise. I loved Him, and so would have followed Him regardless... because of the love and truth of His teachings.
I think that is why I love the verse that states,
"If anyone loves me, he will obey my teachings. My father will love Him, and we will come and make our home with Him."
I know the truth in this statement.
Right? I'm getting a confusing picture about your self-contained condition where it also seems apparent that anyone, including me, can take this last path you have described for yourself, put it to work and come to believe. Well, I did (put it to work) and it didn't (work for me). Christ has never shown anything to me but a nice, kind, selfless and desirous intent we should show towards our fellow humans. The thing is, so has the Buddha and many other people throughout history. So, why do we need Christ to feel good about mankind and have a purpose in life?
Not come to believe... come to KNOW.
I already believed, based on his teachings and deeds; I chose to follow Him, and I learned to walk by faith. By looking to Him and listening and asking.
May I ask why you believed to begin with (if you did)?
Regardless, I don't think anyone here has said that you need Christ to feel good about mankind or have purpose in life.
"Absolutely everyone has their own verification." No. It doesn't work that way. If you want to make sure, try jumping out of a 3 rd story window (I don't recommend it) so that you can achieve your own verification of gravity. It is not your interpretation of the law that counts. It is the ONLY interpretation of the law that can be confirmed that counts. Don't you think that the God of the universe that created all the physical laws would be just as demanding and consistent about the laws of logic and reason? Why would he require any less from us?
You are assuming that I meant this verification could be different from person to person? I did not mean this at all.
If you want to know the ONLY interpretation to the law... then you need to look at Christ. Because I totally agree with you, no interpretation of the law matters... only the truth of it matters.
"If something can NOT be known by NON-supernatural means... how can it be verified objectively?" I really need to translate that.
Thank you! I asked for a translation, but you are the only one who seems to be willing to help me out on that, lol.
Here's what it really means: "If something can NOT be known by natural means, how can it be verified objectively? The answer is: IT CAN'T. That means that if a thing requires an explanation other than via what we can muster in the natural laws and with proper reasoning, there is no logical way to objectively verifying it. It must be explained by other means that may not hold up to scrutiny and logic. That makes the explanation very nebulous and arbitrary. That's very much like the explanation for your faith in Christ.
Yes, there is no way of verifying something spiritual using physical means. (both are natural... one is just not 'tangible' to the our physical senses; measurements) At least not the limited physical means that we have to date. One can verify something via the spirit, but that is not objective in that everyone can see it, faith or no faith. Some things written about or revealed, science shows the truth of... BUT... because the people who wrote lived in a time where scientific understanding was lacking, they did not have the correct terms to use, and so there will be people who state that they were talking about something else.
Such as 'putting on and taking off the flesh'. This is a simple explanation of a more complex thing. Moving between the spiritual and the physical. Like the angels can. Like Christ did when he rose in the flesh, but entered the spirituall as spirit. (matter and energy... though even those terms are 'caveman', because we do not know enough about such things yet to have come up with the proper definitions)
Peace to you,
tammy
DarioKehl

MsGrowingGirl20:
I used to feel that way too. When I was still a believer, I never understood why anyone would want non-belief. However, I always had nagging doubts about things. When I first began to seriously doubt JW doctrine as a teen, I was terrified. It hit me one day: "OMG. We literally believe in a 'happily ever after' fairytale ending!" I desparately searched for answers. My greatest fear was being wrong! If we were wrong, that meant no living forever on earth. I researched other doctrines, but the JWs had done so well in debunking "false religion" that the idea of heaven and hell seemed unpalatable.
Once I delved into science, reason, logic, critical thinking and the philosophy of secular humanism, I realized that these people aren't lost and unhappy. They accepted that cold, hard truth of nothing beyond this life and stared it in the face. That was a huge hurdle for me. Being "nothing" always frightened me. I'll admit, it takes awhile to accept. It takes awhile to come to terms with one's own mortality and the fact that, no... we won't see our dead loved ones again. Ever. At the face of it, it does seem pretty bleak and depressing.
But humanism has a totally different perspective. Yeah, that sucks that we all die. But it's all the more reason to savor every second we have in this awesome experience called life. I believe I always knew in the back of my mind that there really isn't anything "beyond." The reason I was scared and depressed for so long is because I was wasting so much of my limited time here trying to shoe horn a belief system into my brain that I knew was total nonsense!
Would I rejoice to see clear evidence of god and a future hereafter demonstrated? Heck yes! But so far, in 6000 years of documented human history, there hasn't been a shred of reliable, testable, observable, falsifiable, repeatable or confirmable evidence to justify a life of devotion and sacrifice to a faith of any kind. Period!
Once I discovered that nonbelief isn't a choice, it's a conclusion, that aleviated any guilt or mystery (the fear left a long time ago). The atheists who confused me so much before weren't choosing to live without faith. They weighed the evidence and made an informed decision. I unknowingly did the same and found myself in their company. I accept my mortality and have just as much remorse for those stuck in a hamster wheel of belief that you currently have for people like me. It may seem like a mystery to you and I understand that because I've been there, but when my eyes were opened and I accepted physical reality, I'd never felt more happy, more free or more relieved.
Etude

Dear tec:
" Okay, what I am saying is that Cofty (or someone else) has no evidence 'against' that applies to the Christ and God I know. "
Alright. Even though that appears to be a bit of a twist, you're asserting now what you denied before. You said: "The evidence that he has against God is still evidence ". Now you're refining it by saying your particular objection is specifically referent to opposing evidence to the Christ in your head. That tells me that you have your own version of God and Christ and that it's possible that no one else will ever be capable to know them, at least the way you do. Furthermore, it implies that there is no commonality between the God and Christ you know and the God and Christ other people know. You see why I say that your belief is self-contained?
And how would you demonstrate that Cofty's evidence is false? In the past you have suggested that it is because you just happen to know what the truth is. Anything that can be used as evidence against God/Christ is false and it's not "concrete". Every time you repeat that I'm picturing a bag of cement. Of course we understand that these are ideas and that by "concrete" you mean substantiated by argument and references.
To be honest, I haven't been privy to your conversations with Cofty and don't really know what he said to you. So it would be an incorrect assumption on your part that you " have clarified to [me] that [you] find Cofty's evidence as false ". You have shown no such thing, clarified it. However, I happen to know that one thing consistent between many people who say they have no evidence for God is that by presenting the evidence the world has to offer us now (nature, the laws of physics, archeology, etc), we can demonstrate the unlikelihood of the being (or beings) that seem to speak to you. Therefore, I imagine you would really have a lot to argue (with what I don't know) against the sciences and against the logic that says you can't get there from here.
"... when [the Bible] does in fact state specifically that one of the apostles wrote things down ". So, please tell me which apostle that was and what things he wrote down. I guess I must have been asleep at the Kingdom Hall and throughout all my reading for decades and eraly catechism days and missed that one. Even if that were true, it does not negate that "they" were illiterate. Let's say that one apostle wrote something down, but the rest were illiterate. Then, who wrote the rest of the NT? That was the point of mentioning Acts 4:13, which you noticeably side-stepped. That's why you missed my point about slaves in the U.S. being illiterate (even though people like Fredrick Douglas not only could read but was very well educated without the benefit of formal schooling). Don't think I'm handing you ammunition. You really have no argument against that.
" Etude, you truly cannot state what I do or do not rely upon. " I didn't state any such thing. You did when you said: " I am not relying on that document... " I was just trying to show that when you say that and hold to your beliefs, it's circular to believe what you do when what you believe comes from a document you don't rely on but which guides you in the first place. That sounds plain ass-crazy.
" ...testimonies in the biblehelped to tell me about Christ ". So, you go to Christ, whom you discovered independently of the Bible and you say: "Lord, that account about such and such, did that really happen?" , which then confirms for you the Christ. Or instead, since the bible testimony helped to tell you about Christ, it means you didn't really know him BUT FOR THE USE OF THE BIBLE, which you happen to not rely upon.
" Your acceptance of evolution of the species is not based on a book that told you about it. Your acceptance of evolution of the species is based on what you see for yourself. (I mean, unless you're just relying on the scientists and such, then your acceptance could be based on something flawed and you would never know it) "
Well, I don't want to get involved with Evolution with you now (or probably ever), but let's say that I accept it. My acceptance would not be based solely on one book. Here's the real answer:
My acceptance of the evolution of the species would be based on consistently reasonable explanations (mostly verifiable), from many sources, from many books, that explain how the different species got here in a more reasonable manner than any other possibility, including the Bible.
Think about that and infer my method to your situation if you really want to understand your predicament.
" ...'internal' [biblical] errors; such things that are not what we can see because they contradict one another in plain text ." Well, I've looked at those 'internal' errors and they are pretty evident to me. If you can't see them, I suggest you consult an oculist. If you're telling me that those errors can only be arbitrated and resolved by talking to a third party whom only one of us can speak to, then humanity is doomed. When it's all over, please mention to that Spirit about this conversation and ask him for me why he only wanted to talk the people who believed in him regardless and not to those that had no indication he existed.
" People can and have confirmed this for themselves. " – meaning not just the understanding or "evidence" you have in your head " but rather within the spirit within me... spirit to spirit ", which spirit is...I dunno, somewhere within you? In your head? Yes, I thought so.
" First, if you did so, then why did you stop asking ?" – meaning asking along with knocking and seeking. Well, it was probably because after several decades of heartaches and headaches (from knocking) and getting nowhere, I thought it might be wise to find answers elsewhere, especially when the ones I had up to then made no sense. I was logical about it. I decided to look at the world and ponder on its beginnings. I looked at the big issues; the ugly ones and the triumphant ones and made decision. What's important is that the change was not like closing one door and suddenly opening another one.
The change came gradually and I could take my new information and compare it to everything I believed before (after all, you just don't forget your past experiences nor the things that led you there). I put them both on a balance and reasoned which was not true. What happened was that I discovered what I clung to so fervently had no real foundation. If I said I would love to tap into the spiritual state you describe, in many ways that would be ideal, ideal as much as wishing that I came into about $200 million. I have ways to determine how likely that would be, enough to assume it's unrealistic. So, surely you'll allow me to be frank and say I was being facetious. But please, don't call me "frank" and I won't call you "sherly".
" I am not in a continual state of bliss ". Well, I intended to say "spiritual bliss". That seems obvious to me due to the persistence and intensity of what you believe. I just find it ironic that I can accomplish the same things you do (the seeking of peace, mercy, compassion, forgiveness and truth) without the benefit of a task-master and because I really feel I want to do that for its own reward and not for some future remuneration. I find that purposeful without the need of elaborate reasons only I can hear.
" I cannot speak for you. " That is something I never asked of you. I was asking for you to speak for yourself in the remote chance that you'd know of a replicable way to achieve what you have. Instead, where I've told you that I did try for a long time, you say "try more". Where I've said I have looked to Christ, you say "look at Christ" and then look some more. You never mentioned what happens if no one answers. But then you may say, I didn't look hard enough.
" I believed based on the truth I heard in the teachings and deeds of Christ ". So again, you heard these teachings from the Bible (the one you don't rely on) and then you came to believe, which brought this talking Spirit to you that tells you things. See, you need to bottle that and go door to door to sell it.
" So I absolutely did ask, seek, knock and wait." – Yeah, and it looks like to you that I didn't. But I really did, with terrible results.
" Not come to believe... come to KNOW ". C'mon. Don't get cute here. You know that there's no distinction between believing and knowing in the context of our conversation. Otherwise, I don't know (can't believe) how you could possibly know anything (believe in anything) unless you come to believe in what you know. Of course, the issue you side-stepped is that you never really say or describe a method (one that is replicable and verifiable) that anyone can follow in order to achieve you "knowledge" or belief. That's because it doesn't represent reality and is all in your head. I'm not demeaning your condition; I'm merely evaluating something which can't be addressed in any other way.
" Yes, there is no way of verifying something spiritual using physical means. (both are natural... one is just not 'tangible' to the our physical senses; measurements) ". I'm sure that the majority of the world would disagree with you that "both" (the spiritual and the physical) are natural or of nature. That's why we have the terms "unnatural" and "supernatural" for decribing things outside of nature, that which can be detected by our senses and/or by measurements. That applies to what we cannot sense (cosmic rays, an atom, etc) but can measure. All of those things constitute parts of the known universe. Voices in your head from another "place" or realm, that's not natural at all. Verifying via the spirit is the sort of thing I'd hoped you'd be able to document and explain for me. How do you go about that? What happens step-by-step? Even if the process is unique to you, you would still know because you seem to do it all the time. But, really, I was asking rhetorically, because it's obvious that after many tries, you really don't know or it's all so personal that it can only be known in your head.
tec

For some reason, I thought we were done, Etude. I never checked back. Sorry.
Alright. Even though that appears to be a bit of a twist, you're asserting now what you denied before. You said: "The evidence that he has against God is still evidence". Now you're refining it by saying your particular objection is specifically referent to opposing evidence to the Christ in your head.
False evidence... is still considered evidence; it is just false. I apologize for refining what i meant... but I kind of have to, to be clear.
That tells me that you have your own version of God and Christ and that it's possible that no one else will ever be capable to know them, at least the way you do. Furthermore, it implies that there is no commonality between the God and Christ you know and the God and Christ other people know. You see why I say that your belief is self-contained?
I cannot have a version of them. I can only know them (even if just in part)... or not know them.
And while what you say would be possible, is possible... others do know Christ and God in the same way that I do.
I can do more than imply that there is no commonality between the God and Christ that i know... and what some others know. There are many wolves, false Christs, false prophets.
And how would you demonstrate that Cofty's evidence is false?
Discussion and examination and testing.

But I think it is getting harder for us to discuss details that we are not both privy to. So lets leave off Cofty, okay?

So, please tell me which apostle that was and what things he wrote down. I guess I must have been asleep at the Kingdom Hall and throughout all my reading for decades and eraly catechism days and missed that one.
John 21:24
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.
Referring to the disciple whom Jesus loved:
John 21:20 -23
Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them. (This was the one who had leaned back against jesus at the supper and had said, "Lord, who is going to betray you?") When Peter saw him, he asked, "Lord, what about him?" Jesus answered, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you? You must follow me." Beause of this, the rumor spread among the brothers that this disciple would not die. But Jesus did not say that he would not die; he only said, "If I want him to remain alive until I return, what is that to you?"
This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down.
If you were asleep for that, then what else might you have been asleep for, Etude?
Even if that were true, it does not negate that "they" were illiterate. Let's say that one apostle wrote something down, but the rest were illiterate. Then, who wrote the rest of the NT? That was the point of mentioning Acts 4:13, which you noticeably side-stepped.
It does negate that they were all illiterate. That was your claim. Not that some were, but that all were. So that no apostle could have written something down. I side-stepped nothing.
"Etude, you truly cannot state what I do or do not rely upon." I didn't state any such thing. You did when you said: "I am not relying on that document..." I was just trying to show that when you say that and hold to your beliefs, it's circular to believe what you do when what you believe comes from a document you don't rely on but which guides you in the first place. That sounds plain ass-crazy.
I AM not relying on that document for my faith in God. I did rely on testimony (from it and from others today) to learn about Christ. But once I went TO him, and learned FROM Him... I did not need to rely on that document. It might have mistakes... but pointing to Christ is not one of those mistakes. Else he would not have been there to open the door when i went seeking and knocking.
Someone can tell you about something... but if you have verified that something for yourself... you do not need the one who pointed you to that something, anymore.

Well, I don't want to get involved with Evolution with you now (or probably ever), but let's say that I accept it. My acceptance would not be based solely on one book. Here's the real answer:
My acceptance of the evolution of the species would be based on consistently reasonable explanations (mostly verifiable), from many sources, from many books, that explain how the different species got here in a more reasonable manner than any other possibility, including the Bible.
Think about that and infer my method to your situation if you really want to understand your predicament.
It still applies.
My acceptance was not based solely on one book either. The bible is a collection of books; and there are sources of a creator that are other than a bible as well. Christ is also a source; THE source of knowledge of God. His teachings, I considered a source as well, since they relate truth... not just truth I 'felt' but truth I experienced.
I realize that my verification is of a spiritual nature, and not a physical one. So i know that there is a difference in that sense. But I had hoped to point out the common ground.
Well, I've looked at those 'internal' errors and they are pretty evident to me. If you can't see them, I suggest you consult an oculist. If you're telling me that those errors can only be arbitrated and resolved by talking to a third party whom only one of us can speak to, then humanity is doomed. When it's all over, please mention to that Spirit about this conversation and ask him for me why he only wanted to talk the people who believed in him regardless and not to those that had no indication he existed
I think you misunderstood. So rather than try to respond, I will please ask you to clarify what you mean by internal errors.

meaning not just the understanding or "evidence" you have in your head "but rather within the spirit within me... spirit to spirit", which spirit is...I dunno, somewhere within you? In your head? Yes, I thought so.
I don't understand what you mean here, sorry.
As for the question on where the spirit is... I AM a spirit. We all are (though I know you will disagree). We are spirits trapped within a 'clay vessel'. We are spirit. Christ and God are spirit. When Christ returns, those who belong to him will no longer be trapped, but will become changed as He is.

Well, I intended to say "spiritual bliss". That seems obvious to me due to the persistence and intensity of what you believe.
My answer is the same. I can be very down in the spirit at times. Sometimes because of what i have done. Sometimes because of what others do. I can, however, take comfort offered by Christ and rely upon him to help me.
I just find it ironic that I can accomplish the same things you do (the seeking of peace, mercy, compassion, forgiveness and truth) without the benefit of a task-master and because I really feel I want to do that for its own reward and not for some future remuneration. I find that purposeful without the need of elaborate reasons only I can hear.
I do not find it ironic at all. Some have the law (of love) written upon their hearts and consciences, and that bears witness to them.
I do not do or show those things, or even serve Christ, because of a future reward though. I do so out of love... for Him, and for others. I would do so with or without some future reward. That is what love does.

That is something I never asked of you. I was asking for you to speak for yourself in the remote chance that you'd know of a replicable way to achieve what you have. Instead, where I've told you that I did try for a long time, you say "try more". Where I've said I have looked to Christ, you say "look at Christ" and then look some more. You never mentioned what happens if no one answers. But then you may say, I didn't look hard enough.
Don't stop asking. Follow the teachings of Christ. I mean, if you WANT to hear from Him, to pick up his torture stake and follow Him, then do as He has said to do. Knock, ask, seek... follow his teachings. Ask HIM.
If you ask me, I can only speak as to my personal experience... I would have (as much as a person can state what they would have done) followed Him BECAUSE of His teachings, even if it took the rest of my life to learn to hear Him, to have that door opened. I would have done what was asked of me... to obey his teachings, to love as He loved us (or at least try, over and over... because of course i fall short)... and trusted Him to do what He promised, as He determined. Becasue I loved (and still do) Him.

I'm sure that the majority of the world would disagree with you that "both" (the spiritual and the physical) are natural or of nature. That's why we have the terms "unnatural" and "supernatural" for decribing things outside of nature, that which can be detected by our senses and/or by measurements. That applies to what we cannot sense (cosmic rays, an atom, etc) but can measure. All of those things constitute parts of the known universe.
How many times has something that was once thought to be supernatural... become known to be natural... as we learn more about it?
Something is only supernatural, until it is shown to be natural.
It is the same with the spiritual, and with God.
Peace to you,
tammy
Etude

Dear Tammy:
" False evidence... is still considered evidence; it is just false. " That is absolutely incorrect. Look up the definition for evidence and you will see that it is one or a collection of facts or information that is used to render a proposition true or false. The evidence is not true or false; the evidence is the evidence; the conclusion from the evidence will determine the truth or fallacy of a proposition. If something is suggested as a fact or evidence and turns out to be neither, then it was never or should never have been considered as evidence. It either is or is not evidence. It would be improper to call that "false evidence".
If you take existing measurements of the age of the universe and compare those to a much lesser time suggested elsewhere for its existence, you would determine that the measurements are evidence (unless shown to be inaccurate in which case it would be non-evidence, not false evidence). If they are as accurate as can be determined by testable means, the conclusion would be that the other source for the age of the universe (6 days or even 42,000 years) would be false.
Your "refinement" regarding your various was of defining evidence was that at one point you said Cofty had "evidence against" God, then you said you never said that anyone needs to provide evidence against God, then you said that the evidence Cofty has is not evidence that contradicts the God/Christ that you are aware of. If we can agree to a definition of "evidence" as is generally accepted (no just to you), then we can begin to determine what it is we actually disagree on and whether your conclusions are solely based on something no one else can determine. If the last is indeed the case, then we don't need to further this discussion because you will be justified within yourself and it would verify for me that your foundation is entirely self-contained and does not require natural verification.
" I cannot have a version of them. " – God and Christ. Why not? If not, how could you know? You say that others have the same version, but neither of you can justify it outside of your heads with something that may confirm the commonality of this being. If you use the Bible, you end up in the same predicament as is demonstrated by the abundant sects and believes that differ from one another in Christianity.
" John 21:20-25 ". It's rather interesting you mention those texts because they provide a chance to examine the situation. John 13:21-26 contains the actual account of who asked Jesus about his betrayer when prompted by Simon Peter. From that context, that disciple is really not identified. It only says that he was next to Jesus and was the one Jesus "loved".
23 One of them, the disciple whom Jesus loved, was reclining next to him. 24 Simon Peter motioned to this disciple and said, “Ask him which one he means.”
25 Leaning back against Jesus, he asked him, “Lord, who is it?”
26 Jesus answered, “It is the one to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it in the dish.” Then, dipping the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.
So, via some intermediary, Simon Peter asked Jesus who would betray him and Jesus identified Judas son of Simon Iscariot by giving him a piece of bread. Of all the places in John's gospel that refer to this "disciple that Jesus loved", no name is given, which leads many including myself to conclude that the person mentioned is actually John "the writer". Then in John 21:20-25, Peter seems to identify the same disciple that "Jesus loved" following them and asking Jesus about him. This brings me to a confusing situation in verse 21: " 21 When Peter saw him, he asked, “Lord, what about him? " The only thing I can read there is that when Peter saw who was following them, he asked. So John "the writer" (in other words the very author of the Gospel according to John) would be the disciple who "wrote them down".
So what you have is a self referent piece of data that says: "I who write this and who is otherwise known as the "disciple that Jesus loved" am the one that wrote down what you are now reading." Very well, so the only reference of any disciple ever writing anything down is from the one who says he wrote it all down. Nowhere else is the NT is there a reference to any other person writing "them" down. If you find one, please consider the same circumstances that apply to John.
This is significant because the gospel according to John is so different (and much later) from the Mathew, Luke and Mark, the Synoptic gospels, that it indicates a concerted effort to interpret many of the predictions Jesus made to be more symbolic of the future. The Synoptic gospels have a more immediate message of things that would happen in a short time, while John's gospel interprets many of those synoptic messages as symbolic of future things. This is probably because when John's gospel was written, the time for many of those events Jesus spoke about had come and gone and needed new meaning and relevant interpretation in future times.
Bottom line is that it can't be established with any degree of certainty that John's Gospel was written by John the apostle and not by some educated Greek "John" who wanted to re-establish the significance of Christ's predictions in a new way. For that, he needed to also establish some legitimacy of record by naming himself (in a humble way) as the one "Jesus loved". Ignoring that the illiteracy of Jesus followers had already been established in other writings, was natural, unless he ignored their existence and knew that he was John but not "the John".
" If you were asleep for that, then what else might you have been asleep for, Etude? " Here's the answer to your question: I wasn't asleep. I guess my sarcasm didn't work or you just didn't get it. What I have found I slept on was the interpretations of traditional reasons I was given for God, Christ and many things associated with them. You seem to hold many of those things which remain unchanged in traditional religion and incorporate a belief system based on the Bible and on self-referent logic.
" I side-stepped nothing. " I have yet to hear from you a reasonable explanation for Acts 4:13 other than that to you "unschooled" and "ordinary" does not mean "illiterate" when only the "unordinary" people of the time had the skills to read. So, yes you did side-step. You side-stepped, even if you found one disciple that could write, that this information does not explain all the other "unschooled" writers who contributed to the NT and the fact that they were uneducated and illiterate.
" I AM not relying on that document for my faith in God. I did rely on testimony (from it and from others today) to learn about Christ. " OK, now you're talking out of both sides of your mouth. It's like you're saying: "I'm only a little bit pregnant." C'mon and be serious. How can you say you don't rely on a document and say you rely on parts of it? You rely on the document whether you do wholly or partially. Except that in your case, you get to pick and choose which parts to rely upon, so that you can go off and "verify" them. Didn't I mention that before?
" ...and there are sources of a creator that are other than a bible as well. Christ is also a source; His teachings" . OK. You already mentioned that but you failed to cite or state any other sources (besides the Bible) for support. You mention before the same "other" sources you're mentioning now. But as I also responded before, you can't mention "his teachings" as a source if those teachings are only found in the Bible. Otherwise, that would not be "another" source. If you refer to teachings and truths that lie within you and that only you perceive, then again that is not another source, because no one within your communication circle can possibly verify what lives inside your head. Therefore, any real "other" evidence (or source) must exist outside of you.
I think it necessary to underline that I don't expect from you this other evidence in order to make my point. I guess the important thing is to demonstrate that your process of justification is flawed because you lack the "other" evidence to support it. So in a way, you don't really need to come up with any verifiable evidence and I don't expect any is forthcoming given your self-referent reasoning. That you fail to provide some external evidence is more critical than what that evidence might be. If any does come, then that would mean a change in your justification of things. Then, we'd be getting somewhere. But as long as the "evidence" for your beliefs remains "spiritual" and in a form that can't verified, we'd be going nowhere.
You said: " I am a big proponent of the fact that the bible has errors and is not inerrant " and more recently stated: " ...'internal' [biblical] errors; such things that are not what we can see because they contradict one another in plain text ." What I mean and what most people mean (unless I'm actually living on a different planet) refers to internal errors within the Bible; they are errors because one part contradicts another; they are errors because the sequence of events described in one place is different in time to the sequence of the same event in another place. What this does is make it difficult to establish veracity between events and shows that one writer was probably not aware of the other, especially the gospel writers.
" I don't understand what you mean here, sorry ." Sorry about that. I had quoted you out of sequence when I said:
" People can and have confirmed this for themselves. " – meaning not just the understanding or "evidence" you have in your head " but rather within the spirit within me... spirit to spirit ", which spirit is...I dunno, somewhere within you? In your head? Yes, I thought so.
Here's what you originally wrote:
"But it is not found only inmy head (or even in my head to begin with. But rather within the spirit within me... spirit to spirit... that is the communication)
People can and have confirmed this for themselves."
Anyway, you were saying something about a spiritual conversation only you are privy to and I was confirming that that communication is purely inside you, you know "spirit to spirit".
" Some have the law (of love) written upon their hearts and consciences, and that bears witness to them." So, it would seem that Christ is totally unnecessary. If that's the case, I can understand then that you have no need for justification other than your personal inclination.
" Don't stop asking. Follow the teachings of Christ... Knock, ask, seek... follow his teachings. Ask HIM. " Until when? For how long? Is 40 years enough? I can just hear your answer: "Until he answers." I may be dead by then. But of course, I would have the benefit of going into his bosom them. You really don't know, do you? Nah.
" If you ask me, I can only speak as to my personal experience... " But of course! That's been the whole point of our discussion. There is nothing you can provide to anyone else that is of use in achieving what you have. It boils down to asking, knocking and waiting. Heck, anybody can say that about anything. None of that leads to surety, especially after 40 years of asking, knocking and waiting. And while you're asking, knocking and waiting, there's really no resolution to the big questions. Worst of all, there are no logical explanations. Somehow, one day, everything is answered when the spirit decides to talk.
" How many times has something that was once thought to be supernatural... become known to be natural... as we learn more about it?" Probably lots of times. But just like truth, Tammy, it was never supernatural to begin with, only inexplicable. Once we found the answers, answers that can be actually tested by EVERYONE, then we can say it is natural rather than unexplainable. This last germ of an idea is what keeps someone like me from jumping into the unsupported conclusions you make. I'm willing to say: "I don't know" rather than assume that because a tangible effect exists, which I cannot explain, that I must have an explanation where evidence shows none is forthcoming.

I can't imagine not believing in God.

Share this