Why I raise my children without God.

[alissowack]

Surprisingly @janklow understands the Bible better than most of us Christian posters

i don't know that i agree with this

That point was a little exaggerated (if not a lot), but it is just to say you are at least willing to consider the context in which the Bible says things...which some of us Bible Thumpers fail to do.

 

[Bodhi]

fundamentally, you know that Paul's narrative is that he experienced God/Jesus/whatever and converted as a result.

People convert to different religions for different reasons; not necessarily because they experienced the deity per se but rather they interpret an experience in a way which attracts them to an ideology. Paul's story is no different.

whether or not he saw anything, or saw a bright light that wasn't God, or actually saw what he claims ois a debate.

It's not really much of a debate because he admits in 1 Timothy that God has not been seen yet you're arguing that He has.

but it's separate from what i am (was) talking about when i say Paul is not going to call God unknowable due to this claim. what would be more relevant is if there was something indicating that Paul backed down from this story, as opposed to arguing why you think the story's false; absent the former, i would presume he would continue to claim "i saw (in whatever sense) God on the road to Damascus.".

It's more underlying all of this including Paul's character/personality and his relation to the whole but we're not going to get into that obviously. Most likely, his conversion story was false but if you want to accept it as truth, you could, however it seems that either way, he did not admit to actually seeing God.

i stated what i meant when i said "your" contradictions. continuing to fuss about it qualifies as getting pissy about it in my book.

You calling the contradictions "mine" implies that I created them or that I made them up. That was a sly attempt at discrediting what was presented instead of arguing it. I had to explain to you why they're not "my" contradictions. You have yet to say anything relevent about it. Assumptions and accusations wont get you far.

I'm arguing that Christians have no direct proof of god's existence which then requires strong belief or faith.

i know this.

Okay then; well that's what I mean by "unknowable"; Christians claim to have faith as opposed to direct knowledge, meaning empirical evidence or proof, of God.

you don't have to convince me that they should consider God unknowable; you have to convince me a majority of Christians agree with you.

Because we cannot fully know another person, let alone an infinite God, all relationships require some degree of faith (trust). God is our Father and it takes faith to believe that He loves us and that He provides for our needs.

Faith is also important because God is not visible to humanity. Hebrews 11:1 teaches, “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” We cannot see God (John 1:18). However, we have faith in Him that provides assurance.
http://www.compellingtruth.org/God-require-faith.html

if you see a bright light of supernatural origin that blinds you, and all of a sudden you're talking to Jesus, it's fair to assume seeing that light WAS seeing God.

Why?? First, we don't know where the light came from. Secondly, Paul didn't see anybody; he only heard someone proclaiming to be Jesus (and we don't know where the voice came from or if it actually belonged to Jesus -- again, Paul didn't see him). Thirdly, Paul never met Jesus prior to his alleged "non-sighting". He could have heard James Earl Jones saying he was Jesus and Paul would have believed it simply because he did not know what Jesus sounded like.. because he never met him.

[faith] doesn't seem to lead to any actual Christians calling God unknowable.

^^^I know that.

then why argue that they would say that?

Because I'm arguing that unknowability leads to faith. Christians have faith in God. Why? Because first of all, they claim God is unknowable.

 

[Drew_Ali]

@Oceanic......

Objectively........

Janklow has been ethering your monkey ass for about a month now..........

 

[janklow]

...nope, still not posting anything else

 

[ohhhla]

I disagree with Janklow.

I dunno how only a few minority in the world

Don't get that agnosticism isn't mutually exclusive.

 

[Bodhi]

...nope, still not posting anything else

That's fine. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[janklow]

That's fine. We'll have to agree to disagree.

or, more to the point:

i'll call this my last post on the current topic.

 

[Bodhi]

or, more to the point:

i'll call this my last post on the current topic.

In other words, you agree to disagree, like I said.

The term "agree to disagree" or "agreeing to disagree" is a phrase in English referring to the resolution of a conflict (usually a debate or quarrel) whereby all parties tolerate but do not accept the opposing position(s). It generally occurs when all sides recognise that further conflict would be unnecessary, ineffective or otherwise undesirable. They may also remain on amicable terms while continuing to disagree about the unresolved issues.

Anyway, I thought that was supposed to be your last post. If you're going to continue talking to me, you might as well start where we left off.

 

[Drew_Ali]

Looks like he is letting you off the hook........

 

[Bodhi]

Looks like he is letting you off the hook........

Nah, letting someone off the hook is what I've done with you in your Darwin thread.

 

[Bodhi]

Letting someone off the hook is also what @janklow did when you displayed your emotions in an assortment of rainbow colors:

You should have learned about stepping to me with what you are "pretty sure about"........

Fall back nigga.......

I am "pretty sure" that if you did not act like a little bitch and do your fucking job we would not be here "wrecking" threads..........

before @kai_valya banned you about a week or two ago.

 

[Drew_Ali]

LOL.....

You have been gone too long brother.......

I have resolved my differences with both @kai & @Janklow..........

Stop snitching..........

 

[Drew_Ali]

I was just reminding you that duke said he wasn't posting here anymore...........

Carry on...............

 

[Bodhi]

LOL.....

You have been gone too long brother.......

I have resolved my differences with both @kai & @Janklow..........

Stop snitching..........

I was just reminding you

And I was just reminding you what happened.

Run along then

 

[Drew_Ali]

Don't run from the debate nigga......

@Oceanic......

If you cant beat em'..........

Ban em'......................

 

[janklow]

In other words, you agree to disagree, like I said.

nope

Anyway, I thought that was supposed to be your last post. If you're going to continue talking to me, you might as well start where we left off.

on the topic, yeah. of course, if it makes you feel better because this "counts," i can lock the thread

 

[Bodhi]

nope

Your childishness is surprising. Peace.

 

[janklow]

Your childishness is surprising. Peace.

...says the guy who tagged the post as "spam" because it hurt his feelings?

i made my final post, said go ahead and rebut and i was done, and ended it. then you want to give me shit about posting without responding to you, which would KIND OF go against my whole "guess i'll end debating this right here" post. was this unclear?

 

[Bodhi]

[quote="janklow;5551982]...says the guy who tagged the post as "spam" because it hurt his feelings?

[/quote]

Says the guy who continues to make baseless assumptions and accusations. I flagged your post as spam because you wanted to end the debate so I agreed in a peaceful manner yet you come in arguing about the way it was ended?? You don't have to have the last word. If you don't want to talk to me, then stop. But if you're wrong about something while talking to me, I'm going to address it. In this case, you're, for whatever reason, childishly refusing to accept that we "agreed to disagree" by definition, which is IMO absolutely ridiculous. Specifically, that's what's unclear to me.

 

[alissowack]

@oceanic. Maybe you should take heed the "agree to disagree" definition yourself. If you believe that any more responses posted whether right or wrong is not going to make a difference in the debate, then don't post and keep your disagreements to yourself. It just sounds more like you don't want to let this go. If I was moderating this, I would shut this thread down.