There is no evidence for God, so why do you believe?

[joelr]

Have you been born again? If not you have no idea.
If you had been born again or if you ever are then you would know how ridiculous your statement is. When a person is born again it isn’t a figment of your imagination or a feeling. God gives you His Spirit and He starts to speak to you, His Word comes alive, you are changed, He gives you differ desires, you see things different because you are a new person. Only a person who has never been born again would say there is no God.

If you believe in Jesus and the gospels one is born again. Feelings are not accurate for determining truth. What you describe is found in every religion. Since every religion is not true this shows it's 100% in your mind.
YOur arragance at telling ex-Christians who were born again that they were not born again is judgmental, arrogant, delusional and plain wrong.

"Christian doctrine generally maintains that God dwells in all Christians and that they can experience God directly through belief in Jesus,[51] Christian mysticism aspires to apprehend spiritual truths inaccessible through intellectual means, typically by emulation of Christ. William Inge divides this scala perfectionis into three stages: the "purgative" or ascetic stage, the "illuminative" or contemplative stage, and the third, "unitive" stage, in which God may be beheld "face to face."[52]

The third stage, usually called contemplation in the Western tradition, refers to the experience of oneself as united with God in some way. The experience of union varies, but it is first and foremost always associated with a reuniting with Divine love. The underlying theme here is that God, the perfect goodness,[53] is known or experienced at least as much by the heart as by the intellect since, in the words of 1 John 4:16: "God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God and God in him." Some approaches to classical mysticism would consider the first two phases as preparatory to the third, explicitly mystical experience; but others state that these three phases overlap and intertwine."
"
Christian mysticism refers to mystical practices and theory within Christianity. Mysticism is not so much a doctrine as a method of thought.[1] It has often been connected to mystical theology, especially in the Catholic Church (including traditions from both the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches) and Eastern Orthodoxy and Oriental Orthodoxy.

The attributes and means by which Christian mysticism is studied and practiced are varied. They range from ecstatic visions of the soul's mystical union with God and theosis (humans gaining divine qualities) in Eastern Orthodox theology to simple prayerful contemplation of Holy Scripture (i.e. Lectio Divina).

Greek influences[edit]
The influences of Greek thought are apparent in the earliest Christian mystics and their writings. Plato (428–348 BC) is considered the most important of ancient philosophers, and his philosophical system provides the basis of most later mystical forms. Plotinus (c. 205 – 270 AD) provided the non-Christian, neo-Platonic basis for much Christian, Jewish and Islamic mysticism.[15]






Has a Muslim ever talked to Allah and got a reply back? Can Muslims have a relationship with him?


"yes.. he DOES speak to me in the mind …he directs me he consoles me he guides me.. im grateful for all this im blessed glory to Allah"
"
Allah is not for Muslims.

Allah is for mankind.

Allah is real deity. Everyone can talk to Allah."

"
Whenever I'm struggling with something, I open the Quran randomly and there it is…the answer to my question. You just need to open your heart to it.

God talks to you in nature too. It can be the stray cat you feed, the sky at the time of sunset, all you have to do is just watch closely.

And dreams. There are those that are meaningless and those that are there from God. You know in your heart which ones are meaningful.

There is a small prayer. I read that when i need to make a decision and God guides me towards the right path, not in dream but things change course. It's called dua e istakhara.


"
We talk to Him whenever we pray.

We hear Him whenever we read the Qur’an.

We get more wisdom from Him in our day-to-day lives"

"Every Muslim has a relationship with Allah, we are his servants, and submit ourselves to him. We pray to him, beseech him, worship him. So every single Muslim has a relationship with his lord."

 

[Sheldon]

TagliatelliMonster said: ↑
As a matter of fact, I'ld say that have a much better idea as an impartial third party as opposed to you, who's obviously biased and entrenched in your way of thinking, out of religious motivation.

Of course you think you do, that’s the claim of most unbelievers on RF, yet the demonstration of this doesn’t show it’s a reality.

Says the man believing one version of one deity from the thousands humans have imagined are real, based on faith. I can at least say with honesty that I treat all claims and beliefs the same, a cursory read of your posts demonstrates that much.

 

[joelr]

This is me- I went to the store and bought a sandwich and a drink.
Your reply- You don’t know that, you only believe you did.

No you didn't say you went to the store, you said you have a relationship with a magic deity and it changed you but anyone else who has that relationship and realized it wasn't real wasn't really having the relationship they thought. It's a super desperate attempt that isn't at all convincing because we all know every religion has people saying the same things you say. AND thinking you can read everyones mind is absurd.

 

[joelr]

Because it took God an instant to deliver me from my addictions and I told you how that happened. You keep trying to change my testimony to meet with your unbelief and skepticism.
A lot of people struggle all their lives, some don’t ever recover.
I’m sorry you haven’t known Jesus Christ, got it all together and don’t need Him or want anything to do with Him.

Except this Muslim whom Allah cured instantly from alcohol addiction. It's all in your head.

"My drinking was out of control and I felt anxious when I did not drink. I wanted to stop. I did therapy, twelve-step groups, read self-help and spiritual books constantly, but it all remained external to me, beautiful words that elevated me briefly, but did not produce any change....
Back to how my drinking was cured: It happened in a miraculous way. When I became Muslim, I began to pray, fasted in Ramadan, and all the usual. ...........

 

[samtonga43]

I was certain as well. But I realized what I thought was certainty was a psychological trick. The host of Atheist Experience was studying to be a Baptist Minister when he decided to learn more about the historical aspects so he could defend the religion better. Like Bart Ehrman he realized it's just a story and not supported by evidence.

Sure you want to go there, joel?
Francis Collins
Bo Giertz
Simon Greenleaf
Keir Hardie
John Warwick Montgomery
George R. Price
Lee Strobel
Peter Hitchens
C. E. M. Joad
C. S. Lewis
Alister McGrath

And many, many more.
I hope you get the point. We can all do confirmation bias.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sure you want to go there, joel?
Francis Collins
Bo Giertz
Simon Greenleaf
Keir Hardie
John Warwick Montgomery
George R. Price
Lee Strobel
Peter Hitchens
C. E. M. Joad
C. S. Lewis
Alister McGrath

And many, many more.
I hope you get the point. We can all do confirmation bias.

How does that address his claim about Matt Dillahunty? And I would remove at least Lee Strobel from you list. Have you even looked at his arguments? They are an embarrassment.

 

[joelr]

Meant to say don’t know anything false in the Bible.

Christian mythology is the body of myths associated with Christianity. The term encompasses a broad variety of legends and narratives, especially those considered sacred narratives. Mythological themes and elements occur throughout Christian literature, including recurring myths such as ascending to a mountain, the axis mundi, myths of combat, descent into the Underworld, accounts of a dying-and-rising god, a flood myth, stories about the founding of a tribe or city, and myths about great heroes (or saints) of the past, paradises, and self-sacrifice.



Over the centuries, Christianity has divided into many denominations. Not all of these denominations hold the same set of sacred traditional narratives. For example, the books of the Bible accepted by the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches include a number of texts and stories (such as those narrated in the Book of Judith and Book of Tobit) that many Protestant denominations do not accept as canonical.


Christian theologian and professor of New Testament, Rudolf Bultmann wrote that:[1]

The cosmology of the New Testament is essentially mythical in character.


Christian mythology - Wikipedia

 

[joelr]

Sure you want to go there, joel?
Francis Collins
Bo Giertz
Simon Greenleaf
Keir Hardie
John Warwick Montgomery
George R. Price
Lee Strobel
Peter Hitchens
C. E. M. Joad
C. S. Lewis
Alister McGrath

And many, many more.
I hope you get the point. We can all do confirmation bias.

Go where? The fact that historians don't support the gospel narratives? Are you going to list historians who actually study the evidence from the sources and study where the stories originated from?


Francis Collins - is the founder of BioLogos.
Bo Giertz - Bo Harald Giertz was a Swedish Lutheran theologian,
Simon Greenleaf - one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, 1853?????????
Keir Hardie - irst parliamentary leader of the Labour Party.
John Warwick Montgomery - apologist for biblical Christianity.
George R. Price - geneticist.
Lee Strobel - author (the most illogical apologetics ever)
Peter Hitchens - journalist,
C. E. M. Joad - philosopher
C. S. Lewis- apologist
Alister McGrath - Irish theologian, Anglican priest,


O.M.G. you listed a bunch of apologists, 2 whom I've read and it was embarrassing, theologians and people who never study history, comparative mythology or anything relevant to understanding this is just another bunch of myths.
Then you accused me of confirmation bias????? While still not answering the posts you haven't answered to. Now your thing is to bring in Lee Strobel? Ha HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HAH
That's hilarious. Strobel?????? Mr "The gospels must be true because of the harmony between them?"

Hey Lee, yeah there is harmony between the gospels, the Christian scholars have already figured it out? Maybe now you will get a small lesson in Christian academia vs apologetics.
Fundamentalist apologists talk about the gospel "harmony" while honest Christian scholarship knows it was because they all copied Mark and made some changes.


"Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke. "
Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction1
Here a real scholar addresses the argument, uses 7 airtight arguments as to why Q and M are not the source Gospels but it must be Mark. This is known and accepted. You can read them here - The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

In the historicity field (y'know, where no one believes in the Gospel Jesus and you listed none of them) the peer-reviewed work of Mark Goodacre has really closed the case (Mark Goodacre's Homepage) and Mark is the source.
Something Lee not only didn't want to consider but didn't even bring up. Yet he claims in his "investigative work" that he covered all possible areas. He's a blatant lier. He told several similar lies to keep his apologetics looking reasonable.

Theologians start out with the assumption the revelations are true. So does Islamic theologians. So if I were to say the angel Gabrielle definitely came down and gave Muhammad updates on Christianity because Islamic Theologians say it's true you would laugh (rightfully so). So theologians are not going to help your case, unless your case is "it's true because it says it's true".


C.S. Lewis???????? "Jesus was either insane or the son of God. Why else would he say such things? There is no indication he was insane" Right Mr Lewis, except Jesus is a Greek dying/rising savior demigod who gets followers souls into an afterlife
. Those are ALL prior GREEK MYTHS and at least 6 of those saviors were in religions before Jesus. Salvation, baptism, eucharist and every other upgrade from Judaism is either from Hellenism or Persian. Huh, are those the 2 cultures who occupied Israel for almost 500 years right before Christianity. Why yes they are. Hey Mr Lewis, you forgot option #3, MYTH. Mark is written as a myth, uses mythic literary styles, sources from other fiction, is anonymous, uses parables, main character scores 18 out of 22 on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale (as high as King Arthur). C.S. Lewis, sorry, you bought into a myth.

And many, many more.
I hope you get the point. We can all do confirmation bias.

Many more of what? People in unrelated fields that bought into a myth (that would truly be confirmation bias if you think their beliefs help your case)? Yeah, there are a lot of them. In Islam as well. But I'm looking at all historical scholars. Let's see what a Jesus specialist has to say?


"
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves."

"Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier

Sure you want to go there, joel?

I thought getting handled on the past historical things would give you some humility? No? Ok?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Go where? The fact that historians don't support the gospel narratives? Are you going to list historians who actually study the evidence from the sources and study where the stories originated from?


Francis Collins - is the founder of BioLogos.
Bo Giertz - Bo Harald Giertz was a Swedish Lutheran theologian,
Simon Greenleaf - one of the principle founders of the Harvard Law School, 1853?????????
Keir Hardie - irst parliamentary leader of the Labour Party.
John Warwick Montgomery - apologist for biblical Christianity.
George R. Price - geneticist.
Lee Strobel - author (the most illogical apologetics ever)
Peter Hitchens - journalist,
C. E. M. Joad - philosopher
C. S. Lewis- apologist
Alister McGrath - Irish theologian, Anglican priest,


O.M.G. you listed a bunch of apologists, 2 whom I've read and it was embarrassing, theologians and people who never study history, comparative mythology or anything relevant to understanding this is just another bunch of myths.
Then you accused me of confirmation bias????? While still not answering the posts you haven't answered to. Now your thing is to bring in Lee Strobel? Ha HA HA HA HA HA HAHA HA HAH
That's hilarious. Strobel?????? Mr "The gospels must be true because of the harmony between them?"

Hey Lee, yeah there is harmony between the gospels, the Christian scholars have already figured it out? Maybe now you will get a small lesson in Christian academia vs apologetics.
Fundamentalist apologists talk about the gospel "harmony" while honest Christian scholarship knows it was because they all copied Mark and made some changes.


"Percentage-wise, 97% of Mark’s Gospel is duplicated in Matthew; and 88% is found in Luke. "
Robert H. Stein’s The Synoptic Problem: An Introduction1
Here a real scholar addresses the argument, uses 7 airtight arguments as to why Q and M are not the source Gospels but it must be Mark. This is known and accepted. You can read them here - The Synoptic Problem | Bible.org

In the historicity field (y'know, where no one believes in the Gospel Jesus and you listed none of them) the peer-reviewed work of Mark Goodacre has really closed the case (Mark Goodacre's Homepage) and Mark is the source.
Something Lee not only didn't want to consider but didn't even bring up. Yet he claims in his "investigative work" that he covered all possible areas. He's a blatant lier. He told several similar lies to keep his apologetics looking reasonable.

Theologians start out with the assumption the revelations are true. So does Islamic theologians. So if I were to say the angel Gabrielle definitely came down and gave Muhammad updates on Christianity because Islamic Theologians say it's true you would laugh (rightfully so). So theologians are not going to help your case, unless your case is "it's true because it says it's true".


C.S. Lewis???????? "Jesus was either insane or the son of God. Why else would he say such things? There is no indication he was insane" Right Mr Lewis, except Jesus is a Greek dying/rising savior demigod who gets followers souls into an afterlife
. Those are ALL prior GREEK MYTHS and at least 6 of those saviors were in religions before Jesus. Salvation, baptism, eucharist and every other upgrade from Judaism is either from Hellenism or Persian. Huh, are those the 2 cultures who occupied Israel for almost 500 years right before Christianity. Why yes they are. Hey Mr Lewis, you forgot option #3, MYTH. Mark is written as a myth, uses mythic literary styles, sources from other fiction, is anonymous, uses parables, main character scores 18 out of 22 on the Rank Ragalin mythotype scale (as high as King Arthur). C.S. Lewis, sorry, you bought into a myth.




Many more of what? People in unrelated fields that bought into a myth (that would truly be confirmation bias if you think their beliefs help your case)? Yeah, there are a lot of them. In Islam as well. But I'm looking at all historical scholars. Let's see what a Jesus specialist has to say?


"
When the question of the historicity of Jesus comes up in an honest professional context, we are not asking whether the Gospel Jesus existed. All non-fundamentalist scholars agree that that Jesus never did exist. Christian apologetics is pseudo-history. No different than defending Atlantis. Or Moroni. Or women descending from Adam’s rib.

No. We aren’t interested in that.

When it comes to Jesus, just as with anyone else, real history is about trying to figure out what, if anything, we can really know about the man depicted in the New Testament (his actual life and teachings), through untold layers of distortion and mythmaking; and what, if anything, we can know about his role in starting the Christian movement that spread after his death. Consequently, I will here disregard fundamentalists and apologists as having no honest part in this debate, any more than they do on evolution or cosmology or anything else they cannot be honest about even to themselves."

"Historicity Big and Small: How Historians Try to Rescue Jesus • Richard Carrier




I thought getting handled on the past historical things would give you some humility? No? Ok?

I warned him about Lee Strobel. He claimed to be an atheist but "investigated" like a Christian. Rather than judging the supposed evidence for Christianity he made the mistake of thinking "if I can pretend not to find any evidence against the Jesus myth I can claim that it has been proved". What he had was just a rather lame argument from ignorance.

 

[joelr]

I warned him about Lee Strobel. He claimed to be an atheist but "investigated" like a Christian. Rather than judging the supposed evidence for Christianity he made the mistake of thinking "if I can pretend not to find any evidence against the Jesus myth I can claim that it has been proved". What he had was just a rather lame argument from ignorance.

I think that was all a work. He was involved in some church or preaching before that so the atheist thing was B.S. He just basically wrote a standard apologist book and dressed it up as an investigative journalist work. The Christian press was happy to sign him for a book deal. Gary Habermas is part of this as well.
Carrier did a piece on the movie....


The Case for Christ: The Movie! • Richard Carrier
The Case for Christ: The Movie!

Critics have long noted the Case for Christ book is sham journalism. The movie repeats the same sham. It uses movie tropes to make it seem like Strobel is doing a real journalistic investigation (like traveling to get interviews, making phonecalls, reading books, tying strings on a board linking little photographs or pieces of paper with notes on them). But actually what he does in the film would be rated so incompetent by any actual school of journalism they’d boot him from their degree program.

Strobel says in the film that he interviewed “a dozen historians, philosophers, archaeologists” in his supposedly hard-nosed and critical investigation of the resurrection of Jesus. But not a single one of the people he interviewed was actually a skeptic, or critic of any kind. They all spew fundamentalist apologetics. In fact, all but one of them is a fundamentalist apologist. And even the sole expert he interviews who is claimed to be an agnostic in the movie, just mouths fundamentalist propaganda at him....


The Logic of Blood Magic?
Finally Strobel asks “why” Jesus would submit to death, and the answer he gets is, “love.” But the movie never explains how that makes sense. The atonement magic of Christianity is illogical (see Chapter 7 of The End of Christianity). Human sacrifice has no logical connection with fixing criminal pathology. And substitutionary sacrifice cannot be justified by any sound principle of justice, even for us mortals, much less omnipotent gods, who, by virtue of being able to do anything, don’t ever have to do that. No form of justice, even retributive, can operate by substitution. If it could, we’d allow volunteers to do the prison time of actual offenders. But in fact the very logic of atonement magic is prehistorically naive. We have long since matured into realizing justice is about restitution to victims, prevention of harms, and rehabilitation of the harmer. Retributive justice is morally unjustifiable, even barbaric. Indeed, it’s immature and childish. And that means, so is Christianity.


Conclusion
The Case for Christ the movie is quality propaganda. But still propaganda. It is one long well-filmed lie. Not a bad movie, if you excuse the so-so script, and don’t believe anything it tells you. Because when it comes to facts, it is pretty much a panoply of deceptions. Strobel’s journalistic methods in the film are so incompetent they are practically designed to trap him in a delusional false belief—or con the audience into one. Because while he is portrayed as questioning facts and claims throughout the film, he never once actually does that. He only talks to fanatics, apologists, the most biased and unreliable sources one can trust in the matter (just like his misplaced trust in police informants in the case of James Dixon), and he just instantly believes them. He never gets a second opinion—he never consults experts critical of the claims made by the fanatics he talks to—and he never fact-checks anything he is told. He just believes what they say—hook, line, and sinker.

And since apologetics is all about concealing evidence, Strobel’s character’s biggest mistake in the film is thinking that only what he is told is all there is to be told. Consequently, in the film, what we actually see is probably not what the writers intended. Lee Strobel is shown being conned into belief by a series of liars, because he never looks for, and thus never discovers, all the evidence his manipulators were concealing from him. Exactly like the dirty cops he trusted when he falsely reported the guilt of James Dixon. Yet neither Strobel, nor the screenwriters, nor his duped audience will ever notice they just made a mockery of themselves with their own story. Which is both sad and disturbing.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sure you want to go there, joel?
Francis Collins
Bo Giertz
Simon Greenleaf
Keir Hardie
John Warwick Montgomery
George R. Price
Lee Strobel
Peter Hitchens
C. E. M. Joad
C. S. Lewis
Alister McGrath
And many, many more.

Point?

I hope you get the point. We can all do confirmation bias.

What confirmation bias? He's just making the point that people can be very convinced believers and then change their mind.

How is giving examples of exactly that "confirmation bias"??

 

[ElishaElijah]

Scholarship:
A List Of Conservative And Liberal Bible Scholars
Another archeological find confirms the Bible:
Archaeology Once Again Backs Up the Bible - Behold Israel
Born again? If a person has never been born again can they know and understand what that is?
No they cannot. So when an unbeliever tries talking about this they say all kinds of false things like it was an emotional experience, or confirmation bias or other people change.
I have yet to hear an accurate explanation from any unbeliever on this site that comes close to an accurate definition of what it means to be born again and filled with the Holy Spirit.
As far as divisions, there are divisions but that isn’t because the Bible is unclear or unreliable, it’s because men don’t like what it says and change the meaning to fit themselves. The Bible is very clear.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Have you been born again? If not you have no idea.

To the skeptic, "born again" means that one believes that he has been saved, but that nothing has happened to him other than acquiring that belief and whatever changes follow because of it, which are also understood naturalistically. The skeptic translates that claim into his worldview, just as you will translate my words into yours as you just did to the other poster. You framed his position in terms of your own beliefs. And he frames yours in terms of his. which you apparently object to.

God is the one who did the healing and didn’t need medication. I’m not on any medication. My testimony is true and accurate. What you do with that information is up to you.

I'm sure that you can guess. He (and I) will interpret that from a humanist worldview just as you have interpreted it from a Christian perspective. I believe that you believe that what you report is true and accurate, that is, you are not lying, but you are guessing and (likely) incorrect about what happened to you. It doesn't matter how firmly or insistently you proclaim how you interpret your experience, because that has little persuasive power. Even were you to lay down your life for that belief, I would still say that you were guessing and mistaking that for knowing.

So you are just saying there are differences [in understanding the Bible among Christians] but don’t know what they are.

Sure he does. So do I. Some worship on Sunday and some on Saturday. Some baptize by sprinkling and some by immersion. Some take Eucharist and pray to saints and some don't Some handle snakes or speak in tongues and some don't. What difference does it make just where they part ways? Did I share my Emo Philips joke with you?

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said, "Stop! don't do it!"

"Why shouldn't I?" he said.

I said, "Well, there's so much to live for!"

He said, "Like what?"

I said, "Well...are you religious or atheist?"

He said, "Religious."

I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

He said, "Christian."

I said, "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

He said, "Protestant."

I said, "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

He said, "Baptist!"

I said, "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

He said, "Baptist church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist church of God!"

I said, "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?"

He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!"

I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.​

 

[ElishaElijah]

To the skeptic, "born again" means that one believes that he has been saved, but that nothing has happened to him other than acquiring that belief and whatever changes follow because of it, which are also understood naturalistically. The skeptic translates that claim into his worldview, just as you will translate my words into yours as you just did to the other poster. You framed his position in terms of your own beliefs. And he frames yours in terms of his. which you apparently object to.

That’s problematic and proves you were never a Christian. You make up you own definitions and then claim those as the reality of what a born again believer is in truth. And you argue that.
A born again person is someone who has received God’s Spirit and become a new person, Christ in you the hope of Glory. This is real, authentic, long lasting, this is what the Bible calls a New Creation in Christ, the Old person or man is gone the new has come.
The same power that raised Jesus from the dead lives in believers. That’s what happened to me and why no one can come up with the false interpretations and deceit that originates from Satan according to the Bible.
The Holy Spirit God gives a person is the guarantee of eternal life when we die or He Returns, whichever comes first.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Have you been born again? If not you have no idea.
If you had been born again or if you ever are then you would know how ridiculous your statement is. When a person is born again it isn’t a figment of your imagination or a feeling. God gives you His Spirit and He starts to speak to you, His Word comes alive, you are changed, He gives you differ desires, you see things different because you are a new person. Only a person who has never been born again would say there is no God.

Everything you've described here sounds to me entirely consistent with a figment of your imagination or feeling.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Sure he does. So do I. Some worship on Sunday and some on Saturday. Some baptize by sprinkling and some by immersion. Some take Eucharist and pray to saints and some don't Some handle snakes or speak in tongues and some don't. What difference does it make just where they part ways?

And you can test these differences against what the Bible says and means to get the proper application, or reject the false teaching. It’s not the Bible that’s the problem it’s people that for whatever reason change the meaning or make up their own definitions.

 

[ElishaElijah]

Everything you've described here sounds to me entirely consistent with a figment of your imagination or feeling.

Like I said if you’ve never met God and had Him empower you then yeah you wouldn’t have a clue, your comment proves that. The thing is I know where I’m going and the promises God has made, kept and will complete for me.
Let me ask you what you have on your path and on your death bed? I know because I used to be on that path.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That’s problematic and proves you were never a Christian. You make up you own definitions and then claim those as the reality of what a born again believer is in truth. And you argue that.

I trust that if I were to do a search through the forum, I wouldn't ever find you boasting about the number of Christians in the world, would I?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Like I said if you’ve never met God and had Him empower you then yeah you wouldn’t have a clue, your comment proves that.

Sure it does.

The thing is I know where I’m going and the promises God has made, kept and will complete for me.

I don't doubt your sincerity, but I do doubt the reliability of your opinion.

Let me ask you what you have on your path and on your death bed? I know because I used to be on that path.

Not lies and false promises, so I've got that at least.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And you can test these differences against what the Bible says and means to get the proper application, or reject the false teaching. It’s not the Bible that’s the problem it’s people that for whatever reason change the meaning or make up their own definitions.

Of course it's the Bible that is the problem if thousands or millions of people disagree with each other about what it says.