It’s so true that Jesus is appearing in a great number of Muslims’ dreams where He invites them to follow Him. So I am also now more sympathetic to their real threats and difficulties that they face in accepting Jesus as the one and only True saviour. God bless your mission.
I lived in Canada for 38 years...we ate early and fast. When you went out to eat the restaurant had a fast turnover so even then meals happened within an hour and half. I've lived in Europe for the past 12 years. A meal is an all evening affair and restaurants expect the table to be there all night. Nobody is in a hurry. There is a difference. But I hear you about people coming into your home and being able to have more intimate meaningful conversations with them. So many of the stories of Jesus centered around him being in someone's home
I don't personally have a Ph.D however your question reminded me of three verses: Psalm 3:18-19, 1 Corinthians 1:27, and Luke 6:24-26 Psalm 3:18-19 The LORD is close to the brokenhearted; he rescues those whose spirits are crushed. The righteous person faces many troubles, but the LORD comes to the rescue each time. 1 Corinthians 1:27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. Luke 6:24-26 What sorrow awaits you who are rich, for you have your only happiness now. What sorrow awaits you who are fat and prosperous now, for a time of awful hunger awaits you. What sorrow awaits you who laugh now, for your laughing will turn to mourning and sorrow. What sorrow awaits you who are praised by the crowds, for their ancestors also praised false prophets. All these verses (plus many, many more throughout the Bible) confirm that Christ does indeed seek those who are suffering. He does not favor those who fancy themselves satisfied in life. Those who have in this world tend to be proud. To them Christ is more of a threat than a Hope. This is why we should boast in our weakness and not run from suffering! (2 Corinthians 12:10, Matthew 6:24) We have all been given a great gift in this country of education. If you can read God's word then there is all manner of wisdom in it. All human learning of thought and theory can be found somewhere within His words. Seek and you shall find my friends!
@MelissaDougherty Grace and Peace to you. I was convinced that I'd heard you say that you were a Calvinist. I apologize for slandering you. Btw, I had already subscribed to your channel shortly after I left my previous comment, and I've followed you on FB for a long time. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me and correct me.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit. Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams). 1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties. Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property. The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence. 2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property. Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements. On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon. Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind. My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property. The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain). Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity. For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness. As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness. My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong. Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini
Same. I was also a new age believer and since ive switched, over time, I've started getting supernatural dreams and many of them were helpful. So I'm confused as to why this is happening so often to me. I've tired praying against it many times, but nothing made it stopped. And then there are some Christian UA-camrs who talked against such experiences, and all that does is leave me so afraid and confused and not sure what to do. Smh
God does say that he will give people dreams. Check “the spirits”. Does it glorify Jesus? Is it consistent with the revelation of God in the Bible. Is there verifiable evidence? Do mature Christians who have a relationship with the person of the Holy Spirit have a confirming witness? If the answer is yes, then I think it is probably from God. If it fails these tests, then no.
I am about truth. Only thing I value more is life. knowing the truth or as close to it helps me make better choices in life. I want to share something I think is true and it the main problem with people today. Its one long comment so if you dont want to read it no one is forcing you to. I would like to ask for help on this to see if it is true and discuss it and if it is true make it understandable for everyone to know it and bring it to conscious awareness. If you have 12 minutes the first basic part I will go over is about fast/slow thinking. If you want there is a 12 minute video by veritasium called "the science of thinking" that will explain it very well. I think this is knowledge that can really benefit people if they do not know about it. The next part though I dont know any videos for and I dont know if anyone really had the idea I have before. The knowledge of the fast/slow mind is what is relevant from that video and I think a good starting point for the discussion. The video also gives examples of people doing it live, but it most likely will work on you as well so that is how I will show you. I am going to ask you a question, and I am going to predict the answer you will have pop in your mind at first, and predict that will be a wrong answer. This works on most people and you can try if for yourself on others to see too, its an interesting conversation starter. A bat and a ball together cost 1.10, the bat costs 1.00 more then the ball, how much did the ball cost? You might have an answer flash in your head right away with fast inaccurate fast mind but if you check that answer with your slow but more accurate conscious awareness, you can see that answer is wrong but it takes effort to do. The answer of ten cents is not the right answer but most people have that pop in their head because of the fast thinking mind that we rely on most of the time. The fast unconscious mind is taking everything in and trying to make sense of it really fast. Its 11 million bits a second. But sometimes it makes mistakes. The slow conscious mind is 40-50 bits and lazy but it can check things and bringing the unconscious mistake to conscious awareness it can correct it. The next thing to understand is about carl jung and the 4 ways the unconscious complex he called shadow deals with reality. The shadow is an unconscious complex that is defined as the repressed and suppressed aspects of the conscious self. there are constructive and destructive types of shadow. Carl jung emphasized the importance of being aware of shadow material and incorporating it into conscious awareness lest one project these attributes onto others. The human being deals with the reality of shadow in 4 ways. Denial, projection, integration and/or transmutation. Now I believe what is happening when a question that exposes a conflict in a belief, idea, something that someone said, or even about someone they idolize and the question gets avoided, that is the fast unconscious mind going into denial and the response is often a projection. This also can trigger and emotional response activating the amygdala more and the pre frontal cortex less where rational conscious thought is said to happen and the amygdala starts to get the body to flood itself with chemicals/hormones. Its like the fast mind knows conscious awareness will say its wrong. so it blocks it off to defend itself from admitting its wrong. in cases of denial and because it blocked off the rational mind, the responses are often irrational. Like personal attacks do not address the issue or answer the question. I think we can agree people have a very hard time now days admitting when they are wrong, I am not except from this myself I do realize. And we can see how badly questions avoidance effects us if you watch political meetings and watch them avoid questions all day long. Ok, so the first thing to go over is denial as that is the main one I expose with questions. A disowning or refusal to acknowledge something I think is a good definition for it here. There is a really good 2 minute video I use as an example of this. A streamer named vegan gains claiming lobsters have brains after some one said he can eat lobsters because they do not have brains. He googles it and starts to read what it says. When he gets to the part where is says neither insects nor lobsters have brains, he skips it and says they literally are insects then skips over that line and continues to read the rest. Just like in the fast thinking video, his fast mind already read that line and refused to acknowledge it in unconscious denial, and just skipped it. The person then tells him he skipped it and he reads it again and sees the line this time. Still being defensive of his claim and refusing to accept he was wrong, he tried to discredit the source and its the lobster institute of maine. If you would like to see the video for yourself its 2 minutes by destiny clips and the video is called " Destiny Reacts To Vegan Gains Ignoring Search Result That Contradicts Him". Justin turdo avoiding the question of how much his family was paid by the we charity 6 times in a row I think is denial as well. I think jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while being seemingly angry is think is another really good example of denial... and projection. And while JP find those words difficult, other people understand them easy. Even he does pretty much any other time they are used. So projection is next up. Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Many times a mind in denial will use projections for responses. Someone getting mad and telling the other person to not interrupt when they have been doing that a lot themselves would be an example. I have done this myself. The people who tell me I dont understand my own questions and my point is wrong when they do not even know what the point is are all examples as well. I ask them to steel man my position to show then understand my point and they just avoid that question as well clearly showing they do not understand my point. Now we have integration and/or transmutation. Integration is when you bring an unconscious behavior into conscious awareness and accept it. I know that I interrupt people talking sometimes even though I think that is wrong to do. I have a conscious awareness of it, but I have not been able to completely change the behavior.... yet. That is where transmutation comes in. Transmutation is to completely change that unconscious behavior. From being impatient to being patient, of from distrust to trust, hate into understanding and love even. So was this understandable or confusing? if you understand it, do you think its possibly true? Do you have any questions? If you have any tips I am would gladly listen.
The "shadow self" philosophy is demonic. I believed all that stuff before coming to Christ and the amount of work that needs to be done after believing the lies of the devil is just some darker part of our own nature is ongoing daily renewing of our mind aligned with God's truth. We're told not to lean on our own understanding but submit ourselves to God and He will make our paths straight. Critical thinking has its place, but we humans tend to overdo it sometimes and create for ourselves an answer to our questions that is not biblically sound.
@@paulburns6110 >>Is the first answer of 5 cents for the ball and $1.05 for the bat that I decided on, the correct answer? God bless you"" Yes, but did you have 10 cents pop in your head right away?
11:06 Like I said below (Dr. Frank Turek said it bluntly). The person who wants to be with God in eternity will seek Him out and be with Him. Those who speak the words, but reject Him from their hearts have no advantage. Dr. Turek also clearly stated that Hell is a quarantine of evil. It is the eternal absence of God. Because God is all that is good, the only option left is all that is not good. Those who reject God will find out well enough what that means. We are to be wise as serpents, but innocent as lambs. Don't be fooled by people speaking words they don't mean. If Cosmic Skeptic were serious about his desire, then he must reject the fact that Jesus said "Seek and you will find" to come to the conclusion he will not have a relationship with God after truly seeking Him. Through Christ, it is possible to have a relationship with the Father. Atheists are not above lying in order to accomplish the task of getting someone to stumble and/or fall. There are some who will seriously consider what you say. There are others who will waste your time, all the while with the hope that you will trip.
Lucas. I remember your explanation of how evolution theory is falsified. It was one of the best videos I have ever seen on UA-cam. This one is as good. I like the coverage of topics Christian. I'm from America too, and have noticed how people here say they are Christian, but don't take the faith seriously. The point about "service being beneath the dignity" especially hit home. Jesus said "I came to serve, not to be served". That should make the truth so simple that a fool need not err. It is not good the way Christians are being taught, but they have the opportunity to study for themselves. If the pastor disagrees with the teaching of Jesus, then it's time to make a decision who you will believe.
@@l.m.892 sorry what? That doesn’t actually explain how the *scientific* theory of evolution was falsified by science when it was scientific evidence that showed evolution is a natural thing
@@therick363 You have obviously not read Darwin's 6th edition of "On the Origin of Species". That is a starting point. The word 'believe' appears over 100 times. The words "I believe" appear over 40 times. That is not including other emotional or uncertain terminology like "it is not impossible to imagine", etc. The language may look scientific in some parts. In others it is just plain vague. Get a copy and see it for yourself. Focus on the sections (plural, because he didn't organize the information very well) where he speaks of the main hypotheses, like "natural selection", "common descent", and "fossil record". You'll see. Darwin's main hypotheses are given as beliefs - not according to the science of "observed empirical evidence which yields to experimentation and duplication". Darwinian evolution is conjured up outside the realm of nature.
That was an enjoyable conversation to an extent but as an atheist I have many comments - some good, most critical. A. Divine Hiddenness: At times I get an impression that you both think that Divine Hiddenness is not an argument against the orthodox Christian God, because there is a kind of disingenuous in the person God is hiding from. The problem is, if you listen to the testimonies of many exbelievers, they were people who took their faith very seriously, who felt the Holy Spirit working in themselves, who were "joyous in the Lord", who were on fire to spread the gospel, who had a deep personal relationship with Jesus, who studied their bibles with intensity, and so on. Yet in their greatest hour of need, when they felt their faith slipping away and they cried (literally) to God to make himself known, they found that God was silent. I daresay there are many bible verses a believer can supply to dismiss the very real experiences of those people, yet those folk were at that point in their lives desperate for God to actually make himself known, the way they thought he had been doing so previously. B. God = Truth and relativism: I don't think Christians can so easily point their fingers at the world and shout "relativism" while insisting that they, and only they have the truth. Think of all the Christians who, across time have claimed to have the Godly truth, to be biblical, and to walk and talk with God but who also disagree with each other so much that they engage in a mutual finger pointing exercise seeing themselves as the biblical Christian and the other as a "wolf in sheep's clothing". This has happened ever since the beginning of the faith and it continues today despite the fact that believers claim to have the inner witness of the Holy Ghost, spiritual discernment, a deep relationship with God that is better than any human relationship, and the clear, infallible and innerrant word from God by way of the bible. If, after 2,000 years, Christians remain divided on so much, even core beliefs, then how can they with confidence point at the world with judgement and accuse it of relativism? More so, consider how biblical principles have changed over time? C. Not True Christians (three cheers for the megachurches?): Some disparaging remarks were made towards megachurches. It was accepted that people go to such churches for community, to learn something about God, for help, for comfort and so on. Yet they were seen as in someway, unbiblical and not real Christian. However, if megachurches are so popular then maybe they are actually providing something that people actually do need. It's all very well for me to argue my atheism and for you to argue your puritanism, but if megachurches are succeeding then perhaps they have something that people want, and what people actually need. As for 60+% of the US population saying that they believe in God, but only 6% being real biblical Christians, then see my comments above about relativism and how Christians disagree with each other. D. Where churches get it right and wrong: As a conservative force, churches can provide a service by reinforcing societal values. Along with this are a sense of community, service to the community, providing people with answers to life's problems, and so on. However the same theologies (yes Christianity has many different and often conflicting theologies) which may provide these positive functions, the same theologies can be harmful to people, causing anxiety, depression and negative social effects. I don't think Christians understand that latter point because they are taught that while they are in the light, the holders of the truth, joyous, wise, healed, Godly, the holders of pearls, and apart from the world, they are also taught that non Christians are in darkness, the tellers of lies, miserable, foolish, sick, swine, and in bad need of saving. That is, they are taught that their specific theologies (which ever one they see as the truth) are nothing but good and that there could never be anything bad about them. Reality shows otherwise. While the bible contains many verses contrary to these self flattering notions, at the expense of the world, it also contains many verses which reinforce self-flattery and a demeaning of the world. E. Truth vs Reality. I think reality is out there. Truth is the set of ideas we each think matches reality and we try hard to show this to be so, and to convince others that this is so. Thus, consider that God really does exist. All the Christian denominations with their different and sometimes conflicting theologies are just different ideas about what matches that reality out there. Christians don't agree amongst themselves, yet they will each claim to know the truth. F. Calvinism. I think I saw a comment that Melissa is no longer a Calvinist. I think that great. I agree with many who argue that Calvinism makes God look like a schmuck. However, I also agree with those who say that the theology does have good biblical support. But then so do other theologies. It's just that they may take a bit more work to argue for. And while many believers draw a lot of contentment with Calvinist theology, it's noticeable that many who think Christianity is nuts, come from Calvinist, fundamentalist backgrounds. There is little point in fingering the megachurches and/or liberal Christians as some kind of demonic forces. Just look at the fundamentalists and Calvinists who do take their bibles very seriously and consider the harm they do, and the role they play in disbelief. ^^ Don't get me wrong. I am not knocking disbelief. I am an atheist myself. But I do notice a kind of arrogance amongst Christians when they talk about each other. (They are very arrogant when it comes to the world, but when it comes to each other, the arrogance is there also). If megachurches are pulling the numbers in, then maybe biblical Christianity is the real problem when it comes to people giving up on church. G. The Outsider Test of Faith. I wonder if two Muslims or two Jews could have very similar conversations. H. Wrestling. It's good that you wrestle with these ideas. Most people do wrestle with what they think the truth is (the set of ideas which match reality) when they begin to think about them. . . A few other scattered comments (quotes are my paraphrasing) +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 5:13 mark. "Greg Koukl is an atheist before coffee and a theist after coffee." While catchy and clever, maybe that works both ways. Before coffee he thinks better and after coffee he feels better. 23:10 mark. Experience does not equal truth. "… experience has to be evidentially backed up and it has to be true …” Well, we often learn the truth from experience. And telling a person who heard a rustle in a bush, for example, that their experience is not truth, kind of sounds odd. 27:45 mark "Experience falls short when deciphering truth. But God is not devoid of giving people supernatural experiences … people have healings." Experience is just one of the tools for determining truth. So is logic. That is another tool. Experience provides data. Logic helps us analyse the data. 28:31 "if we are bible believers which is from God a living book … my personal experience … being born again … i did not know about it … I was born again and then I learned about it. …" See my comment below about being needy. 30:18 Does God grant those kinds of experience of supernatural acts to those who are in specific circumstances of suffering … I think the church gets most of its converts from the needy. For example, teenagers go through periods of uncertainty, unsure of their place in life, uncertain of their futures, and even periods of boredom. I get an impression that such youngsters make for easy pickings for evangelists. Then there are people who suffer from some kind of addiction, or who have suffered some kind of calamity. Then there are those who have done things in the past which cause grief, or guilt or shame. And if not those, given the right circumstance, a good evangelist can even make people feel they have a real problem then convince them that he has the solution. But the question is begged - if God really does not want to see people in hell, and God is all powerful, then why not do better for those who feel they are not in need? 38:20 Impactful arguments for Christianity? Christians could do a lot better at listening. Probably we could all do a lot better at listening. However, I think Christians do want to win the argument because they really do want to convert people. I think what stops Christians from listening is not just the fact that this is a general problem for all of us, but more so, Christians don't think they need to listen. They have the truth. Therefore the world needs to listen to them, not the other way around. 42:35 Robert Price - this is why they don’t believe the resurrection happened. Be careful. Robert Price is a mythicist and as such he may not discount the resurrection in the same way that most resurrection skeptics discount it. Mythicists have different ideas but nevertheless they are a small group amongst the resurrection skeptics. . . Well, time is up for me. I need to start cooking for tonights dinner. :) :)
1) priests, churches, doctrines are just the postmen (don't you expect from courier to explain the quantum physics book he brought to your door?) 2) Jew = Israel, struggle with God = only 144000=believers =saints=Buddhas=baptized =dead were but reborn of spirit =priests =resurrected =monks (everyone his own course ) ( it is not a biological or hereditary gift)3) John 10, 34 from psalm 82, 6 ..... you are part of the Trinity, you have an immortal divine soul, we all have, we are the same,......I am/do sigritism (I accept and unite all peaceful philosophies ( no-islam) they all complement each other in a wonderful way...
For what it's worth, here are my answers. (Btw, I'm in a very happy and good mood writing this, so please don't read with an angry or sarcastic inner voice.) A. This is too broad a statement, because obviously all those people didn't go through the same thing. Were they asking for a miracle (maybe a child was sick), were they looking for answers (maybe an atheist asked good questions), or did they want to "feel" God? B. That is never going away, because firstly, Christians aren't the Borg. We each have our own understanding based on our experiences, culture, personality etc. The Holy Spirit also only guides, it never forces. C.S. Lewis has a great qoute about how God only woo's (sorry, 2nd language, I'm hoping this is the right spelling), never forces. We also are, and will be, sinners until the day we die. However, the differences in the different denominations are in auxiliary matters. If a Church doesn't believe in The Gospel, it isn't Christian. So although it might seem like there are too many churches, our foundation is all the same. You will however have to say specifically what Biblical principles have changed. Because they Bible is still the same. (If you don't know this, look to academics and not random people on the internet) C. I can't answer for the remarks, but many (not all) mega-churches seem to care more about making the Pastor rich, than ministering to its flock. I can't imagine you're not aware of this? Comfort is good and God does comfort us, but He also expects us to keep to His Word. Only giving comfort leads to Christians who think moral laws are subjective or not that important. D. You will have to specify what in Christianity causes depression, anxiety etc. The research says otherwise, so making this blanket statement, with no particulars is a bit unfair. So, statistically you are wrong (Google it), or referring to a very small minority who might already have other emotional problems to begin with. I myself have both depression and anxiety, but it's not because of my faith and in fact knowing The Creator of the Universe loves me unconditionally gives me hope and joy. I also think you may be talking about cults that say non-Christians are all those bad things. Christianity teaches we are all bad and in need of a Saviour. I've never heard a Christian or Pastor talk badly about non-Christians, other than to say they also need God. I'm sure you'll find Christians like that if you search, but once again looking to outliers isn't helpful or fair. E. Different denominations don't have different theologies. When to baptize, what kind of songs to sing etc has nothing to do with salvation. Once a "church" moves away from the Biblical foundation it isn't recognized as a Christian Church anymore. F. I grew up in a Calvinist Church. I am not a Calvinist. I think some people on the internet make a lot bigger deal of these theories than most Christians (or the Bible) makes. It might seem like a bone of contention if you look on the internet, but in truth, there are no (or very few) Calvinists and Armenianists throwing stones at each other IRL. Liberal Church sometimes stop being Christian, but they like Jesus, so they don't admit they're not Christian anymore. The moment you imply Jesus isn't the only Savior, that sin doesn't actually exist, that the Bible isn't true, or that you believe in a "cosmic christ", you aren't Christian anymore. That is some of the foundations of Christianity and without it you can be something, but not a Christian. Imagine someone saying they are vegan while eating ribs. Clearly they aren't vegan and them saying it doesn't make it true. Vegan is a word with a meaning, just like Christianity has a meaning. Big churches who get alot of members often tell the members what they want to hear and not what they should hear. If you are not going to preach both forgiveness and sin, you are a motivational speaker and not a pastor. Once again, Christianity means something and teaching something else means it's not Christian anymore. Lastly, I am sure there are many arrogant and mean Christians out there. However, it is in no way the norm, nor the majority. I think this is confirmation bias on your part. We all have confirmation bias, and maybe this is one of yours. My husband and I are both born-again Christians and we have close family and friends who are homosexual, atheist (he's a skateboarder, so actually most of his friends are atheists), Hindu, Calvinist (haha, that's a joke, although it's true), extremely liberal etc. I'm not saying this proves all Christians aren't judgmental arses, but it shows that you can't say "Christians" do something, when in fact it's "some Christians'. Anyhoo, don't know if you'll ever read this or if it will change your mind on any of the topics, but either way I hope you have a good day.
@@j96569 A. // ... so please don't read with an angry or sarcastic inner voice.// Your reply was good. You stated your position and was not rude about it. //Were they asking for a miracle (maybe a child was sick), were they looking for answers (maybe an atheist asked good questions), or did they want to "feel" God?// No matter what triggered the beginning of their deconversion (e.g. a question from an atheist) the issue was that they really worried that their faith was slipping away and it terrified them for a number of reasons. They cried out to God for help given that. It was then that they suddenly found God was silent. So it had nothing to do with a child being sick, or a question asked by an atheist. B. //That is never going away, ... // I agree. And I don't think people having different ideas about the truth will go away either. //However, the differences in the different denominations are in auxiliary matters.// Well I hear that a lot. However if you use the net to search for titles like:- "Calvinists are damnable heretics" "Arminians are damnable heretics" "Catholics are damnable heretics" "Protestants are damnable heretics" "Trinitarians are damnable heretics" "Non Trinitarians are damnable heretics" "Lutherans are damnable heretics" ... - and so on, then you will find that various Christians don't think other Christian theologies are "auxiliary matters". If there is some group which claims to be Christian but which you think is not Christian I'll guarantee they will think the same about you. I learnt that lesson some 50 years ago when I met Chrsitadelphians who were as convinced that my Methodism was damnable heresy as I was that their Christadelphian was damnable heresy. And we each used God's clear, infallible and inerrant message, the bible, to prove each other wrong. //You will however have to say specifically what Biblical principles have changed. ...// Well, for example, today in the modern West we think that chattel slavery is wrong. Yet in the OT, the Israelis are told to get their chattel slaves from foreign lands, and that they can be passed on as heritable items. We don't think that adulterers, unruly youth and homosexuals should be stoned to death. Those kinds of things. C. //I can't answer for the remarks, but many (not all) mega-churches seem to care more about making the Pastor rich, than ministering to its flock.// For sure it seems that way with some. Still, even if they are making all their pastors rich, the fact that they are so popular suggests that they are filling some need that the more orthodox churches are not. D. //You will have to specify what in Christianity causes depression, anxiety etc.// An important point to remember is that humans are different from each other and not all believers will respond to the one teaching in the same way. While one person may find a teaching assuring, another may find it offensive or worrying. But typical problems arise with concept of hell and being assured of one's salvation. The shaming of women over purity issues. Being subject to men and their wishes. The idea of a God who is in anything and everything and thus monitoring every thought and action one might think or do. Judging everyone - wondering if people are saved or not, or have the right theology or not. //The research says otherwise, so making this blanket statement, with no particulars is a bit unfair.// O.k. Research often does show that religious people have better well being outcomes than do non religious people. But the research is often not without problems and it often comes up with issues that many believers themselves might not be comfortable with. For example, that Jews, Mormons and Muslims do better than Catholics and Protestants. That Protestants don't do much better than non believers. That non believers don't necessarily do too badly anyway and can easily do better than believers in some cases. There is a report that can be found online titled:- "In U.S., Very Religious Have Higher Well-Being Across All Faiths" It's written in 2012 and was a summary of massive Gallup survey. Have a look at the summary Table 1 and you will see what I mean. // I myself have both depression and anxiety, ...// I am sorry to hear that. I went through several years of depression following divorce and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. //... but it's not because of my faith and in fact knowing The Creator of the Universe loves me unconditionally gives me hope and joy.// I am sure it does. Religion can do that - help people through life. However, as I point out above, humans are different to each other and a theology which helps you out will not necessarily help another person. //I also think you may be talking about cults ...// Both cults and orthodox churches. A lot of the people I am talking about come out of very conventional and mainstream churches. //Christianity teaches we are all bad and in need of a Saviour.// That's another teaching that people find can be very harmful. They are told this over and over from the day they were born. They are told by parents and pastors that every time they do wrong, another nail has been driven into the hands of Jesus. Some listen to these kinds of teachings and are fine. But others take it on board to such a degree that they really do begin to think that they are no better than a filthy rag. //I've never heard a Christian or Pastor talk badly about non-Christians, other than to say they also need God.// I spend a lot of time on forums and while most Christians don't speak nastily to me, a number do and they have the bible to back them up. Some examples:- Psalm 14:1 (the fool) is a classic; Another classic is Matt 7:6 (throwing pearls before swine); Occasionally I get John 8:44 (your father is the devil); Romans 1:20 is another classic (you are without excuse). I have memories of sitting in church and whenever the subject of non believers or atheists was brought up, I'd think how terrible their lives must be and hope upon hope that I'd never become one. Then there is this report:- "Atheists remain most disliked religious minority in the U.S." - and this one:- "Study of the Day: Religious People Distrust Atheists as Much as Rapists" ^^ It's hard to see how those attitudes could arise in a largely religious society unless:- a. Atheists really are that bad or b. The religious people are telling themselves these things. //I'm sure you'll find Christians like that if you search, but once again looking to outliers isn't helpful or fair.// Well to an extent I was not being fair in that I did not apply any nuance to the term "Christian". However, see my points above. Also see my points at the end. .... CONTINUED
.... (Sorry - this was a long reply :) ) E. //Different denominations don't have different theologies. When to baptize, what kind of songs to sing etc has nothing to do with salvation.// See my earlier points. Also there are disputes such as Trinitarianism v non Trinitiarianism; Calvinism v Arminianism (Monism); Freewill v Determinism; and so on. Parties to these disputes do often see them in terms of heresy, even damnable heresy. F. //I grew up in a Calvinist Church. I am not a Calvinist. I think some people on the internet make a lot bigger deal of these theories than most Christians (or the Bible) makes. It might seem like a bone of contention if you look on the internet, but in truth, there are no (or very few) Calvinists and Armenianists throwing stones at each other IRL.// To an extent I agree with your last point. Nevertheless those disputes have always been there, and at times they have been deadly (e.g. the Wars of Religion and The Thirty Years War). Besides, if you think there are groups which claim to be Christian but which you think are "wolves in sheep's clothing", I can guarantee they will think the same about you. I learnt that lesson 50 years ago when I met the non Trinitiarian Christadelphians. Trust me, they were as convinced that they were in fact biblical, as I was that my Trinitarianism was biblical. //Liberal Church sometimes stop being Christian, but they like Jesus, so they don't admit they're not Christian anymore. The moment you imply Jesus isn't the only Savior, that sin doesn't actually exist, that the Bible isn't true, or that you believe in a "cosmic christ", you aren't Christian anymore.// That's a fairly conventional view amongst more conservative Christians. However, if you consider them as just sinners as you do anyone else, then they like you remain sinners. it's just that they sin in different ways. //That is some of the foundations of Christianity and without it you can be something, but not a Christian.// That does raise the question - just how far can one stray before one ceases to be a Christian? Is a Catholic a Christian? I see many Protestants on forums answering "no" to that one. What about Mormons or JWs? //Imagine someone saying they are vegan while eating ribs. Clearly they aren't vegan and them saying it doesn't make it true. Vegan is a word with a meaning, just like Christianity has a meaning. // I agree. But see above. //Big churches who get alot of members often tell the members what they want to hear and not what they should hear.// Well, if they are providing hope, meaning and purpose, then they sound like the more mainstream churches to me, in what functions they provide. The theologies may differ hugely, but people flock to them because they offer something that the more conservative churches do not offer. //If you are not going to preach both forgiveness and sin, you are a motivational speaker and not a pastor. Once again, Christianity means something and teaching something else means it's not Christian anymore.// O.k. But see my point above. //Lastly, I am sure there are many arrogant and mean Christians out there.// There are many arrogant and mean people - period. That includes atheists. //However, it is in no way the norm, nor the majority. // I agree. This includes most humans. I think we all be arrogant and mean at times. But mostly, most of us are not, most of the time. //I think this is confirmation bias on your part. We all have confirmation bias, and maybe this is one of yours.// That is quite possible. //My husband and I are both born-again Christians ...// O.k. //... and we have close family and friends who are homosexual, atheist (he's a skateboarder, so actually most of his friends are atheists), Hindu, Calvinist (haha, that's a joke, although it's true), extremely liberal etc.// I think that is magnificent. Good on you both. Exposure to real people often takes away biases and prejudices. A lot of ex believers who, as believers, were terrified or contemptuous of atheists, often found that on meeting atheists, their prejudices dropped. Or when they themselves lost their faith, were surprised to find that their values continued on as before. They did not suddenly want to go out and do bad things. The good things they valued as believers, they continued to value. The same thing happened regarding homosexuals and so on. //I'm not saying this proves all Christians aren't judgmental arses, but it shows that you can't say "Christians" do something, when in fact it's "some Christians'. // You are correct. I should have been more careful with my wording. // I hope you have a good day.// Thank you for taking the time to respond. I like your attitude, particularly at the end. Have a good day yourself.
@@kaly7256 //priests, churches, doctrines are just the postmen (don't you expect from courier to explain the quantum physics book he brought to your door?) // I don't see why not if the postmen claim to speak for the quantum physicists. If you look at any religious faith, including Christianity, it's always fallible humans telling other fallible humans what God thinks, wants and does.
Tell me your view on the book of Romans and the Sovereignty of God without talking about the book of Romans or the Sovereignty of God. Appreciate the willingness to have this discussion but at least the first half of the discussion assumes the myth of neutrality and humanistic presuppositions. (This is not surprising after Turek and Geistler are referenced. Both use humanistic world views to define their philosophy and their theology rather than letting Christ/revelation define their philosophy and world view).
Because he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Follow the wrong way and you will fall into death. Believe a lie and you will be betrayed. Trust that which fails and you will in the end lose everything, even your very soul for eternity. Jesus is the one we should obey because he is the one we should love.
I was with you guys to a point. I agree that we don't need to be waiting around for God to do the next supernatural thing. *However* - WHY are you guys trying to put limitations on God? My apologies if you didn't mean it that way, but you both strongly suggested that God only speaks or appears to people if they're in a time of need or distress. That's simply not true. The Bible itself has numerous examples proving that's not true. Has He not shown Himself or spoken to someone when He has a task for them to do? There are many, many more reasons, but I don't want to write a book on here. Are we trying to say that He just stopped doing all of that when the Bible ended? God is still GOD. Don't put Him in a box. I wasn't going to go here, but I'll throw in my own experience. It's only happened once, but it was while I was praying. It's hard to describe, but a sort of heavy blanket of air filled the room, so much it put me on the floor, and it was like a veil lifted from my eyes. And I saw that a bunch of stuff I'd been believing was false. I said out loud, "Whoa, truth," and then I heard, "It's not that easy." Which probably doesn't make sense to you guys, but I understand exactly what it meant. But I was not in distress or trouble or anything like that. I was in normal prayer, and God wanted to tell me something. I just caution being so firm telling people God only talks or appears in times of need and distress. He shows up when there's something He's trying to get through to you but you're too dense to catch on, too.
This form of apologetics merely amounts to: "I want god to exist, I feel a god exists, therefore I know it's the god I learned about in school and at home." The fact is believers seem to experience some sort of existential angst, which they alleviate by believing in a god and some purpose to the universe. People raised as Christians experience it usually in Christian format; Hindus in a Hindu one; Muslims ditto... etc., etc. We non-believers just don't need this emotional support.
He is real but it's your own (honest) journey to ask Him. We can show you every physical detail that exists but will you still believe? You could listen to / see stories of people's lives who have actually changed for the good because of God - but will you stil believe? Maybe , maybe not?
@@paulc7190 It was a cookie cutter atheist response to Christian content. Those who want to be with God in eternity will seek Him out and be with Him. Those who don't want to be with God in eternity will reject Him. We can only offer our own witness to the unsaved. We can't make them want to be saved. I win in Christ. That is my choice and nothing anyone says or does can change that.
It’s so true that Jesus is appearing in a great number of Muslims’ dreams where He invites them to follow Him. So I am also now more sympathetic to their real threats and difficulties that they face in accepting Jesus as the one and only True saviour. God bless your mission.
Thanks for having me on!
I am currently reading J P Morelands book "A simple guide to experience miracles", an enjoyable read indeed.
This was a great talk!
WONDERFUL conversation! You’re so blessed to have such a blessed woman on your show.
So stoked to hear that Melissa also loves Zelda 😂 So great!
Also, great conversation. Thanks so much, guys!
Game of the year. Just sayin 🍿
I really enjoy all your videos Melissa! Praise God for your sharing your knowledge.
The compassion of Christ is what some feel like the lady on the bridge. He loves us so much He could not restrain Himself from comforting her!
Thank you both for your content. Love how informative your channels are. Just started watching the video at this moment.
I've had "Legislating Morality" on my Bookshelf for months. This is just another reminder that I need to read it lol.
I lived in Canada for 38 years...we ate early and fast. When you went out to eat the restaurant had a fast turnover so even then meals happened within an hour and half. I've lived in Europe for the past 12 years. A meal is an all evening affair and restaurants expect the table to be there all night. Nobody is in a hurry. There is a difference. But I hear you about people coming into your home and being able to have more intimate meaningful conversations with them. So many of the stories of Jesus centered around him being in someone's home
Good stuff! Thank you both❤
I don't personally have a Ph.D however your question reminded me of three verses: Psalm 3:18-19, 1 Corinthians 1:27, and Luke 6:24-26
Psalm 3:18-19 The LORD is close to the brokenhearted; he rescues those whose spirits are crushed. The righteous person faces many troubles, but the LORD comes to the rescue each time.
1 Corinthians 1:27 But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong.
Luke 6:24-26 What sorrow awaits you who are rich, for you have your only happiness now. What sorrow awaits you who are fat and prosperous now, for a time of awful hunger awaits you. What sorrow awaits you who laugh now, for your laughing will turn to mourning and sorrow. What sorrow awaits you who are praised by the crowds, for their ancestors also praised false prophets.
All these verses (plus many, many more throughout the Bible) confirm that Christ does indeed seek those who are suffering. He does not favor those who fancy themselves satisfied in life. Those who have in this world tend to be proud. To them Christ is more of a threat than a Hope. This is why we should boast in our weakness and not run from suffering! (2 Corinthians 12:10, Matthew 6:24)
We have all been given a great gift in this country of education. If you can read God's word then there is all manner of wisdom in it. All human learning of thought and theory can be found somewhere within His words. Seek and you shall find my friends!
Melissa left Calvinism! Yay! I might subscribe to her now.
Hi! I was never a Calvinist or cessationist. I have always disagreed with both of those positions 🙃
@MelissaDougherty Grace and Peace to you. I was convinced that I'd heard you say that you were a Calvinist. I apologize for slandering you. Btw, I had already subscribed to your channel shortly after I left my previous comment, and I've followed you on FB for a long time. Thank you for taking the time to respond to me and correct me.
@@lark8356 aw no worries brother. I'd think of it more as a misunderstanding than slander. I appreciate your encouragement and prayers.
@@MelissaDougherty I'm praying for you, Sis. Thank you for all you do to spread the truth of the Lord Jesus the Messiah.
I am a physicist and I will explain why our scientific knowledge refutes the idea that consciousness is generated by the brain and that the origin of our mental experiences is physical/biological (in my youtube channel you can find a video with more detailed explanations). My arguments prove the existence in us of an indivisible unphysical element, which is usually called soul or spirit.
Physicalism/naturalism is based on the belief that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain, but I will discuss two arguments that prove that this hypothesis implies logical contradictions and is disproved by our scientific knowledge of the microscopic physical processes that take place in the brain. (With the word consciousness I do not refer to self-awareness, but to the property of being conscious= having a mental experiences such as sensations, emotions, thoughts, memories and even dreams).
1) All the alleged emergent properties are just simplified and approximate descriptions or subjective/arbitrary classifications of underlying physical processes or properties, which are described DIRECTLY by the fundamental laws of physics alone, without involving any emergent properties (arbitrariness/subjectivity is involved when more than one option is possible; in this case, more than one possible description). An approximate description is only an abstract idea, and no actual entity exists per se corresponding to that approximate description, simply because an actual entity is exactly what it is and not an approximation of itself. What physically exists are the underlying physical processes and not the emergent properties (=subjective classifications or approximate descriptions). This means that emergent properties do not refer to reality itself but to an arbitrary abstract concept (the approximate conceptual model of reality). Since consciousness is the precondition for the existence of concepts, approximations and arbitrariness/subjectivity, consciousness is a precondition for the existence of emergent properties.
Therefore, consciousness cannot itself be an emergent property.
The logical fallacy of materialists is that they try to explain the existence of consciousness by comparing consciousness to a concept that, if consciousness existed, a conscious mind could use to describe approximately a set of physical elements. Obviously this is a circular reasoning, since the existence of consciousness is implicitly assumed in an attempt to explain its existence.
2) An emergent property is defined as a property that is possessed by a set of elements that its individual components do not possess. The point is that the concept of set refers to something that has an intrinsically conceptual and subjective nature and implies the arbitrary choice of determining which elements are to be included in the set; what exists objectively are only the single elements (where one person sees a set of elements, another person can only see elements that are not related to each other in their individuality). In fact, when we define a set, it is like drawing an imaginary line that separates some elements from all the other elements; obviously this imaginary line does not exist physically, independently of our mind, and therefore any set is just an abstract idea, and not a physical entity and so are all its properties. Since consciousness is a precondition for the existence of subjectivity/arbitrariness and abstractions, consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property, and cannot itself be an emergent property.
Both arguments 1 and 2 are sufficient to prove that every emergent property requires a consciousness from which to be conceived. Therefore, that conceiving consciousness cannot be the emergent property itself. Conclusion: consciousness cannot be an emergent property; this is true for any property attributed to the neuron, the brain and any other system that can be broken down into smaller elements.
On a fundamental material level, there is no brain, or heart, or any higher level groups or sets, but just fundamental particles interacting. Emergence itself is just a category imposed by a mind and used to establish arbitrary classifications, so the mind can't itself be explained as an emergent phenomenon.
Obviously we must distinguish the concept of "something" from the "something" to which the concept refers. For example, the concept of consciousness is not the actual consciousness; the actual consciousness exists independently of the concept of consciousness since the actual consciousness is the precondition for the existence of the concept of consciousness itself. However, not all concepts refer to an actual entity and the question is whether a concept refers to an actual entity that can exist independently of consciousness or not. If a concept refers to "something" whose existence presupposes the existence of arbitrariness/subjectivity or is a property of an abstract object, such "something" is by its very nature abstract and cannot exist independently of a conscious mind, but it can only exist as an idea in a conscious mind. For example, consider the property of "beauty": beauty has an intrinsically subjective and conceptual nature and implies arbitrariness; therefore, beauty cannot exist independently of a conscious mind.
My arguments prove that emergent properties, as well as complexity, are of the same nature as beauty; they refer to something that is intrinsically subjective, abstract and arbitrary, which is sufficient to prove that consciousness cannot be an emergent property because consciousness is the precondition for the existence of any emergent property.
The "brain" doesn't objectively and physically exist as a single entity and the entity “brain” is only a conceptual model. We create the concept of the brain by arbitrarily "separating" it from everything else and by arbitrarily considering a bunch of quantum particles altogether as a whole; this separation is not done on the basis of the laws of physics, but using addictional arbitrary criteria, independent of the laws of physics. The property of being a brain, just like for example the property of being beautiiful, is just something you arbitrarily add in your mind to a bunch of quantum particles. Any set of elements is an arbitrary abstraction therefore any property attributed to the brain is an abstract idea that refers to another arbitrary abstract idea (the concept of brain).
Furthermore, brain processes consist of many parallel sequences of ordinary elementary physical processes. There is no direct connection between the separate points in the brain and such connections are just a conceptual model used to approximately describe sequences of many distinct physical processes; interpreting these sequences as a unitary process or connection is an arbitrary act and such connections exist only in our imagination and not in physical reality. Indeed, considering consciousness as a property of an entire sequence of elementary processes implies the arbitrary definition of the entire sequence; the entire sequence as a whole is an arbitrary abstract idea , and not to an actual physical entity.
For consciousness to be physical, first of all the brain as a whole (and brain processes as a whole) would have to physically exist, which means the laws of physics themselves would have to imply that the brain exists as a unitary entity and brain processes occur as a unitary process. However, this is false because according to the laws of physics, the brain is not a unitary entity but only an arbitrarily (and approximately) defined set of quantum particles involved in billions of parallel sequences of elementary physical processes occurring at separate points. This is sufficient to prove that consciousness is not physical since it is not reducible to the laws of physics, whereas brain processes are. According to the laws of physics, brain processes do not even have the prerequisites to be a possible cause of consciousness.
As discussed above, an emergent property is a concept that refers to an arbitrary abstract idea (the set) and not to an actual entity; this rule out the possibility that the emergent property can exist independently of consciousness. Conversely, if a concept refers to “something” whose existence does not imply the existence of arbitrariness or abstract ideas, then such “something” might exist independently of consciousness. An example of such a concept is the concept of “indivisible entity”. Contrary to emergent properties, the concept of indivisible entity refers to something that might exist independently of the concept itself and independently of our consciousness.
My arguments prove that the hypothesis that consciousness is an emergent property implies a logical fallacy and an hypothesis that contains a logical contradiction is certainly wrong.
Consciousness cannot be an emergent property whatsoever because any set of elements is a subjective abstraction; since only indivisible elements may exist objectively and independently of consciousness, consciousness can exist only as a property of an indivisible element. Furthermore, this indivisible entity must interact globally with brain processes because we know that there is a correlation between brain processes and consciousness. This indivisible entity is not physical, since according to the laws of physics, there is no physical entity with such properties; therefore this indivisible entity corresponds to what is traditionally called soul or spirit. The soul is the missing element that interprets globally the distinct elementary physical processes occurring at separate points in the brain as a unified mental experience. Marco Biagini
What are your thoughts on someone who believes in Jesus, used to be I the New Age but now have supernatural dreams almost daily?
Same. I was also a new age believer and since ive switched, over time, I've started getting supernatural dreams and many of them were helpful. So I'm confused as to why this is happening so often to me. I've tired praying against it many times, but nothing made it stopped. And then there are some Christian UA-camrs who talked against such experiences, and all that does is leave me so afraid and confused and not sure what to do. Smh
God does say that he will give people dreams. Check “the spirits”. Does it glorify Jesus? Is it consistent with the revelation of God in the Bible.
Is there verifiable evidence? Do mature Christians who have a relationship with the person of the Holy Spirit have a confirming witness? If the answer is yes, then I think it is probably from God. If it fails these tests, then no.
I am about truth. Only thing I value more is life. knowing the truth or as close to it helps me make better choices in life. I want to share something I think is true and it the main problem with people today. Its one long comment so if you dont want to read it no one is forcing you to. I would like to ask for help on this to see if it is true and discuss it and if it is true make it understandable for everyone to know it and bring it to conscious awareness.
If you have 12 minutes the first basic part I will go over is about fast/slow thinking. If you want there is a 12 minute video by veritasium called "the science of thinking" that will explain it very well. I think this is knowledge that can really benefit people if they do not know about it. The next part though I dont know any videos for and I dont know if anyone really had the idea I have before.
The knowledge of the fast/slow mind is what is relevant from that video and I think a good starting point for the discussion. The video also gives examples of people doing it live, but it most likely will work on you as well so that is how I will show you. I am going to ask you a question, and I am going to predict the answer you will have pop in your mind at first, and predict that will be a wrong answer. This works on most people and you can try if for yourself on others to see too, its an interesting conversation starter.
A bat and a ball together cost 1.10, the bat costs 1.00 more then the ball, how much did the ball cost?
You might have an answer flash in your head right away with fast inaccurate fast mind but if you check that answer with your slow but more accurate conscious awareness, you can see that answer is wrong but it takes effort to do. The answer of ten cents is not the right answer but most people have that pop in their head because of the fast thinking mind that we rely on most of the time.
The fast unconscious mind is taking everything in and trying to make sense of it really fast. Its 11 million bits a second. But sometimes it makes mistakes. The slow conscious mind is 40-50 bits and lazy but it can check things and bringing the unconscious mistake to conscious awareness it can correct it.
The next thing to understand is about carl jung and the 4 ways the unconscious complex he called shadow deals with reality. The shadow is an unconscious complex that is defined as the repressed and suppressed aspects of the conscious self. there are constructive and destructive types of shadow. Carl jung emphasized the importance of being aware of shadow material and incorporating it into conscious awareness lest one project these attributes onto others. The human being deals with the reality of shadow in 4 ways. Denial, projection, integration and/or transmutation.
Now I believe what is happening when a question that exposes a conflict in a belief, idea, something that someone said, or even about someone they idolize and the question gets avoided, that is the fast unconscious mind going into denial and the response is often a projection. This also can trigger and emotional response activating the amygdala more and the pre frontal cortex less where rational conscious thought is said to happen and the amygdala starts to get the body to flood itself with chemicals/hormones.
Its like the fast mind knows conscious awareness will say its wrong. so it blocks it off to defend itself from admitting its wrong. in cases of denial and because it blocked off the rational mind, the responses are often irrational. Like personal attacks do not address the issue or answer the question. I think we can agree people have a very hard time now days admitting when they are wrong, I am not except from this myself I do realize. And we can see how badly questions avoidance effects us if you watch political meetings and watch them avoid questions all day long.
Ok, so the first thing to go over is denial as that is the main one I expose with questions. A disowning or refusal to acknowledge something I think is a good definition for it here. There is a really good 2 minute video I use as an example of this. A streamer named vegan gains claiming lobsters have brains after some one said he can eat lobsters because they do not have brains. He googles it and starts to read what it says. When he gets to the part where is says neither insects nor lobsters have brains, he skips it and says they literally are insects then skips over that line and continues to read the rest. Just like in the fast thinking video, his fast mind already read that line and refused to acknowledge it in unconscious denial, and just skipped it.
The person then tells him he skipped it and he reads it again and sees the line this time. Still being defensive of his claim and refusing to accept he was wrong, he tried to discredit the source and its the lobster institute of maine. If you would like to see the video for yourself its 2 minutes by destiny clips and the video is called " Destiny Reacts To Vegan Gains Ignoring Search Result That Contradicts Him". Justin turdo avoiding the question of how much his family was paid by the we charity 6 times in a row I think is denial as well. I think jordan peterson not being able to answer his own question of does he believe god exists and asking what do and you mean then saying no one knows what any of those words mean while being seemingly angry is think is another really good example of denial... and projection. And while JP find those words difficult, other people understand them easy. Even he does pretty much any other time they are used.
So projection is next up. Psychological projection is a defense mechanism people subconsciously employ in order to cope with difficult feelings or emotions. Psychological projection involves projecting undesirable feelings or emotions onto someone else, rather than admitting to or dealing with the unwanted feelings. Many times a mind in denial will use projections for responses. Someone getting mad and telling the other person to not interrupt when they have been doing that a lot themselves would be an example. I have done this myself. The people who tell me I dont understand my own questions and my point is wrong when they do not even know what the point is are all examples as well. I ask them to steel man my position to show then understand my point and they just avoid that question as well clearly showing they do not understand my point.
Now we have integration and/or transmutation. Integration is when you bring an unconscious behavior into conscious awareness and accept it. I know that I interrupt people talking sometimes even though I think that is wrong to do. I have a conscious awareness of it, but I have not been able to completely change the behavior.... yet. That is where transmutation comes in. Transmutation is to completely change that unconscious behavior. From being impatient to being patient, of from distrust to trust, hate into understanding and love even.
So was this understandable or confusing?
if you understand it, do you think its possibly true?
Do you have any questions? If you have any tips I am would gladly listen.
The "shadow self" philosophy is demonic. I believed all that stuff before coming to Christ and the amount of work that needs to be done after believing the lies of the devil is just some darker part of our own nature is ongoing daily renewing of our mind aligned with God's truth. We're told not to lean on our own understanding but submit ourselves to God and He will make our paths straight. Critical thinking has its place, but we humans tend to overdo it sometimes and create for ourselves an answer to our questions that is not biblically sound.
Is the first answer of 5 cents for the ball and $1.05 for the bat that I decided on, the correct answer? God bless you
@@paulburns6110 >>Is the first answer of 5 cents for the ball and $1.05 for the bat that I decided on, the correct answer? God bless you""
Yes, but did you have 10 cents pop in your head right away?
11:06 Like I said below (Dr. Frank Turek said it bluntly). The person who wants to be with God in eternity will seek Him out and be with Him. Those who speak the words, but reject Him from their hearts have no advantage. Dr. Turek also clearly stated that Hell is a quarantine of evil. It is the eternal absence of God. Because God is all that is good, the only option left is all that is not good.
Those who reject God will find out well enough what that means. We are to be wise as serpents, but innocent as lambs. Don't be fooled by people speaking words they don't mean. If Cosmic Skeptic were serious about his desire, then he must reject the fact that Jesus said "Seek and you will find" to come to the conclusion he will not have a relationship with God after truly seeking Him.
Through Christ, it is possible to have a relationship with the Father. Atheists are not above lying in order to accomplish the task of getting someone to stumble and/or fall. There are some who will seriously consider what you say. There are others who will waste your time, all the while with the hope that you will trip.
Lucas. I remember your explanation of how evolution theory is falsified. It was one of the best videos I have ever seen on UA-cam. This one is as good. I like the coverage of topics Christian. I'm from America too, and have noticed how people here say they are Christian, but don't take the faith seriously.
The point about "service being beneath the dignity" especially hit home. Jesus said "I came to serve, not to be served". That should make the truth so simple that a fool need not err. It is not good the way Christians are being taught, but they have the opportunity to study for themselves. If the pastor disagrees with the teaching of Jesus, then it's time to make a decision who you will believe.
How was the theory of evolution falsified?
@@therick363 By nature and science.
@@l.m.892 sorry what? That doesn’t actually explain how the *scientific* theory of evolution was falsified by science when it was scientific evidence that showed evolution is a natural thing
@@therick363 You have obviously not read Darwin's 6th edition of "On the Origin of Species". That is a starting point. The word 'believe' appears over 100 times. The words "I believe" appear over 40 times. That is not including other emotional or uncertain terminology like "it is not impossible to imagine", etc.
The language may look scientific in some parts. In others it is just plain vague. Get a copy and see it for yourself. Focus on the sections (plural, because he didn't organize the information very well) where he speaks of the main hypotheses, like "natural selection", "common descent", and "fossil record". You'll see.
Darwin's main hypotheses are given as beliefs - not according to the science of "observed empirical evidence which yields to experimentation and duplication". Darwinian evolution is conjured up outside the realm of nature.
@@l.m.892 I’ve read his books. Don’t remember which edition. However, the question had to be asked-why are you focusing on what Darwin said?
That was an enjoyable conversation to an extent but as an atheist I have many comments - some good, most critical.
A. Divine Hiddenness:
At times I get an impression that you both think that Divine Hiddenness is not an argument against the orthodox Christian God, because there is a kind of disingenuous in the person God is hiding from. The problem is, if you listen to the testimonies of many exbelievers, they were people who took their faith very seriously, who felt the Holy Spirit working in themselves, who were "joyous in the Lord", who were on fire to spread the gospel, who had a deep personal relationship with Jesus, who studied their bibles with intensity, and so on.
Yet in their greatest hour of need, when they felt their faith slipping away and they cried (literally) to God to make himself known, they found that God was silent.
I daresay there are many bible verses a believer can supply to dismiss the very real experiences of those people, yet those folk were at that point in their lives desperate for God to actually make himself known, the way they thought he had been doing so previously.
B. God = Truth and relativism:
I don't think Christians can so easily point their fingers at the world and shout "relativism" while insisting that they, and only they have the truth.
Think of all the Christians who, across time have claimed to have the Godly truth, to be biblical, and to walk and talk with God but who also disagree with each other so much that they engage in a mutual finger pointing exercise seeing themselves as the biblical Christian and the other as a "wolf in sheep's clothing". This has happened ever since the beginning of the faith and it continues today despite the fact that believers claim to have the inner witness of the Holy Ghost, spiritual discernment, a deep relationship with God that is better than any human relationship, and the clear, infallible and innerrant word from God by way of the bible.
If, after 2,000 years, Christians remain divided on so much, even core beliefs, then how can they with confidence point at the world with judgement and accuse it of relativism? More so, consider how biblical principles have changed over time?
C. Not True Christians (three cheers for the megachurches?):
Some disparaging remarks were made towards megachurches. It was accepted that people go to such churches for community, to learn something about God, for help, for comfort and so on. Yet they were seen as in someway, unbiblical and not real Christian.
However, if megachurches are so popular then maybe they are actually providing something that people actually do need. It's all very well for me to argue my atheism and for you to argue your puritanism, but if megachurches are succeeding then perhaps they have something that people want, and what people actually need.
As for 60+% of the US population saying that they believe in God, but only 6% being real biblical Christians, then see my comments above about relativism and how Christians disagree with each other.
D. Where churches get it right and wrong:
As a conservative force, churches can provide a service by reinforcing societal values. Along with this are a sense of community, service to the community, providing people with answers to life's problems, and so on. However the same theologies (yes Christianity has many different and often conflicting theologies) which may provide these positive functions, the same theologies can be harmful to people, causing anxiety, depression and negative social effects.
I don't think Christians understand that latter point because they are taught that while they are in the light, the holders of the truth, joyous, wise, healed, Godly, the holders of pearls, and apart from the world, they are also taught that non Christians are in darkness, the tellers of lies, miserable, foolish, sick, swine, and in bad need of saving. That is, they are taught that their specific theologies (which ever one they see as the truth) are nothing but good and that there could never be anything bad about them. Reality shows otherwise.
While the bible contains many verses contrary to these self flattering notions, at the expense of the world, it also contains many verses which reinforce self-flattery and a demeaning of the world.
E. Truth vs Reality.
I think reality is out there. Truth is the set of ideas we each think matches reality and we try hard to show this to be so, and to convince others that this is so.
Thus, consider that God really does exist. All the Christian denominations with their different and sometimes conflicting theologies are just different ideas about what matches that reality out there. Christians don't agree amongst themselves, yet they will each claim to know the truth.
F. Calvinism. I think I saw a comment that Melissa is no longer a Calvinist.
I think that great. I agree with many who argue that Calvinism makes God look like a schmuck. However, I also agree with those who say that the theology does have good biblical support. But then so do other theologies. It's just that they may take a bit more work to argue for. And while many believers draw a lot of contentment with Calvinist theology, it's noticeable that many who think Christianity is nuts, come from Calvinist, fundamentalist backgrounds.
There is little point in fingering the megachurches and/or liberal Christians as some kind of demonic forces. Just look at the fundamentalists and Calvinists who do take their bibles very seriously and consider the harm they do, and the role they play in disbelief.
^^ Don't get me wrong. I am not knocking disbelief. I am an atheist myself.
But I do notice a kind of arrogance amongst Christians when they talk about each other. (They are very arrogant when it comes to the world, but when it comes to each other, the arrogance is there also). If megachurches are pulling the numbers in, then maybe biblical Christianity is the real problem when it comes to people giving up on church.
G. The Outsider Test of Faith.
I wonder if two Muslims or two Jews could have very similar conversations.
H. Wrestling.
It's good that you wrestle with these ideas. Most people do wrestle with what they think the truth is (the set of ideas which match reality) when they begin to think about them.
.
.
A few other scattered comments (quotes are my paraphrasing)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
5:13 mark. "Greg Koukl is an atheist before coffee and a theist after coffee."
While catchy and clever, maybe that works both ways. Before coffee he thinks better and after coffee he feels better.
23:10 mark. Experience does not equal truth. "… experience has to be evidentially backed up and it has to be true …”
Well, we often learn the truth from experience. And telling a person who heard a rustle in a bush, for example, that their experience is not truth, kind of sounds odd.
27:45 mark "Experience falls short when deciphering truth. But God is not devoid of giving people supernatural experiences … people have healings."
Experience is just one of the tools for determining truth. So is logic. That is another tool. Experience provides data. Logic helps us analyse the data.
28:31 "if we are bible believers which is from God a living book … my personal experience … being born again … i did not know about it … I was born again and then I learned about it. …"
See my comment below about being needy.
30:18 Does God grant those kinds of experience of supernatural acts to those who are in specific circumstances of suffering …
I think the church gets most of its converts from the needy. For example, teenagers go through periods of uncertainty, unsure of their place in life, uncertain of their futures, and even periods of boredom. I get an impression that such youngsters make for easy pickings for evangelists.
Then there are people who suffer from some kind of addiction, or who have suffered some kind of calamity.
Then there are those who have done things in the past which cause grief, or guilt or shame.
And if not those, given the right circumstance, a good evangelist can even make people feel they have a real problem then convince them that he has the solution.
But the question is begged - if God really does not want to see people in hell, and God is all powerful, then why not do better for those who feel they are not in need?
38:20 Impactful arguments for Christianity? Christians could do a lot better at listening.
Probably we could all do a lot better at listening. However, I think Christians do want to win the argument because they really do want to convert people.
I think what stops Christians from listening is not just the fact that this is a general problem for all of us, but more so, Christians don't think they need to listen. They have the truth. Therefore the world needs to listen to them, not the other way around.
42:35 Robert Price - this is why they don’t believe the resurrection happened.
Be careful. Robert Price is a mythicist and as such he may not discount the resurrection in the same way that most resurrection skeptics discount it. Mythicists have different ideas but nevertheless they are a small group amongst the resurrection skeptics.
.
.
Well, time is up for me. I need to start cooking for tonights dinner. :) :)
1) priests, churches, doctrines are just the postmen (don't you expect from courier to explain the quantum physics book he brought to your door?) 2) Jew = Israel, struggle with God = only 144000=believers =saints=Buddhas=baptized =dead were but reborn of spirit =priests =resurrected =monks (everyone his own course ) ( it is not a biological or hereditary gift)3) John 10, 34 from psalm 82, 6 ..... you are part of the Trinity, you have an immortal divine soul, we all have, we are the same,......I am/do sigritism (I accept and unite all peaceful philosophies ( no-islam) they all complement each other in a wonderful way...
For what it's worth, here are my answers. (Btw, I'm in a very happy and good mood writing this, so please don't read with an angry or sarcastic inner voice.)
A. This is too broad a statement, because obviously all those people didn't go through the same thing. Were they asking for a miracle (maybe a child was sick), were they looking for answers (maybe an atheist asked good questions), or did they want to "feel" God?
B. That is never going away, because firstly, Christians aren't the Borg. We each have our own understanding based on our experiences, culture, personality etc. The Holy Spirit also only guides, it never forces. C.S. Lewis has a great qoute about how God only woo's (sorry, 2nd language, I'm hoping this is the right spelling), never forces. We also are, and will be, sinners until the day we die.
However, the differences in the different denominations are in auxiliary matters. If a Church doesn't believe in The Gospel, it isn't Christian. So although it might seem like there are too many churches, our foundation is all the same.
You will however have to say specifically what Biblical principles have changed. Because they Bible is still the same. (If you don't know this, look to academics and not random people on the internet)
C. I can't answer for the remarks, but many (not all) mega-churches seem to care more about making the Pastor rich, than ministering to its flock. I can't imagine you're not aware of this?
Comfort is good and God does comfort us, but He also expects us to keep to His Word. Only giving comfort leads to Christians who think moral laws are subjective or not that important.
D. You will have to specify what in Christianity causes depression, anxiety etc. The research says otherwise, so making this blanket statement, with no particulars is a bit unfair.
So, statistically you are wrong (Google it), or referring to a very small minority who might already have other emotional problems to begin with. I myself have both depression and anxiety, but it's not because of my faith and in fact knowing The Creator of the Universe loves me unconditionally gives me hope and joy.
I also think you may be talking about cults that say non-Christians are all those bad things. Christianity teaches we are all bad and in need of a Saviour. I've never heard a Christian or Pastor talk badly about non-Christians, other than to say they also need God. I'm sure you'll find Christians like that if you search, but once again looking to outliers isn't helpful or fair.
E. Different denominations don't have different theologies. When to baptize, what kind of songs to sing etc has nothing to do with salvation. Once a "church" moves away from the Biblical foundation it isn't recognized as a Christian Church anymore.
F. I grew up in a Calvinist Church. I am not a Calvinist. I think some people on the internet make a lot bigger deal of these theories than most Christians (or the Bible) makes. It might seem like a bone of contention if you look on the internet, but in truth, there are no (or very few) Calvinists and Armenianists throwing stones at each other IRL.
Liberal Church sometimes stop being Christian, but they like Jesus, so they don't admit they're not Christian anymore. The moment you imply Jesus isn't the only Savior, that sin doesn't actually exist, that the Bible isn't true, or that you believe in a "cosmic christ", you aren't Christian anymore. That is some of the foundations of Christianity and without it you can be something, but not a Christian. Imagine someone saying they are vegan while eating ribs. Clearly they aren't vegan and them saying it doesn't make it true. Vegan is a word with a meaning, just like Christianity has a meaning.
Big churches who get alot of members often tell the members what they want to hear and not what they should hear. If you are not going to preach both forgiveness and sin, you are a motivational speaker and not a pastor. Once again, Christianity means something and teaching something else means it's not Christian anymore.
Lastly, I am sure there are many arrogant and mean Christians out there. However, it is in no way the norm, nor the majority. I think this is confirmation bias on your part. We all have confirmation bias, and maybe this is one of yours.
My husband and I are both born-again Christians and we have close family and friends who are homosexual, atheist (he's a skateboarder, so actually most of his friends are atheists), Hindu, Calvinist (haha, that's a joke, although it's true), extremely liberal etc. I'm not saying this proves all Christians aren't judgmental arses, but it shows that you can't say "Christians" do something, when in fact it's "some Christians'.
Anyhoo, don't know if you'll ever read this or if it will change your mind on any of the topics, but either way I hope you have a good day.
@@j96569
A. // ... so please don't read with an angry or sarcastic inner voice.//
Your reply was good. You stated your position and was not rude about it.
//Were they asking for a miracle (maybe a child was sick), were they looking for answers (maybe an atheist asked good questions), or did they want to "feel" God?//
No matter what triggered the beginning of their deconversion (e.g. a question from an atheist) the issue was that they really worried that their faith was slipping away and it terrified them for a number of reasons. They cried out to God for help given that. It was then that they suddenly found God was silent.
So it had nothing to do with a child being sick, or a question asked by an atheist.
B. //That is never going away, ... //
I agree. And I don't think people having different ideas about the truth will go away either.
//However, the differences in the different denominations are in auxiliary matters.//
Well I hear that a lot. However if you use the net to search for titles like:-
"Calvinists are damnable heretics"
"Arminians are damnable heretics"
"Catholics are damnable heretics"
"Protestants are damnable heretics"
"Trinitarians are damnable heretics"
"Non Trinitarians are damnable heretics"
"Lutherans are damnable heretics" ...
- and so on, then you will find that various Christians don't think other Christian theologies are "auxiliary matters". If there is some group which claims to be Christian but which you think is not Christian I'll guarantee they will think the same about you.
I learnt that lesson some 50 years ago when I met Chrsitadelphians who were as convinced that my Methodism was damnable heresy as I was that their Christadelphian was damnable heresy. And we each used God's clear, infallible and inerrant message, the bible, to prove each other wrong.
//You will however have to say specifically what Biblical principles have changed. ...//
Well, for example, today in the modern West we think that chattel slavery is wrong. Yet in the OT, the Israelis are told to get their chattel slaves from foreign lands, and that they can be passed on as heritable items. We don't think that adulterers, unruly youth and homosexuals should be stoned to death. Those kinds of things.
C. //I can't answer for the remarks, but many (not all) mega-churches seem to care more about making the Pastor rich, than ministering to its flock.//
For sure it seems that way with some. Still, even if they are making all their pastors rich, the fact that they are so popular suggests that they are filling some need that the more orthodox churches are not.
D. //You will have to specify what in Christianity causes depression, anxiety etc.//
An important point to remember is that humans are different from each other and not all believers will respond to the one teaching in the same way. While one person may find a teaching assuring, another may find it offensive or worrying.
But typical problems arise with concept of hell and being assured of one's salvation. The shaming of women over purity issues. Being subject to men and their wishes. The idea of a God who is in anything and everything and thus monitoring every thought and action one might think or do. Judging everyone - wondering if people are saved or not, or have the right theology or not.
//The research says otherwise, so making this blanket statement, with no particulars is a bit unfair.//
O.k.
Research often does show that religious people have better well being outcomes than do non religious people. But the research is often not without problems and it often comes up with issues that many believers themselves might not be comfortable with. For example, that Jews, Mormons and Muslims do better than Catholics and Protestants. That Protestants don't do much better than non believers. That non believers don't necessarily do too badly anyway and can easily do better than believers in some cases.
There is a report that can be found online titled:-
"In U.S., Very Religious Have Higher Well-Being Across All Faiths"
It's written in 2012 and was a summary of massive Gallup survey.
Have a look at the summary Table 1 and you will see what I mean.
// I myself have both depression and anxiety, ...//
I am sorry to hear that. I went through several years of depression following divorce and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
//... but it's not because of my faith and in fact knowing The Creator of the Universe loves me unconditionally gives me hope and joy.//
I am sure it does. Religion can do that - help people through life.
However, as I point out above, humans are different to each other and a theology which helps you out will not necessarily help another person.
//I also think you may be talking about cults ...//
Both cults and orthodox churches. A lot of the people I am talking about come out of very conventional and mainstream churches.
//Christianity teaches we are all bad and in need of a Saviour.//
That's another teaching that people find can be very harmful. They are told this over and over from the day they were born. They are told by parents and pastors that every time they do wrong, another nail has been driven into the hands of Jesus.
Some listen to these kinds of teachings and are fine. But others take it on board to such a degree that they really do begin to think that they are no better than a filthy rag.
//I've never heard a Christian or Pastor talk badly about non-Christians, other than to say they also need God.//
I spend a lot of time on forums and while most Christians don't speak nastily to me, a number do and they have the bible to back them up. Some examples:-
Psalm 14:1 (the fool) is a classic;
Another classic is Matt 7:6 (throwing pearls before swine);
Occasionally I get John 8:44 (your father is the devil);
Romans 1:20 is another classic (you are without excuse).
I have memories of sitting in church and whenever the subject of non believers or atheists was brought up, I'd think how terrible their lives must be and hope upon hope that I'd never become one.
Then there is this report:-
"Atheists remain most disliked religious minority in the U.S."
- and this one:-
"Study of the Day: Religious People Distrust Atheists as Much as Rapists"
^^ It's hard to see how those attitudes could arise in a largely religious society unless:-
a. Atheists really are that bad or
b. The religious people are telling themselves these things.
//I'm sure you'll find Christians like that if you search, but once again looking to outliers isn't helpful or fair.//
Well to an extent I was not being fair in that I did not apply any nuance to the term "Christian". However, see my points above. Also see my points at the end.
.... CONTINUED
....
(Sorry - this was a long reply :) )
E. //Different denominations don't have different theologies. When to baptize, what kind of songs to sing etc has nothing to do with salvation.//
See my earlier points. Also there are disputes such as Trinitarianism v non Trinitiarianism; Calvinism v Arminianism (Monism); Freewill v Determinism; and so on. Parties to these disputes do often see them in terms of heresy, even damnable heresy.
F. //I grew up in a Calvinist Church. I am not a Calvinist. I think some people on the internet make a lot bigger deal of these theories than most Christians (or the Bible) makes. It might seem like a bone of contention if you look on the internet, but in truth, there are no (or very few) Calvinists and Armenianists throwing stones at each other IRL.//
To an extent I agree with your last point. Nevertheless those disputes have always been there, and at times they have been deadly (e.g. the Wars of Religion and The Thirty Years War).
Besides, if you think there are groups which claim to be Christian but which you think are "wolves in sheep's clothing", I can guarantee they will think the same about you. I learnt that lesson 50 years ago when I met the non Trinitiarian Christadelphians. Trust me, they were as convinced that they were in fact biblical, as I was that my Trinitarianism was biblical.
//Liberal Church sometimes stop being Christian, but they like Jesus, so they don't admit they're not Christian anymore. The moment you imply Jesus isn't the only Savior, that sin doesn't actually exist, that the Bible isn't true, or that you believe in a "cosmic christ", you aren't Christian anymore.//
That's a fairly conventional view amongst more conservative Christians.
However, if you consider them as just sinners as you do anyone else, then they like you remain sinners. it's just that they sin in different ways.
//That is some of the foundations of Christianity and without it you can be something, but not a Christian.//
That does raise the question - just how far can one stray before one ceases to be a Christian? Is a Catholic a Christian? I see many Protestants on forums answering "no" to that one. What about Mormons or JWs?
//Imagine someone saying they are vegan while eating ribs. Clearly they aren't vegan and them saying it doesn't make it true. Vegan is a word with a meaning, just like Christianity has a meaning. //
I agree. But see above.
//Big churches who get alot of members often tell the members what they want to hear and not what they should hear.//
Well, if they are providing hope, meaning and purpose, then they sound like the more mainstream churches to me, in what functions they provide.
The theologies may differ hugely, but people flock to them because they offer something that the more conservative churches do not offer.
//If you are not going to preach both forgiveness and sin, you are a motivational speaker and not a pastor. Once again, Christianity means something and teaching something else means it's not Christian anymore.//
O.k.
But see my point above.
//Lastly, I am sure there are many arrogant and mean Christians out there.//
There are many arrogant and mean people - period. That includes atheists.
//However, it is in no way the norm, nor the majority. //
I agree. This includes most humans. I think we all be arrogant and mean at times. But mostly, most of us are not, most of the time.
//I think this is confirmation bias on your part. We all have confirmation bias, and maybe this is one of yours.//
That is quite possible.
//My husband and I are both born-again Christians ...//
O.k.
//... and we have close family and friends who are homosexual, atheist (he's a skateboarder, so actually most of his friends are atheists), Hindu, Calvinist (haha, that's a joke, although it's true), extremely liberal etc.//
I think that is magnificent.
Good on you both. Exposure to real people often takes away biases and prejudices.
A lot of ex believers who, as believers, were terrified or contemptuous of atheists, often found that on meeting atheists, their prejudices dropped. Or when they themselves lost their faith, were surprised to find that their values continued on as before. They did not suddenly want to go out and do bad things. The good things they valued as believers, they continued to value. The same thing happened regarding homosexuals and so on.
//I'm not saying this proves all Christians aren't judgmental arses, but it shows that you can't say "Christians" do something, when in fact it's "some Christians'. //
You are correct. I should have been more careful with my wording.
// I hope you have a good day.//
Thank you for taking the time to respond. I like your attitude, particularly at the end.
Have a good day yourself.
@@kaly7256
//priests, churches, doctrines are just the postmen (don't you expect from courier to explain the quantum physics book he brought to your door?) //
I don't see why not if the postmen claim to speak for the quantum physicists.
If you look at any religious faith, including Christianity, it's always fallible humans telling other fallible humans what God thinks, wants and does.
Tell me your view on the book of Romans and the Sovereignty of God without talking about the book of Romans or the Sovereignty of God. Appreciate the willingness to have this discussion but at least the first half of the discussion assumes the myth of neutrality and humanistic presuppositions. (This is not surprising after Turek and Geistler are referenced. Both use humanistic world views to define their philosophy and their theology rather than letting Christ/revelation define their philosophy and world view).
For a moment, I thought Lucas had been RAPTURED !!!!
Why do you want to follow, believe and trust Jesus?
Because he is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. Follow the wrong way and you will fall into death. Believe a lie and you will be betrayed. Trust that which fails and you will in the end lose everything, even your very soul for eternity. Jesus is the one we should obey because he is the one we should love.
I was with you guys to a point. I agree that we don't need to be waiting around for God to do the next supernatural thing. *However* - WHY are you guys trying to put limitations on God? My apologies if you didn't mean it that way, but you both strongly suggested that God only speaks or appears to people if they're in a time of need or distress. That's simply not true. The Bible itself has numerous examples proving that's not true. Has He not shown Himself or spoken to someone when He has a task for them to do? There are many, many more reasons, but I don't want to write a book on here. Are we trying to say that He just stopped doing all of that when the Bible ended? God is still GOD. Don't put Him in a box.
I wasn't going to go here, but I'll throw in my own experience. It's only happened once, but it was while I was praying. It's hard to describe, but a sort of heavy blanket of air filled the room, so much it put me on the floor, and it was like a veil lifted from my eyes. And I saw that a bunch of stuff I'd been believing was false. I said out loud, "Whoa, truth," and then I heard, "It's not that easy." Which probably doesn't make sense to you guys, but I understand exactly what it meant. But I was not in distress or trouble or anything like that. I was in normal prayer, and God wanted to tell me something.
I just caution being so firm telling people God only talks or appears in times of need and distress. He shows up when there's something He's trying to get through to you but you're too dense to catch on, too.
This form of apologetics merely amounts to: "I want god to exist, I feel a god exists, therefore I know it's the god I learned about in school and at home." The fact is believers seem to experience some sort of existential angst, which they alleviate by believing in a god and some purpose to the universe. People raised as Christians experience it usually in Christian format; Hindus in a Hindu one; Muslims ditto... etc., etc. We non-believers just don't need this emotional support.
She might as well have gotten a degree in Star Trek.
Yet another Christians who claims evidence for God, but never gives any evidence for God.
He is real but it's your own (honest) journey to ask Him. We can show you every physical detail that exists but will you still believe? You could listen to / see stories of people's lives who have actually changed for the good because of God - but will you stil believe? Maybe , maybe not?
@@paulc7190
You presented not evidence.
You lose, of course.
@@cygnusustus it's not a competition bro. Your attitude suggests you like to attack Christians anyway and not after anything else
@@paulc7190
Fail again, bro.
You lose again.
Your attituded suggest you like to lie and then makes excuses for lying.
@@paulc7190 It was a cookie cutter atheist response to Christian content. Those who want to be with God in eternity will seek Him out and be with Him. Those who don't want to be with God in eternity will reject Him. We can only offer our own witness to the unsaved. We can't make them want to be saved. I win in Christ. That is my choice and nothing anyone says or does can change that.
Deflate is rational. Melissa is not.
She is not experiential until it comes time for the dinner plate
Deflate is absolutely not rational.
Deflate is not rational