Searching for GOD...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Motivation?
1: I am convinced I have encountered Christ.

That's nice for you no doubt. Can you you of any reason at all though for anyone else to think you're right about that?

2: There is much in the new atheism I believe needs challenging.

Then why not finally have a go at doing that, rather than endlessly misrepresent what atheism (the "new" is redundant) actually entails?   

[torridon]

Vis a vis resurrection one's status at resurrection would appear to be ''what treasure one has stored in heaven.''

That means nothing to me.  Does a foetus have the same treasure as an insurance salesman ?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,


Then why not finally have a go at doing that, rather than endlessly misrepresent what atheism (the "new" is redundant) actually entails?

The new not redundant because it describes an existant stealth religion.

The true atheist would have said his piece and pissed off by now. If I have more than one correspondence about God with an atheist therefore I am in fact talking to a New Atheist.

[Maeght]

You never know Walter I may find a need to cross your palm with silver.

Motivation?
1: I am convinced I have encountered Christ.

How?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The new not redundant because it describes an existant stealth religion.

Yeah, what with all those faith claims, cross-dressing clerics, rules about who people should go to bed with and what they should do when they get there etc.

Vey funny Vlad, really. 

The true atheist would have said his piece and pissed off by now.

Atheist or Scotsman?

If I have more than one correspondence about God with an atheist therefore I am in fact talking to a New Atheist.

Non sequitur noted, as is your avoidance.

Good example though of the very charge you just ducked - ie, making up something about what atheism entails but doesn't in order to attack it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

How?

He doesn't answer "how?" questions. Not ever, ever, ever. Nor incidentally will he answer questions about why he won't answer "how?" questions, and nor for that matter will he answer any questions he's a actually asked at all.

He will though demand that others answer the questions he asks. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How?

Becoming aware of the real presence behind Christian writings first CS Lewis then St Augustine then the bible started to make sense as did church attendance then experiencing the real presence of Christ in Matthew 9:9 and Revelations 3:20.

[wigginhall]

Historians tend to see a historic non-miraculous Jesus as plausible, partly out of parsimony, but I've never read one that treats the supernatural seriously, for example, miracles.   This is simply because there are no constraints on it.   How do we tell whether angels visited us in the 13th century, or are right now, in your bathroom?  We can't.   We can record that people believe this, but that is a separate issue.   The supernatural has the wonderful quality of being totally open-ended and untestable. 

[ippy]

You never know Walter I may find a need to cross your palm with silver.

Motivation?
1: I am convinced I have encountered Christ.
2: There is much in the new atheism I believe needs challenging.

Thanks for your interest anyway. Anyone vehemently wrestling with/against God I believe is actually much closer to Him than the apatheist

Can you be sure about this alleged encounter with Christ Vlad, only you seem to have convinced yourself that you understand the aims of secularism, you've got that catastrophically wrong, well wouldn't that make it pro rata this supposed encounter you think you've had?

Regards ippy

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Historians tend to see a historic non-miraculous Jesus as plausible, partly out of parsimony, but I've never read one that treats the supernatural seriously, for example, miracles.   This is simply because there are no constraints on it.   How do we tell whether angels visited us in the 13th century, or are right now, in your bathroom?  We can't.   We can record that people believe this, but that is a separate issue.   The supernatural has the wonderful quality of being totally open-ended and untestable.

I believe historians are happy to settle for the early Christian community sincerely believing that Jesus had risen. Just as Historians will say that for the 13th century believer appearances of angels and demons are things that really happened.

Is there any equivalent among academic historians of the cosmologist or biologist who moonlights as a rabid antitheist evangelist?

[Maeght]

Becoming aware of the real presence behind Christian writings first CS Lewis then St Augustine then the bible started to make sense as did church attendance then experiencing the real presence of Christ in Matthew 9:9 and Revelations 3:20.

Thanks.  Doesn't sound like 'encountering' Christ through. Can you say more as to why this should be considered an encounter?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Can you be sure about this alleged encounter with Christ Vlad, only you seem to have convinced yourself that you understand the aims of secularism, you've got that catastrophically wrong, well wouldn't that make it pro rata this supposed encounter you think you've had?

Regards ippy

Well nothing has had the power to counteract it since atheism is merely the disbelief in Gods and that's it.
There are a number of definitions of secularism from what the NSS says and does to a secularist like myself who believes in a kind of amicable 1970's British secularity and I rather think you are trying to pass the former of as the latter.

As for what's on the side of the atheist bus........,

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Thanks.  Doesn't sound like 'encountering' Christ through. Can you say more as to why this should be considered an encounter?

I can't think of anything more of an encounter than being in the real presence.

[Walter]

Becoming aware of the real presence behind Christian writings first CS Lewis then St Augustine then the bible started to make sense as did church attendance then experiencing the real presence of Christ in Matthew 9:9 and Revelations 3:20.

it started with a couple of drinks at home , then I started going to the pub and mixing with like minded people , then I experienced the sensation of being drunk. Now I cant stop .

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Historians tend to see a historic non-miraculous Jesus as plausible, partly out of parsimony, but I've never read one that treats the supernatural seriously, for example, miracles.   This is simply because there are no constraints on it.   How do we tell whether angels visited us in the 13th century, or are right now, in your bathroom?  We can't.   We can record that people believe this, but that is a separate issue.   The supernatural has the wonderful quality of being totally open-ended and untestable.

Quite so, which is why historians treat the NT and the Iliad the same way - possibly as containing some partial history, but also heavily populated with myth and legend. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I can't think of anything more of an encounter than being in the real presence.

Nor can I. Now all you have to do is to show your method for establishing that you had "an encounter" at all rather than one of the various alternative explanations that would cause you only to believe that you'd had one.

Good luck with it though. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I believe historians are happy to settle for the early Christian community sincerely believing that Jesus had risen. Just as Historians will say that for the 13th century believer appearances of angels and demons are things that really happened.

Which tells you nothing whatever about whether or not either of those beliefs was well-founded.

Is there any equivalent among academic historians of the cosmologist or biologist who moonlights as a rabid antitheist evangelist?

Gibberish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nor can I. Now all you have to do is to show your method for establishing that you had "an encounter" at all rather than one of the various alternative explanations that would cause you only to believe that you'd had one.

Good luck with it though.

That puts primacy on the alternative explanations. What is it that gives them primacy?

[Maeght]

I can't think of anything more of an encounter than being in the real presence.

Sure, but can you explain how you were in the real presence? What do you actually mean?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Well nothing has had the power to counteract it since atheism is merely the disbelief in Gods and that's it.

No it isn't. It's non belief, not disbelief - as you know full well because it's been explained to you countless times.

There are a number of definitions of secularism from what the NSS says and does to a secularist like myself who believes in a kind of amicable 1970's British secularity and I rather think you are trying to pass the former of as the latter.

No there aren't. It just means the separation of state from religion. That you paint it with all sorts of paranoid fantasies, attach it to words like "Stalinist" to discredit it by association etc is a matter only for you.   

As for what's on the side of the atheist bus........,

?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

That puts primacy on the alternative explanations. What is it that gives them primacy?

Don't be silly. What "primacy" do you think you see?

It was merely a question about what method you would propose to select one explanation over the various competing ones.

As we both know you'll never answer that though, I guess it must remain forever a secret eh?

[SteveH]

HV,

So you haven't then. Fair enough.

There's no shame in it by the way - no other Christian has managed to come up with a cogent solution to "the problem of evil" either, but it should at least give you pause I'd have thought.

Just to remind you where you went wrong by the way, in Reply 23624 you said: "Or that God is not as omnipotent as we often think. It depends on what you mean by omnipotence."

No it doesn't: "Omnipotent" means "of unlimited power". If you want to describe something with limited power on the other hand, you can't call it omnipotent. 

QED

Have you actually read what I wrote?

[SteveH]

You have no evidence that once we die we don't stay dead.

Have you ever had an original thought in your life?

[BeRational]

Have you actually read what I wrote?

What do you mean by omnipotent?

[Nearly Sane]

Have you ever had an original thought in your life?

if a statement isn't original, does that mean it's wrong?