The Fruit of the Vine (Poetry)

[Tuberload]

An eternal hand closes around the grape as it walks a warn down rut of a path
The love of God being pressed out of a seed not open to bribery
Offspring of the bondwoman carry about golden tablets engraved with new laws
The rejected grape never satisfying its righteous requirement
As its blood flows from the winepress vat
There is no room for boasting in its old skin
A lifeless stare gazes into the eyes of its Redemption
At last faith can have its way

-- Tuberload

[Sidoh]

This poem makes it sound like the love of God is some obvious trait of the universe.

God's existence is not an obvious trait of the universe.  Therefore, God's love is not an obvious trait of the universe.

Sorry for completely ignoring the literary value of your poem, but that's not what I see in it.

[Tuberload]

To the one who is willing to see God, both His existence and attributes, can be clearly seen in that which He created. To those who would rather worship there own ideas or the product of there own hands instead of God, they choose to allow themselves to live in a darkened state of mind and heart (Rom 1.18-23). To go beyond our ability to see Him clearly in His creation, God has demonstrated His love in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. True it is an idea that seems foolish to the world, but to one who has encountered the living God in a tangible way and been filled with His Spirit it is the wisdom of God (Jn 3.16, 1Co 1.18-30).

As to the poem itself, it speaks about a personal experience of ones process of salvation, not some attribute of God that is to be clearly seen. You would have to get into the Greek of Rom5.3-5 to develop the imagery of the rutted path and God's love being pressed out of the grape. The grape is a person who is being proven fruitful in the Lords vineyard. The love is being squeezed out of the seed, which is Christ in him, a love which is tangibly experienced and displayed over time because of the work of the Holy Spirit within the believer as he endures trials through the eyes of faith. It is not the laws of man or the church that brings about a true salvation, but the work of a living God within and a believers willingness to die to his life that he may truly experience life as given by God.

[Sidoh]

To the one who is willing to see God, both His existence and attributes, can be clearly seen in that which He created.

There are a few ways I generally respond to a claim like this.

I was religious for 18 years of my life.  I sincerely believed in the existence of God.  However, in retrospect, his existence was never "clear" to me.  For this to be true, I require meaningful, tangible evidence.  This is why I gave up the belief: there is none.

Not really.  This is a form of argument from design.  Instead of regurgitating all of the counter-apologetics, here:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_design

To those who would rather worship there own ideas or the product of there own hands instead of God, they choose to allow themselves to live in a darkened state of mind and heart (Rom 1.18-23).

I'm not sure if you were just quoting a bible verse verbatim here, but these are the kinds of accusations that really grind my gears.  I don't worship anyone's ideas.  I don't, in fact, worship anyone in the place of God.  I don't "choose" to not believe in God.  I am a type of person who naturally cannot believe in something that has no evidence.  It may have taken me 17 years to realize that there is no evidence for the existence of God, but when I finally did, my faith rapidly faded.

To go beyond our ability to see Him clearly in His creation, God has demonstrated His love in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. True it is an idea that seems foolish to the world, but to one who has encountered the living God in a tangible way and been filled with His Spirit it is the wisdom of God (Jn 3.16, 1Co 1.18-30).

You seem to be making yourself into some kind of martyr.  Yes, I'm going to criticize your beliefs.  I think they're entirely unjustified, and you flaunt them around as if they're obvious facts and that everyone around you is silly for not realizing what you've so clearly convinced yourself of.

Are you suggesting that any atheist has never "really believed in God?"  I'm pretty sure this is a beautiful example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

An aside: what evidence do you have for the existence of God?  What arguments have you used to convince yourself God is real?  That Shiva, Zeus, or Allah isn't?

As to the poem itself, it speaks about a personal experience of ones process of salvation, not some attribute of God that is to be clearly seen. You would have to get into the Greek of Rom5.3-5 to develop the imagery of the rutted path and God's love being pressed out of the grape. The grape is a person who is being proven fruitful in the Lords vineyard. The love is being squeezed out of the seed, which is Christ in him, a love which is tangibly experienced and displayed over time because of the work of the Holy Spirit within the believer as he endures trials through the eyes of faith. It is not the laws of man or the church that brings about a true salvation, but the work of a living God within and a believers willingness to die to his life that he may truly experience life as given by God.

I was not interpreting it as an attack on non-believers.  However, it does seem to be an attack on yourself.

[rabbit]

If he follows the Bible like he's supposed to, he accepts that there are, in fact, many many more gods, but he chooses to worship God above all.  Also, Allah = God, so eh?

[Tuberload]

I was going to just sit back in silent amazement and allow you to be king of the hill. I have however decided to clear up confusion…

There are a few ways I generally respond to a claim like this.

I was religious for 18 years of my life.  I sincerely believed in the existence of God.  However, in retrospect, his existence was never "clear" to me.  For this to be true, I require meaningful, tangible evidence.  This is why I gave up the belief: there is none.

Not really.  This is a form of argument from design.  Instead of regurgitating all of the counter-apologetics, here:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Argument_from_design

I am sorry. However I was not attempting an argument from design, rather suggesting that contrary to what you know both my personal experience and the Bible of which has authority in my life says you are wrong. If God has not been willing to reveal Himself to you in the tangible manner that you require then I sure am not going to sit here and prove Him for you. Maybe you will be unsatisfied with this but I am just the carrier of a message. The rest is between you and God. My relationship with God and the evidence He has given me is more than sufficient for a continued walk. You see I am not trying to convince men with cleverly crafted ideas and human wisdom, I am trying to create a context in which one might encounter the living God. If that encounter should prove not to take place then I am going to move on and trust God in His wisdom to remain hidden.

I'm not sure if you were just quoting a bible verse verbatim here, but these are the kinds of accusations that really grind my gears.  I don't worship anyone's ideas.  I don't, in fact, worship anyone in the place of God.  I don't "choose" to not believe in God.  I am a type of person who naturally cannot believe in something that has no evidence.  It may have taken me 17 years to realize that there is no evidence for the existence of God, but when I finally did, my faith rapidly faded.

Please take a moment to grease your gears because you completely pulled an accusation out of what I said that was not there... I said individuals who would rather worship there own ideas... To further clarify my meaning, I see my main mode of worshiping God as seeking to know His ways and then walking in them as opposed to walking according to my own ways. Hence the worshiping of ones own ideas as opposed to the worship of God.

Evidence comes as a God given reward for faith. I am fine with your choosing to reject that. You don't choose not to believe...whatever. If that is your philosophy in life you can have it.

You seem to be making yourself into some kind of martyr.  Yes, I'm going to criticize your beliefs.  I think they're entirely unjustified, and you flaunt them around as if they're obvious facts and that everyone around you is silly for not realizing what you've so clearly convinced yourself of.

Are you suggesting that any atheist has never "really believed in God?"  I'm pretty sure this is a beautiful example of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

An aside: what evidence do you have for the existence of God?  What arguments have you used to convince yourself God is real?  That Shiva, Zeus, or Allah isn't?

Where and in what way did I suggest you or anyone else is silly? Am I not allowed the same confidence as you demonstrate in the flaunting of your beliefs or would it be better for me to look at my feet and stutter? A martyr? Better yet a living martyr? All it took was a poem...so what exactly is your point?

In the way you are suggesting belief in God, no that was not my suggestion at all. Now if we want to use the Bibles definition for belief in God then yes, and if they truly did believe in God at one point then there is no hope for them because they have trampled underfoot the Son of Man and put Him to a public shame therefore making repentance, which is a gift from God, impossible for them a second time. In which case I am in no way involved in the matter. Genuine belief biblically suggests the perfection of what Jesus came to accomplish in the believers life. I do not even claim to fully believe in God in this sense. According to the bible a simple acceptance or idea of the possibility of a god or the God is insufficient and not genuine belief.

If you are going to continue in the trampling of my garden spend a little more time trying to understand what it is I am saying and a little less time puking all over the place.

I was not interpreting it as an attack on non-believers.  However, it does seem to be an attack on yourself.

An attack on non-believers...where do you get this stuff? You lashed out at me for a poem which suggested the personal experience of a believer in the Holy Spirit in the trials of life. I in fact see all you have presented as nothing more than a circular argument. I have done nothing but poetically express a personal experience which is backed by the Bible and Spirit in which I draw inspiration.

An attack on myself? More and more you demonstrate lack of understanding in the faith I profess. I am not sure what your 18 indoctrinated years accomplished but I truly hope that the years you have left are much more fruitful in your natural path.

After sifting through the logorrhea before me I have found two things worth noting: an assertion that God can not be proven as to exist based upon a criteria which rejects the context in which God has chosen to reveal Himself, and a finely tuned inability to communicate.

[Sidoh]

I am sorry. However I was not attempting an argument from design, rather suggesting that contrary to what you know both my personal experience and the Bible of which has authority in my life says you are wrong. If God has not been willing to reveal Himself to you in the tangible manner that you require then I sure am not going to sit here and prove Him for you. Maybe you will be unsatisfied with this but I am just the carrier of a message. The rest is between you and God. My relationship with God and the evidence He has given me is more than sufficient for a continued walk. You see I am not trying to convince men with cleverly crafted ideas and human wisdom, I am trying to create a context in which one might encounter the living God. If that encounter should prove not to take place then I am going to move on and trust God in His wisdom to remain hidden.

When you said "God can be seen in his creations", you weren't meaning to suggest that it appears that the world is designed, and therefore God exists?  Please excuse that misinterpretation if that wasn't the case.  This is practically a knee-jerk response I see from creationists whenever I have these kinds of discussions.

I appreciate your response here.  While I'm rather convinced God isn't going to do anything to do something to convince me he exists (probably because he doesn't exist), I appreciate that you recognize you don't have any objective, non-personal reason to believe in God (else, you'd tell me, right? .

I'm not sure if you were just quoting a bible verse verbatim here, but these are the kinds of accusations that really grind my gears.  I don't worship anyone's ideas.  I don't, in fact, worship anyone in the place of God.  I don't "choose" to not believe in God.  I am a type of person who naturally cannot believe in something that has no evidence.  It may have taken me 17 years to realize that there is no evidence for the existence of God, but when I finally did, my faith rapidly faded.

Please take a moment to grease your gears because you completely pulled an accusation out of what I said that was not there... I said individuals who would rather worship there own ideas... To further clarify my meaning, I see my main mode of worshiping God as seeking to know His ways and then walking in them as opposed to walking according to my own ways. Hence the worshiping of ones own ideas as opposed to the worship of God.

I apologize.  I thought you were criticizing atheists for worshiping their own ideas instead of God.

Evidence comes as a God given reward for faith. I am fine with your choosing to reject that. You don't choose not to believe...whatever. If that is your philosophy in life you can have it.

That's not how it works.  Even if this were true, it doesn't matter.  I cannot fulfill the prerequisites for faith.  This is just how I am.

Where and in what way did I suggest you or anyone else is silly? Am I not allowed the same confidence as you demonstrate in the flaunting of your beliefs or would it be better for me to look at my feet and stutter? A martyr? Better yet a living martyr? All it took was a poem...so what exactly is your point?

No, I don't think you're allowed the same confidence.  The only thing I'm confident about in this context is I don't know.  I don't know how or if the Universe began.  I don't know if God does or does not exist, and I posit that you don't either.

If you are going to continue in the trampling of my garden spend a little more time trying to understand what it is I am saying and a little less time puking all over the place.

I'll admit that I'm being abrasive, and that I've made a few mistakes in interpreting what you say, but I'm unconvinced that this is entirely my fault (though it's probably mostly my fault .

An attack on non-believers...where do you get this stuff? You lashed out at me for a poem which suggested the personal experience of a believer in the Holy Spirit in the trials of life. I in fact see all you have presented as nothing more than a circular argument. I have done nothing but poetically express a personal experience which is backed by the Bible and Spirit in which I draw inspiration.

You're taking the word "attack" to mean something more er... violent than I meant it to.

Er... I've given a circular argument?  Point it out.

An attack on myself? More and more you demonstrate lack of understanding in the faith I profess. I am not sure what your 18 indoctrinated years accomplished but I truly hope that the years you have left are much more fruitful in your natural path.

What my 18 indoctrinated years accomplished?  Natural path?

After sifting through the logorrhea before me I have found two things worth noting: an assertion that God can not be proven as to exist based upon a criteria which rejects the context in which God has chosen to reveal Himself, and a finely tuned inability to communicate.

Speaking of logorrhea...

It's not as if I handpicked my standard of evidence such that it necessitates a disbelief in God.  This seems to be what you're suggesting -- that's not it at all.  It's a doctrine of skepticism: if there isn't a good, tangible reason to believe in something, don't believe it.

It's the same doctrine you use to reject pixies, unicorns and big foot.

I understand that you've had a personal experience with God.  How do you know it was the Christian God?  How do you know that if you professed your allegiance to Allah, you wouldn't have a similar revelation?

[Towelie]

I understand that you've had a personal experience with God.  How do you know it was the Christian God?  How do you know that if you professed your allegiance to Allah, you wouldn't have a similar revelation?

This was already said, damn it:

God is Allah. Allah is God. They are the same god. Islam is based off of Christianity, which is based off of Judaism. They are all founded on the same god.

Change Allah to something like... the greek gods and answer that, Tuberload. lol

Another question:

How do you know that what you feel, or what you perceive as being God, isn't just something that your mind created, since the mind is powerful enough to do this, in order to cope with your struggles? You needed someone to love, and to turn to, and since you apparently didn't have any person to go to, isn't it entirely possible that your mind created this sense of God, which, in your situation, you had no problem giving yourself up to?

[Sidoh]

This was already said, damn it:

God is Allah. Allah is God. They are the same god. Islam is based off of Christianity, which is based off of Judaism. They are all founded on the same god.

Their origins do not matter.  They are distinct religions.

[rabbit]

God is Allah. Allah is God. They are the same god. Islam is based off of Christianity, which is based off of Judaism. They are all founded on the same god.

Completely wrong.  Muslims stopped believing in profits first, then the Jews, and then the Christians.

[Towelie]

Completely wrong.  Muslims stopped believing in profits first, then the Jews, and then the Christians.

This is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. They are all founded on the same god. The Islams believe Jesus wasn't a prophet, but they still think his teachings have value and worth. But, we aren't talking about prophets. We are talking about the god that is worshiped.

Their origins do not matter.  They are distinct religions.

They are distinct religions, but they still worship the same god. They may have different theological views about this god, but they still worship the same one.

[Sidoh]

They are distinct religions, but they still worship the same god. They may have different theological views about this god, but they still worship the same one.

They worship a God that has "the same" origin.  The God described Islam is not the same described in Christianity.  Just because they were derived from the same ideas does not mean they are the same God.

Regardless, you missed the point.

[Towelie]

They are distinct religions, but they still worship the same god. They may have different theological views about this god, but they still worship the same one.

They worship a God that has "the same" origin.  The God described Islam is not the same described in Christianity.  Just because they were derived from the same ideas does not mean they are the same God.

Regardless, you missed the point.

so, back when Islam was relatively new, why did they convert others but leave Christians alone? Christians definitely didn't see it this way, though.

[Sidoh]

They are distinct religions, but they still worship the same god. They may have different theological views about this god, but they still worship the same one.

They worship a God that has "the same" origin.  The God described Islam is not the same described in Christianity.  Just because they were derived from the same ideas does not mean they are the same God.

Regardless, you missed the point.

so, back when Islam was relatively new, why did they convert others but leave Christians alone? Christians definitely didn't see it this way, though.

Again, the origins don't matter.  I don't care if the same person started both religions.  It doesn't matter how things were 2,000 years ago.

Presently, both Christians and Muslims think members of the other religion are wrong, and are going to hell or its equivalent.

You pointed out something completely irrelevant (not to mention wrong :p), and it derailed what I was getting at.  Thanks.  YOU JERK.

[Towelie]

They are distinct religions, but they still worship the same god. They may have different theological views about this god, but they still worship the same one.

They worship a God that has "the same" origin.  The God described Islam is not the same described in Christianity.  Just because they were derived from the same ideas does not mean they are the same God.

Regardless, you missed the point.

so, back when Islam was relatively new, why did they convert others but leave Christians alone? Christians definitely didn't see it this way, though.

Again, the origins don't matter.  I don't care if the same person started both religions.  It doesn't matter how things were 2,000 years ago.

Presently, both Christians and Muslims think members of the other religion are wrong, and are going to hell or its equivalent.

You pointed out something completely irrelevant (not to mention wrong :p), and it derailed what I was getting at.  Thanks.  YOU JERK.

You're looking at their specific theologies, damn it. Origins DO matter in what I am pointing out.

According to Francis Edwards Peters, "The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews (29:46). The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham".

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah)

The fucking Qur'an states that they worship the same god. Need any more proof?

[rabbit]

That doesn't change the fact that they still believe that everyone else is following false prophets and therefore are going to hell.

[Towelie]

That doesn't change the fact that they still believe that everyone else is following false prophets and therefore are going to hell.

I wasn't arguing that. All that I was arguing is that saying "What if you worshiped Allah instead of God?" is like saying "Why wouldn't you believe in Jesus instead of Jesus?" (the second one being pronounced hey-zeus ;P). Not that the religions are theologically the same, or believe that both religions are the right one.

[Towelie]

According to Francis Edwards Peters, "The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews (29:46). The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham".

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah)
The fucking Qur'an states that they worship the same god. Need any more proof?

Just to give further evidence to this, here is a quote from that verse, translated into english of course:

And dispute ye not with the People of the Book, except with means better (than mere disputation), unless it be with those of them who inflict wrong (and injury): but say, "We believe in the revelation which has come down to us and in that which came down to you; Our Allah and your Allah is one; and it is to Him we bow (in Islam)."

source: http://www.islamicity.com/mosque/QURAN/29.htm

[Sidoh]

You're looking at their specific theologies, damn it. Origins DO matter in what I am pointing out.

According to Francis Edwards Peters, "The Qur'an insists, Muslims believe, and historians affirm that Muhammad and his followers worship the same God as the Jews (29:46). The Quran's Allah is the same Creator God who covenanted with Abraham".

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allah)

The fucking Qur'an states that they worship the same god. Need any more proof?

No, they don't.  The gods I'm referring to are entirely distinct descriptions of a being, and it doesn't matter if they started from the same description.  Think of evolution.  Maybe they started out with identical descriptions of a being, but somewhere along the line, things diverged.  Islam says Allah does this and that (for example, drinking camel piss is "cleansing"), and Yahweh says he has a son, which is also himself.

You'll have to understand that I'm not coming from a theological perspective.  I'm an atheist, and I'm going to treat the deities of religions as if they don't exist.  As such, the origins of said deities are completely irrelevant.  You apparently missed my point.  I don't think it was particularly subtle, but maybe it was, so I'll try to be more clear.

(1) I posit that if a Christian were to be taken back in time, and raised in an environment where the prominent religion was Islam instead of Christianity, they would be Muslim instead of Christian.
(2) Worshiping a god referred to as "Allah" signifies Islam.
(3) Worshiping a god referred to as "Yahweh" signifies Christianity.
(4) Most people in areas where Islam is the prominent religion worship a god referred to as "Allah".
(5) Therefore, people in areas where the most commonly worshiped god is referred to as "Allah" are Muslims.
(6) Islam is an entirely distinct religion from Christianity, and Christians believe that Muslims are gravely wrong about their religious views and visa-versa.

I could continue, but I'm hoping you get the idea now.

[Towelie]

No, they don't.  The gods I'm referring to are entirely distinct descriptions of a being, and it doesn't matter if they started from the same description.  Think of evolution.  Maybe they started out with identical descriptions of a being, but somewhere along the line, things diverged.  Islam says Allah does this and that (for example, drinking camel piss is "cleansing"), and Yahweh says he has a son, which is also himself.

Theological view. They think that drinking camel piss is "cleansing". This has nothing to do with the IDENTITY of the god. Christianity says he has a son.... Hey! Another THEOLOGICAL difference! Same identity of a god, different prophets! The god they believe in is the same, they go about worshiping him and practicing the religion in different ways.

You'll have to understand that I'm not coming from a theological perspective.  I'm an atheist, and I'm going to treat the deities of religions as if they don't exist.  As such, the origins of said deities are completely irrelevant.  You apparently missed my point.  I don't think it was particularly subtle, but maybe it was, so I'll try to be more clear.

You are not, but we aren't talking about your beliefs. It doesn't matter how you treat it, you are describing a god based on the practices of a religion. This is irrelevant to the god's identity.

(1) I posit that if a Christian were to be taken back in time, and raised in an environment where the prominent religion was Islam instead of Christianity, they would be Muslim instead of Christian.

I agree with this. But this has nothing to do with whether or not they are the same god, just showing that you would worship this god in a different way.

(2) Worshiping a god referred to as "Allah" signifies Islam.
(3) Worshiping a god referred to as "Yahweh" signifies Christianity.
(4) Most people in areas where Islam is the prominent religion worship a god referred to as "Allah".
(5) Therefore, people in areas where the most commonly worshiped god is referred to as "Allah" are Muslims.

No. Wrong. 100% wrong.
Worshiping a god referred to "Allah" does not signify Islam. If you speak Arabic and you are a christian, you refer to your god as "Allah". People who speak English, and practice Islam refer to their god as "Allah", for they believe that Arabic is the language that god speaks (as , and therefore they pray and read scripture in Arabic.
Yahweh is the word for god in Hebrew, found in the Torah, so it would signify Judaism over Christianity. And if you believe it signifies Christianity too, you are proving my point.

(6) Islam is an entirely distinct religion from Christianity, and Christians believe that Muslims are gravely wrong about their religious views and visa-versa.

Like I said, they believe they are wrong about their religious views by the way they worship the god, which is a theological approach. Therefore, this has nothing to do with my point.


Read my quote from the Qur'an, you are completely missing what I'm trying to say.

[Sidoh]

Holy shit.  This is pathetic.

Zach, I don't know how else to say it.  I'm don't care about theology, and I don't care if they're the same god by some definition you've arbitrarily chosen.  From an ontological point of view, the fact that the god described in Islam has different characterizations than the god in Christianity means that they're different gods for all purposes that I intend.

Theological view. They think that drinking camel piss is "cleansing". This has nothing to do with the IDENTITY of the god. Christianity says he has a son.... Hey! Another THEOLOGICAL difference! Same identity of a god, different prophets! The god they believe in is the same, they go about worshiping him and practicing the religion in different ways.

I don't care about the theology.  It's irrelevant.  Since you seem to be missing the point, it's irrelevant.

The point that I'm highlighting is that the religions are distinct, and members of each believe that the opposite is wrong, and will suffer eternal punishment because they are wrong.  You seem to be missing this.  Even if what you're saying has merit (I don't think it does, but I don't care enough to continue this discussion much longer), it's irrelevant to the argument I was making.

Your response was derailing, pedantic, and thoughtless.

You are not, but we aren't talking about your beliefs. It doesn't matter how you treat it, you are describing a god based on the practices of a religion. This is irrelevant to the god's identity.

Yes, we are.  We're talking about the argument I was making.  You're moving away from that.

... just showing that you would worship this god in a different way.

And that the religion you practice is distinct and mutually exclusive with Christianity.  That's the point I'm making.

Worshiping a god referred to "Allah" does not signify Islam. If you speak Arabic and you are a christian, you refer to your god as "Allah". People who speak English, and practice Islam refer to their god as "Allah", for they believe that Arabic is the language that god speaks (as , and therefore they pray and read scripture in Arabic.
Yahweh is the word for god in Hebrew, found in the Torah, so it would signify Judaism over Christianity. And if you believe it signifies Christianity too, you are proving my point.

Maybe that's true, and that'd be my mistake, but it still doesn't matter.

If I tell you that I know someone that worships Allah, would you assume that this statement was entirely ambiguous, or would you assume that the person I'm referring to is a Muslim?  If it's the former, then I think you're incredibly pedantic.  You're like the annoying prick in the room that makes irrelevant corrections when someone is in the middle of contributing a thoughtful comment to a discussion.

[Joe]

God is Allah. Allah is God. They are the same god. Islam is based off of Christianity, which is based off of Judaism. They are all founded on the same god.

Fixed.

EDIT -
If I remember correctly, the founder of Judaism was the brother of the founder of Islam. They got in a fight about something, and now Israel and Palestine are still fighting about it. But it's irrelevant, Towelie's point stands. The deity referenced in the Koran, Torah, and Bible, and all the names given to him (Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, etc) are all referring to the same being.

[Sidoh]

God is Allah. Allah is God. They are the same god. Islam is based off of Christianity, which is based off of Judaism. They are all founded on the same god.

Fixed.

EDIT -
If I remember correctly, the founder of Judaism was the brother of the founder of Islam. They got in a fight about something, and now Israel and Palestine are still fighting about it. But it's irrelevant, Towelie's point stands. The deity referenced in the Koran, Torah, and Bible, and all the names given to him (Allah, Yahweh, Jehovah, etc) are all referring to the same being.

We had an ontological debate on IM earlier today, and you're not giving this enough thought to make a conclusion.

Also, Towelie's point is still irrelevant.  Did you read any of my responses?

[Towelie]

Also, Towelie's point is still irrelevant.  Did you read any of my responses?

Bitch please. My point is 100% relevant! Just not to what you were trying to say initially (which I actually pointed out). lol.


Either way, I'm still waiting for tuberload to respond to me:

How do you know that what you feel, or what you perceive as being God, isn't just something that your mind created, since the mind is powerful enough to do this, in order to cope with your struggles? You needed someone to love, and to turn to, and since you apparently didn't have any person to go to, isn't it entirely possible that your mind created this sense of God, which, in your situation, you had no problem giving yourself up to?

[Tuberload]

For the record I do not believe Allah is the God that I worship. Islam is a fatherless religion, and the heart of Christianity is that we have a Father in heaven that sent His son into the earth in fulfillment of covenant promises He had made to Jewish patriarchs. This man Jesus was the promised Messiah of the Jews and they crucified him in there ignorance. God then raised him back to life fulfilling His promises to King David that a son out of his loins would sit on his throne for eternity. Now because of Jesus’ resurrection he has been made both the Lord of heaven and earth, and the Christ who will baptize all who will repent, i.e. turn from there current mind and way of living also known as sin, and profess their allegiance to Jesus as Lord. It is this allegiance to Jesus as Lord alone, coupled with a commitment to be led and empowered by the Holy Spirit into what we believe to be absolute truth thus producing drastic changes in heart and mind, which identifies a Christian who is being saved. Receiving the Holy Spirit through our allegiance to Christ grants us adoption as sons and daughters in the family of God in which God Himself is the Father. Allah has no sons, Yahweh does. It is a fundamental difference distinguishing the two religions.

Judaism came out of a continuation of Abraham’s family line in the promised son Isaac through whom God chose to fulfill His covenant made to Abraham. Ishmael, the source of Islam, was a product of Abraham trying to fulfill the covenant made to him by God through his own means sleeping with a servant of his wife. While they have historical ties, and this is the last I will debate of this, they do not today share the same God.

I have stated why I believe Yahweh and His son Jesus Christ are the source of my experience, as well as the reasons as to why I am absolutely convinced it is not a product of my own mind here. I am willing to discuss things along the lines of that thread as they arise, but I am not going to continue reiterating myself.

[Sidoh]

I think you feel like you're reiterating because you aren't thoughtfully considering the questions you're being asked.

I'll try to relate it to the reasons you believe in Yahweh: do you think that if you grew up in Iran, you'd still have had an experience that lead you to Christianity?  How do you explain regional differences in religion?  This seems to me to be compelling evidence that these sorts of experiences are dependent on what religion is dominant in the region they're had, and that they're probably not associated with any sort of supernatural entity.

Why does God love people in Iran less than he loves the people in America?

[Tuberload]

I think you feel like you're reiterating because you aren't thoughtfully considering the questions you're being asked.

I'll try to relate it to the reasons you believe in Yahweh: do you think that if you grew up in Iran, you'd still have had an experience that lead you to Christianity?  How do you explain regional differences in religion?  This seems to me to be compelling evidence that these sorts of experiences are dependent on what religion is dominant in the region they're had, and that they're probably not associated with any sort of supernatural entity.

Why does God love people in Iran less than he loves the people in America?

And this demonstrates an ignorance of supernatural Christian evangelism/conversion taking place in Muslim countries. The underground Christian movement is strongest in Iran, although it is comparable to that of China so to say which is stronger would be hard. Most of these Muslims who are converting over to Christianity testify that the reason was either a dream or a vision of a man in a white robe who claimed to be Jesus Christ the Son of God and that he was calling them into His kingdom or that they experience some sort of creative miracle or healing in there body being prayed for in the name of Jesus Christ. Most of this is taking place independent of western Christianity and some of it separate from any Christian missionary works altogether, i.e. the claimed dreams and visions.

Sidoh a thoughtful reading of the material I have posted would draw ample conclusion of why I believe the vast majority of your arguments are false, as well as the reasoning of why I am not going to go round and round with you or anyone else on the matters. Are you willing to get over yourself? Because I will tell you that I am sprinting in the direction of getting over myself and my need to be right in the eyes of others. Write me of as whatever you like, but these long drawn out arguments are unfruitful and a waste of my time. Like I have said time and time again I am interested in my experience with God, and whatever experience God may grant another.

[MyndFyre]

Why does God love people in Iran less than he loves the people in America?

Based on... that he isn't compelling people to follow him?

I'm trying to determine how you're quantifying God's love.

[Tuberload]

I appreciate your response here.  While I'm rather convinced God isn't going to do anything to do something to convince me he exists (probably because he doesn't exist), I appreciate that you recognize you don't have any objective, non-personal reason to believe in God (else, you'd tell me, right? .

Still along the lines of thoughtfulness, you have made clear your position that God and His existence can not be proven nor as you have stated can it be disproved. It is not my desire hear to argue this claim, rather I ask that you stick with your original arguments for the remainder of our conversations. Now if He cannot be disproved I fail to understand how you can here begin to lean in one direction…is there some sort of faith at work here? Faith that he probably does not exist and therefore you lean in a direction to which you have stated there cannot be any objective proof? A direction to which you seem to have stated that you will neither agree nor disagree rather that you'd just walk in a way that is natural to you...

[Sidoh]

And this demonstrates an ignorance of supernatural Christian evangelism/conversion taking place in Muslim countries. The underground Christian movement is strongest in Iran, although it is comparable to that of China so to say which is stronger would be hard. Most of these Muslims who are converting over to Christianity testify that the reason was either a dream or a vision of a man in a white robe who claimed to be Jesus Christ the Son of God and that he was calling them into His kingdom or that they experience some sort of creative miracle or healing in there body being prayed for in the name of Jesus Christ. Most of this is taking place independent of western Christianity and some of it separate from any Christian missionary works altogether, i.e. the claimed dreams and visions.

I was not aware of such a movement, but I'm still unconvinced it matters.  The number of Christians per capita in countries like Iran are seem to be attributable to probability.  2% of the religious population in Iran is something other than Islam, and I'm not sure what part of that is Christian.  The fact remains: almost every person in Iran dies without accepting Jesus Christ.  Doesn't this mean they'll go to hell?

What you say about the dream is interesting, and I'd be interested to see a source.

Sidoh a thoughtful reading of the material I have posted would draw ample conclusion of why I believe the vast majority of your arguments are false, as well as the reasoning of why I am not going to go round and round with you or anyone else on the matters. Are you willing to get over yourself? Because I will tell you that I am sprinting in the direction of getting over myself and my need to be right in the eyes of others. Write me of as whatever you like, but these long drawn out arguments are unfruitful and a waste of my time. Like I have said time and time again I am interested in my experience with God, and whatever experience God may grant another.

I don't think the arguments are even close to unfruitful.  I think you're approaching them assuming the conclusion is false, and most of your responses reflect this.  You tend to say things that are mostly irrelevant.  For example, even if the number of Christians in Iran is increasing, that does not change the fact that the amount is still negligible, and that almost everyone in Iran dies and goes to hell.  I'm asking you to explain why this is.  Even if it is "getting better", that does not do anything to change the thousands of years that have passed.

Why does God love people in Iran less than he loves the people in America?

Based on... that he isn't compelling people to follow him?

I'm trying to determine how you're quantifying God's love.

no, based on the culture and the environment.  Christianity is less tolerated, less promoted and less prevalent in Iran.  Why is it that a person born in Iran has a massively greater chance of going to hell than someone who's born in America?  Does God put all of the souls he loves into bodies born in America?

Still along the lines of thoughtfulness, you have made clear your position that God and His existence can not be proven nor as you have stated can it be disproved. It is not my desire hear to argue this claim, rather I ask that you stick with your original arguments for the remainder of our conversations. Now if He cannot be disproved I fail to understand how you can here begin to lean in one direction…is there some sort of faith at work here?

This is probably the most naive argument that I hear.  Unfortunately, it's rather common.

Are you familiar with the burden of proof?  Why is it that you reject the existence of Zeus even though his existence cannot be disproved?  I don't think it's impossible that God exists, and I don't know that God doesn't exist, I do, however, believe (quite strongly) that God does not exist.  I am unfamiliar with any meaningful evidence that suggests God exists, and I am familiar with evidence that suggests a literal interpretation of the Bible is inconsistent with simple observation.  This is why I reject the existence of God, and why I'm rather convinced that the God of Christianity is even more unlikely.

Faith that he probably does not exist and therefore you lean in a direction to which you have stated there cannot be any objective proof? A direction to which you seem to have stated that you will neither agree nor disagree rather that you'd just walk in a way that is natural to you...

I don't think faith is appropriate to describe my beliefs.  Instead of blabbering on, I suggest you read this and trust my response would be similar:

http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism_is_based_on_faith

[Tuberload]

This being said, I think unconditional skepticism almost requires atheism.  There is no tangible evidence for the existence of God (to my knowledge -- feel free to prove me wrong).  I'm familiar with the usual apologetic arguments, and a few of the less common ones.  Every single one of them is terrible to the point of it being vaguely pathetic.  Because of this, I reject the notion of a God.  Unlike many theists (and atheists), I don't claim to know that God doesn't exist, because I don't think anyone has knowledge pertaining to the existence of a god.

Epistemological knowledge is as you put it the only real knowledge there is and this quote states you do not believe anyone can produce any such knowledge concerning the existence of God. So if this is the case how can you make a statement that God probably does not exist with out some kind of faith being put into practice? Please stay focused on what I am saying Sidoh. I believe you are intelligent, and I am not concerned with whether or not this community thinks that I am, so please spend a little less time trying to establish such premises.

[Sidoh]

This being said, I think unconditional skepticism almost requires atheism.  There is no tangible evidence for the existence of God (to my knowledge -- feel free to prove me wrong).  I'm familiar with the usual apologetic arguments, and a few of the less common ones.  Every single one of them is terrible to the point of it being vaguely pathetic.  Because of this, I reject the notion of a God.  Unlike many theists (and atheists), I don't claim to know that God doesn't exist, because I don't think anyone has knowledge pertaining to the existence of a god.

Epistemological knowledge is as you put it the only real knowledge there is and this quote states you do not believe anyone can produce any such knowledge concerning the existence of God. So if this is the case how can you make a statement that God probably does not exist with out some kind of faith being put into practice? Please stay focused on what I am saying Sidoh. I believe you are intelligent, and I am not concerned with whether or not this community thinks that I am, so please spend a little less time trying to establish such premises.

Did you read the link I posted?  I didn't "lose focus".  You didn't read my post.

[Tuberload]

Yes I read the post, and I understand the point of shifting the burden of proof. It wasn’t my intention to argue the supposed necessity of faith in atheism although I certainly see how my inability to relate my thoughts has given it that appearance; rather I was making it clear that what you hold to is a joke as far as I am concerned and all of your attempts to discredit me will have absolutely no effect on what I am doing.

You hold to something that is more probable because you lack an encounter with God which I myself and thousands of others claim to have had and continue to have. It is not indoctrination that I am holding to; it is a supernatural revealing of a God who refuses to prove Himself to you according to your definitions but has responded to the genuine faith of many.

I could relay a multitude of experiences in which the Holy Spirit in the form of a voice or a dream or a vision has told me a thing was going to happen, and it did. I am talking times, places and events. I could tell you of miracles I have witnessed with my own eyes. I could go on and on, and odds are you would not believe me or you’d just skirt around them and stick to your box that God must prove Himself within but has refused.

Whether you like it or not according to both the objective faith I hold as well as my subjective experience He is not going to do that, and therefore our arguments are unfruitful in the work God has called me to, and the means by which He is going to fulfill his purposes in this world. Understand that I am not going to follow you down the path that you are trying to lead period, and all your comments to try and make me look inapt mean nothing to me.

Such philosophies are certainly stripping the faith out of a Christian who has had nothing more than some mental agreement with what the Bible claims to be true or have clung to the corrupt traditions of the church, but for those of us who have had dramatic experiences of which the Bible defines as the norm for the true believer your arguments will not strip us of our allegiance to the living God. You assume that because such a high percentage of the western world and in particular America claims to be Christian that they are in fact actually saved and recognized by God as a son or daughter in His kingdom and submitted to Christ. I do not hold to that assumption, and actually believe that the converts to Christ in said Middle Eastern and Asian countries are actually of a higher percentage of true disciples.

Within the boundaries of my profession all of your arguments are irrelevant because it is not how God has chosen to operate according to both experience and that which has been objectively revealed in His word. As far as I am concerned my experience, and the experience of people who I know and don’t know around the world are sufficient. Do you still not get that I do not care about everything you continue to post, and that I am sticking with the argument that God is in fact revealing Himself and granting people encounters in response to there faith?

I do believe that a supernatural being can and often is behind popular mythology and or prominent religions. I also believe revelatory experiences are possible if I had put faith or called out to one of them. Yahweh is however the creator of all, and the supernatural beings who fell from there original place in His kingdom are now responsible for deceiving the world. There is a lot out there that is nothing more than the imagination of the human mind, and there is a lot that could potentially be real, but once again not deterministic to my profession.

If God has defined the context in which you or Muslims or anyone else may enter into an encounter with Him and that is rejected, whether because of some innate tendency or not, it says nothing about the love of God. Man lives according to his own free will and these innate tendencies are sin and God will not accept them. Gods love could be better seen in what He is doing today despite mans choice to continually reject His terms of salvation. Therefore what I am saying about the supernatural evangelism of Jesus Christ in the Muslim world which has fiercely rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ and Gods opened invitation to live for eternity is in fact relevant to my profession. It is relevant because there is widespread claimed encounters with God through Jesus Christ that match the experiences I claim to have. This is the road I am going to continue to walk, and it will not be a work of my own hands but rather a partnering with God as He continues to move in the supernatural in response to genuine faith.

This is the parting of our ways as you will continue to tread your path and I mine. Yes I believe we will all stand before the bema seat of Christ, and while not sure I necessarily hold to traditional doctrines or descriptions of hell I absolutely believe God will be just in sentencing people to an eternity of separation from Himself. It’s His will, not mine and not yours.

[Sidoh]

Yes I read the post, and I understand the point of shifting the burden of proof. It wasn’t my intention to argue the supposed necessity of faith in atheism although I certainly see how my inability to relate my thoughts has given it that appearance; rather I was making it clear that what you hold to is a joke as far as I am concerned and all of your attempts to discredit me will have absolutely no effect on what I am doing.

What I hold to is a joke?  The only thing I hold to is not believing in something when there's no good reason to believe in it, and trivially, not to believe in something when there's no good reason to believe in it and there's a good reason to not believe in it.

I don't really care if you change your mind.  I have absolutely no problem with religious people, as long as their beliefs don't affect them in a way I consider to be detrimental to their health, or the health of others.  Going to church, praying, having a high standard for morality, and being a generally enjoyable person are some of the traits I associate with people like you.  I don't really think any less of you for maintaining your beliefs, but I don't understand why you find them consistent with reality.

I'm simply trying to have an interesting discussion.  If it is uninteresting to you, or you're becoming offended, I'll understand.

You hold to something that is more probable because you lack an encounter with God which I myself and thousands of others claim to have had and continue to have. It is not indoctrination that I am holding to; it is a supernatural revealing of a God who refuses to prove Himself to you according to your definitions but has responded to the genuine faith of many.

You claim to have had a supernatural experience.  Of course there's nothing I can do to discuss this in a meaningful way, I'll just leave it at "I don't think it was a supernatural experience."  I'm reasonably confident that all of the things you've described on the forums can be attributed to psychological phenomena.

My standard of evidence is entirely reasonable, and I'd find it absolutely absurd if you disagree.  Remember that I told you I was genuinely faithful for more than a decade, and I never had anything close to a supernatural experience.  If you want to reject the claim that I was faithful, then I'd ask you what you're doing differently.

I could relay a multitude of experiences in which the Holy Spirit in the form of a voice or a dream or a vision has told me a thing was going to happen, and it did. I am talking times, places and events. I could tell you of miracles I have witnessed with my own eyes. I could go on and on, and odds are you would not believe me or you’d just skirt around them and stick to your box that God must prove Himself within but has refused.

I hope you realize that dreams are a rather silly thing to refer to unless something was revealed to you that would've been impossible for you to know while awake.  They're nice and fuzzy, but I've had dreams where I was being chased around by a monster on top of the roof of my house.  That doesn't mean that a monster of the roof of my house exists.

I don't really know what you mean by "vision", but if it's anything similar to daydreaming, then the same restriction above applies.

Hearing voices is probably different and more meaningful, but you'll have to understand my skepticism.  Your word on such a thing just doesn't mean much.  If a bunch of independent sources told me they heard the voice of God, then of course I'd take it more seriously, but a handful of personal experiences is meaningless to me unless the person experiencing them is me.

Whether you like it or not according to both the objective faith I hold as well as my subjective experience He is not going to do that, and therefore our arguments are unfruitful in the work God has called me to, and the means by which He is going to fulfill his purposes in this world. Understand that I am not going to follow you down the path that you are trying to lead period, and all your comments to try and make me look inapt mean nothing to me.

Objective faith?  What does that even mean?  You objectively believe in the existence of God?

Again, I'm not really trying to convince you of anything.  I'm merely asking you why you believe what you believe, and telling you why the reasons are either unsound (this hasn't really happened) or meaningless to me (e.g., personal experiences).

I don't really care what you think I believe, unless you have a legitimate, objective criticism that isn't "it's inconsistent with what I believe".  So far, you've done nothing to make any sort of reasonable criticism of my beliefs.

Such philosophies are certainly stripping the faith out of a Christian who has had nothing more than some mental agreement with what the Bible claims to be true or have clung to the corrupt traditions of the church, but for those of us who have had dramatic experiences of which the Bible defines as the norm for the true believer your arguments will not strip us of our allegiance to the living God. You assume that because such a high percentage of the western world and in particular America claims to be Christian that they are in fact actually saved and recognized by God as a son or daughter in His kingdom and submitted to Christ. I do not hold to that assumption, and actually believe that the converts to Christ in said Middle Eastern and Asian countries are actually of a higher percentage of true disciples.

This is an interesting point.  However, I'm still quite certain that there are maannnyy more people like you in America than in Iran.  You're also presented with more opportunities that lead you to the beliefs you hold and less scrutiny should you choose to take advantage of them.

Of the Christians in Iran, a higher percentage of them may have beliefs that are closer to yours, but unless you assume that some ridiculously small percentage of American Christians are "saved" (and I assure you, I've met a ton of people who share beliefs quite similar to yours), you're still a long way from defeating my argument.

Within the boundaries of my profession all of your arguments are irrelevant because it is not how God has chosen to operate according to both experience and that which has been objectively revealed in His word. As far as I am concerned my experience, and the experience of people who I know and don’t know around the world are sufficient. Do you still not get that I do not care about everything you continue to post, and that I am sticking with the argument that God is in fact revealing Himself and granting people encounters in response to there faith?

Objectively revealed in his word?  What do you mean by that?

Look, I don't give a crap if you chalk a bunch of dreams and voices in your head to God.  I'm just telling you that it's meaningless to me, and that until I heard voices in my head, I'm rather convinced that God is a figment of your imagination.

I do believe that a supernatural being can and often is behind popular mythology and or prominent religions. I also believe revelatory experiences are possible if I had put faith or called out to one of them. Yahweh is however the creator of all, and the supernatural beings who fell from there original place in His kingdom are now responsible for deceiving the world. There is a lot out there that is nothing more than the imagination of the human mind, and there is a lot that could potentially be real, but once again not deterministic to my profession.

what is this "profession" you keep speaking of?  you're a missionary, aren't you? ech...

I don't think this answers why you don't believe (I'm assuming) that God throws lightening bolts out of his house in the clouds and has a son named Hercules that went around lifting heavy stuff.  And it definitely doesn't answer why you don't believe in Leprechauns or Santa Claus.

The point I'm making is that unless you fall back on your personal experiences (which is fine, but is, again, irrelevant to what I believe), you're making a special exception for believing in God.  There's no good reason to not believe that Leprechauns or Unicorns exist, but I'm guessing you don't believe in them.

If God has defined the context in which you or Muslims or anyone else may enter into an encounter with Him and that is rejected, whether because of some innate tendency or not, it says nothing about the love of God. Man lives according to his own free will and these innate tendencies are sin and God will not accept them. Gods love could be better seen in what He is doing today despite mans choice to continually reject His terms of salvation. Therefore what I am saying about the supernatural evangelism of Jesus Christ in the Muslim world which has fiercely rejected the gospel of Jesus Christ and Gods opened invitation to live for eternity is in fact relevant to my profession. It is relevant because there is widespread claimed encounters with God through Jesus Christ that match the experiences I claim to have. This is the road I am going to continue to walk, and it will not be a work of my own hands but rather a partnering with God as He continues to move in the supernatural in response to genuine faith.

That's nice, but unless you make the assertion that it is no less likely that a person in Iran is saved than a person in America is saved, then we have a problem.

God either:
1) Puts more people that won't be saved in Iran than he does in America, or
2) Makes it harder for people in Iran to be saved, and fewer of them are saved as a result of this.

Are you going to make that assertion?  If you are, I have a bone to pick with you.

This is the parting of our ways as you will continue to tread your path and I mine. Yes I believe we will all stand before the bema seat of Christ, and while not sure I necessarily hold to traditional doctrines or descriptions of hell I absolutely believe God will be just in sentencing people to an eternity of separation from Himself. It’s His will, not mine and not yours.

Why don't you believe in the traditional notion of Hell?

[rabbit]

rather I was making it clear that what you hold to is a joke as far as I am concerned

With that fragment of a sentence you have lost all credibility and respect I held for you.  Sidoh is simply trying to explain what he believes and why, and then you dismiss it as a joke because it's not what you believe.  You are, in fact, about 3 hops way from extremism.  Yes, you heard me, extremism.  I think most people these days call that "terrorism".  Just because somebody doesn't believe what you do doesn't mean you can dismiss whatever they are saying and continue saying the same thing over and over as if it were fact.

Another thing I'd like to ask: most of the world, throughout history, has been non-Christian.  All of them went to hell.  Even a good number of the Christians go to hell, as, let's face it, most of them have probably eaten meat on a Friday.  By these two facts alone, I can conclude that, if heaven existed, there would be about 30 people there.  That's bullshit.

Do you hear me Tuberload? YOUR RELIGION IS BULLSHIT

Modify: I certainly have no problem with these statements, or there being here but the extreme font size is not necessary -- Tuberload

[Blaze]

That's uncalled for, rabbit.  Grow up.

[Tuberload]

I will admit that calling said beliefs a joke was immature on my part and for that I apologize. However rabbit your supposedly new found opinion of me is just another excuse for you to lash out and attack me like you have done in the past because this opinion you hold really isn’t new. Your equally immature responses therefore accomplish nothing except maybe to help you release a little steam. I can understand this and as long as you can control yourself I will not moderate your posts here for doing it.



This is the way I see this whole conversation, and I will explain it with an illustration:

Before us is a scale in which evidence will be placed in either one tray or the other and we are then supposed to assume that to whichever side it tilts the most is correct. Of course this does nothing to absolutely prove or disprove the issue at hand but depending on either the doctrine of faith or skepticism one holds to it will have to suffice. Now to each side of the scale is a table in which evidence is presented and then placed upon the scale.

The table of faith will contain the objective faith once and for all delivered to the saints according to the book of Jude, also known as the word of God or the several books of objective doctrine which is separate from ones subjective experience but meant to lead and define a true experience with God in His Spirit. Next there is my subjective faith that I exercise in believing the word of faith delivered to me, and through this I see its promises come to pass in my life by experience even though everything that comes naturally to me says that this should not be possible. Beyond this there is God confirming His Word by supernatural means which in my case, but by no means limited to myself which an unbiased plunge into third world and charismatic Christianity would prove, has included intense physical sensations, the witnessing of miracles that could be seen by my natural eye, the revealing of future events through both dreams and the voice of God that were going to take place to which I had no way of knowing (as for the miracles, and revealing of events I can list some of the more prominent examples). Still beyond this there is the immense change that has taken place in both my life and the lives of countless others who were both statistically, emotionally and mentally without hope.

The table of skepticism has upon it masterfully crafted products of the human mind and logic. God has not done this for me therefore it is invalid. God will not respond and reveal Himself to me according to the criteria that I will allow the revelation to take place therefore it is invalid. All I am after is data that makes sense to my mind, faith is totally out of the question and I will not genuinely seek God from a place of broken contrition because I have nothing left but to believe God exists and I am willing to wait for Him to reward this faith with some sort of encounter.

Now before the evidence can be placed within the scales so that people can judge for themselves as to what they are going to hold major proponents of skepticism walk over to the table of faith throwing there evidence to the ground and discounting it as invalid because it doesn’t line up with there criteria. The scales tilt to there side and they shout forget your evidence and forget the way God has said he would reveal Himself in His word, and prove to us according to our standard that He exists. If you cannot do this as far as we are concerned we win, and as far as I am concerned bravo you win and I will move on awaiting the one to whom God has chosen to reveal Himself.

You see it is from this interpretation that I immaturely responded to it being a joke. Both my confession of faith and the profession I have been called to according to the word by which I will be judged lead me away from any sort of entanglement with your doctrines of skepticism. You see for the person who encounters God either by Himself or through my ministry this is by and large meant to be personal between himself and His God with the secondary effects of encouraging those of the household of faith by means of testimony. Your doctrines of skepticism will do nothing to strip either myself as a witness or this ones experience, but it will quite effectively keep many others on the broad way that Jesus said leads to Hades.

According to Jesus, “O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, thank you for hiding these things from those who think themselves wise and clever, and for revealing them to the childlike. Yes Father it pleased you to do it this way! My Father has entrusted everything to me. No one truly knows the Son except the Father, and no one truly knows the Father except the Son and those to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.”

Because of this I will just pick all my cast aside evidence and continue moving forward and allow God to choose who he will and won’t reveal Himself to. I can understand one having a problem with this, but the problem is not with me it is with God. My profession is to preach the word of faith, and if people genuinely respond to that word in faith it is Gods responsibility to release the revelation whether it be through miracle or some other supernatural encounter or perhaps just some inner conviction that the persons heart is content to hold onto. If they reject the word of faith Jesus commanded that we move on as a testimony against them and there rejection of God because there is a judgment day coming in which they as well as myself will be held accountable. Once again a problem with this is really aimed at God and not me.

I know a host of people both personally and through mutual acquaintances that are experiencing supernatural phenomenon much of which surpasses my own personal experiences. These people are being changed and moving forward in the call of God despite there being criticized and discounted by there skeptic proponents.

This friend is what I am going to live for and continue to walk in. This is what interests me. This is what I am called to. This is what I accept as truth. This is what is changing people’s lives. This is the move of God that is being poured out upon the face of the earth and though it is small it is growing.

Just because man has taken a religion devoid of God and done with it what he will and because of that various geographical areas are more dominant in one religion or another does not detract from the present genuine move of God that I claim to be taking place. Jesus Himself came to the chosen people of God and rebuked them because they didn’t know Him or His Father who sent Him. He said they searched the scriptures diligently and held to all sort of traditions but completely missed the living God. He said that the kingdom that was prepared for them was coming and that it would be filled with unbelieving Gentiles but many Jews would be cast into outer darkness eternally separated from God and His kingdom. Jesus said that God had appointed times in which He would choose to move and save people regardless of what man had done with religion, that God knows the heart of a man and has predestined those whose hearts were really for Him to be saved.
This is it for me. I can say I have been quite sharpened and strengthened by our conversations. God is revealing to me through His Spirit and Word what it is He has really called me to and what is nothing more than my own natural tendency which He rejects. I am going to be catapulted forward from here preaching the good news of His kingdom entering into supernatural encounters with those that God has destined to manifest His glory unto. I will do all of this because I am learning that it really has nothing to do with me or my ability to produce results, rather it is because God considers me a friend and has allowed me to be a part of what He is doing. While I hope that someone listening has responded in faith and is being drawn by God unto Himself, I can accept that this hope will not be fulfilled and I will move on with a clean conscience that I am free of your blood because I preached His word and that is all He has asked me to do.

[rabbit]

I will admit that calling said beliefs a joke was immature on my part and for that I apologize. However rabbit your supposedly new found opinion of me is just another excuse for you to lash out and attack me like you have done in the past because this opinion you hold really isn’t new. Your equally immature responses therefore accomplish nothing except maybe to help you release a little steam. I can understand this and as long as you can control yourself I will not moderate your posts here for doing it.

On the contrary, I have never outright disliked you before.  In fact, you were quite a nice acquaintance, even if I disagreed with your religious standpoint.  I will not think highly of anyone who disregards someone's beliefs as a joke, regardless of who they are.  My newfound lack of respect for you is, in fact, new.  I do not need an an excuse to lash out and attack anyone; if I feel like doing as such, I will, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who will testify to that.

[Tuberload]

I said plainly what has been carefully crafted into long drawn out arguments. Remember rabbit that I am just a meth addict who traded it all in for Jesus. I am nothing more than a mental delusion rampaging around this forum.  That is something that I can honestly laugh at and the humor is not directed at you or anyone else when I laugh. Take a step back and read the dialogue. Most of it is an attempt to grab the upper hand by making the other person seem less than. What I said was nothing new to the various conversations and if you should choose to hold this over my head as if I am the only one at fault then so be it.

I can also honestly say that there has been no interaction between the two of us that lead me to believe you thought anything of me. I apologize here and now if I wrongly interpreted your disposition towards me.

As a side note I am not an Armenian legalist attempting to load you down with burdens that I myself cannot and am not willing to bear. I enjoy films that do not have to sell out to more base forms of human animalistic appetite. Country style pork ribs marinated in BBQ sauce and grilled to perfection find a place at the top of my list. Video games have a way of imprisoning me therefore I am learning to discipline myself slowly while not rejecting them entirely. I accept my freedoms in Christ while at the same time recognizing that not all things are profitable as well as always heading the warning that not all practices will grant me access to the kingdom of God.

I will not however aid people in there belief that just because they said a prayer one time and answer yes to being a Christian on statistical polls that they are in fact a part of Gods kingdom. Jesus said that along with the narrow gate there is a narrow way, come out of the world and its sin bearing your cross while following Him. If we are not willing to be Disciples of Christ and His teaching then we are not worthy of Him. At least that’s how Jesus said it Himself but most confessing Christians don’t know what He said or cling to some church tradition which causes them to break the commandments of God.

Jesus’ teaching is largely centered on the ways in which we interact with each other and the faith and trust we demonstrate in and towards our heavenly Father. Hypothetically of course rabbit I will not daydream about sleeping with your wife and should you not show me the same good will I will forgive you and seek to restore and maintain our relationship as far as my end is concerned. I am not going to maintain an angry disposition or plot my revenge for your calling me an extremist terrorist and then ironically proceeding to blow up my thread with your font bomb. I am going to forgive you in my heart and hope that we can settle our differences before I parade before the throne of God seeking His blessing. Above all things I am going to entrust my life into the hands of God and rest in His will, continually seeking out His judgments against the ways I am displeasing and trading them in for His ways which are pleasing. It is quite practical and relational and although there are sacraments which we observe it is not meant to be primarily ritualistic or legalistic. Legalism of course being a Christian topic that would need proper definition and expansion because church tradition which leads Christians astray is largely centered around this in a lot of circles.