If you actually believe the man gained nothing from his followers then you must have an incredibly narrow definition of gain. Have you ever had even 100 people listen to you speak? I assure you that, in and of itself, is elating. It isn't like he was new to religious endeavors when he was...
And now we are back to the sheep.
I didn't say there couldn't be. I said it will never convince me. Thus, God is using an ineffective method of communication. God is not communicating directly with me, and since I have no way to verify if God is communicating through a messenger, then God is...
I would say in a lot cases, they really go hand in hand. Accepting one thing denies another and vice versa. We often reject something literally because we believe something counter to it already.
By way of example, I've been explaining in another thread that I don't believe in messengers chosen...
Omnipotent God should be intimately aware of every tiny speck of pain felt by anything even more so than the one experiencing the pain. Whether this is a detached sort of experience or not would probably be optional but this is a necessary part of both omniscience and omnipresence. Feeling all...
It's not, actually.
It's James. Some people call me Carlton, though this is somewhat of a professional name.
I like long walks from places I am to places I like to be, though not as much as short walks of the same variety.
I'm into cars and then (eventually) I get out of them.
I play hacky...
Yes, in that sense exactly. That happens to be the topic if discussion in case you hadn't noticed.
Eloi and Morlocks. I'd rather be the Morlocks. Color me horrible for that, if you must. Ref: Time Machine
You are his peer. Is that what you did? Besides, failure doesn't indicate intention...
Okay, then you should understand very well why those statistics do not cause me to arrive at the conclusion you arrived at, that God communicates through messengers. This will conclude my object lesson on confirmation bias. You (whether you admit it or not) are simply believing what you want and...
So, being curious I might even try something inadvisable 'just to see' how it would turn out. Do you suppose the almighty might forgive such curiosity?
Yes, because it also can serve others. Consider a politician who has faith is going to gain support on the strength of their religious faith alone, that is some people refuse to vote for someone who doesn't have religious faith. Clearly this is self serving faith as you say, but it also serves...
Yes, as I said, I don't believe Jesus intended those analogies the way I described them. I was qualifying what a bad analogy is by comparison to my own.
You do.
Granted, taking your word for it will not be happening. But you are still evidence.
So be it. If I am required to rewire my brain...
You presented it as a list of the only logical possibilities and even rejected my addition to the list. By the way, logic is not empirical.
You are drawing a lofty conclusion from that data. Do you think there may be more factors weighing on this issue than these two quoted statistics? I do...
More real than any in a storybook, though they certainly never convinced me (or you I would wager), so they fail in that part of it. Someone believed them so it seems to some degree (however slight) they must have felt as gods, too. That's as 'real' as it gets so far as I can tell. Couple that...
Its an excellent analogy. I wasn't talking about Jesus. Jesus calling himself a shepherd was a bad analogy because of what shepherds do. Calling his followers sheep was a bad analogy because sheep are docile, stupid and ultimately doomed. Calling his disciples fishers of men was a bad analogy...
I will assume this premise for the purposes of the thread. Its not logical, but I'll assume it anyway.
Okay, I can see that #1 assumes the premise. #2 and #3 do not assume the premise. I see no purpose to this list. #1 just reiterates the premise #2 and #3 are contradictory to the premise...