What do you believe and why do you believe it?

Faith can never be a reliable pathway to truth. Is there any position someone could not take based on faith?
In terms of my deconversion I did write an account of it about 2 or 3 weeks ago on this thread. I shall try to locate which post it was.

If you already know what the will of God is before you pray, why bother doing it?

A quick google search revealed that deaths from brown recluse spiders are rare and have never been reported in anyone over the age of 7. What you have written is just confirmation bias. You survived it therefore God exists because you prayed. It's not comparing like with like to the snake bite claim in the Bible. In fact I seem to remember a preacher died recently due to a snake bite whilst testing Mark 16.
How do you know what an unclean spirit is and how do you know you drove it out?
So I don't believe miracle claims such as these because they cannot be verified.
However, I would believe that a miracle had occurred if someone grew an arm back in front of me. Why doesn't God heal amputees?

Here are the only options: intelligent design, or abiogenesis. The latter is untenable.


Richard Dawkins is a closed-minded fool. Quoting him does you no credit whatsoever.

No one said anything about dying or killing. I said rotting. If you dug further, you would have seen what has happened to some people's flesh after getting bit by a brown recluse spider.
I know someone who got bit by one on their arm, and their whole arm swelled up big and fat.
It eats away or rots the flesh.
No, I didn't survive the bite, I ruled over the poison because of the promises of God.
How would I know a spirit is gone??
If you were to shave off all the hairs on your head and show your friend your bald head, do you think you would have to tell them, you have no hair on your head?
I think not.
Because it's that obvious.
You just haven't been with the right crowd to see an arm grow back.
If you want the dog, you don't call for, look at, and walk toward the cat.
If you want to see true believers, you don't go to the local bar or night club... or the agnostic club.
I know some people who refuse to believe even after seeing a miracle.
Like I said, until that spirit is case out, it will be impossible for you to believe, EVEN if you did see a miracle.
You have to twist and ignore what I say, because you can't receive truth because,

Joh 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

And since you don't follow me around to monitor the manifestations of my prayers, and since there's no way to prove what the bible says to be true to someone who can't see the truth, then there no sense wasting anymore of my time on this thread.

Does a right equal to being right if the right is to be right about what is right?


you say fair what is this thread about? and your response to me was to ask about Muslims and God being happy or not. I didn’t mention Muslims yet ask such a question either you have a view already or maybe your completely bliss and unbiased in your living and spend days on end asking what if that or what if this why this why that but there’s this and that and I’m all confused and don’t believe a thing who knows.

Must be a favorite verse for the word of faith folks

If it didnt happen well you just didnt have enough faith! I hate that!
But it says what it says. Word of faith folks didnt write it!

Of course, you won't believe me, because I'm not you, nor you, I. But, I know where you are, as far as where yer head/attitude/heart is.
I was there once myself!
You were baptized? Good! The very "basic" requirement!
But? Just as soon as that "seed of redemption" started growing inside of you? And, you started noticing how different you were from everyone around you, who were, and had been baptized much longer then you were acting? It gave cause, and for good reason, for you, to doubt! (this is about the place where you tell me I don't know what I'm talking about, and quit telling you what's in your head )
And when God (yep? God, NOT Jesus!) shut off your understanding in yer reading the Bible? It's just as if God was telling you "Go on out in the world BOY!" "Get to know our enemies, and their tactics!" "This way?" "You'll become cognizant, how "traditions of men" have made void My Word!"
Of course, you aren't there yet! But? Sometime, somewhere, when you least expect it? And, I know this is gonna come off as rather funny, if not quite bizarre? God is going to ask you a question! You'll KNOW it's Him! Cuz God knows His "children!" He knows which buttons to push in the gaining of your attention! Like it or not? Believe it or not? It's true! It happened to me! And? It'll happen to you too! This "question" will hang around until it gets answered! Either Yay! Or Nay! By you! Then "poof!" It'll be gone! Well? At least gone from your "attention!"
Took at least 3 er 4 times for me, during a 15-20 year period, in which the "question" changed somewhat. but, I finally answered in the affirmative.
Best advice I can give ya? Don't hold out!
Because it WILL come!
This is my first and last post to this thread!
Shalom!

So its like a genie in a bottle. Your wish is my command?

Could you translate the above please? I have misplaced my Klingon-Earth Dictionary.

Did you come up with by yourself

I fully understand this is your position. What I asked you to explore in your own heart and life was why do you find it so difficult to admit that there is no inconsistency in Scripture in the two records.

In your Post #748, you have finally done so. However, that small concession occurs on Page 38 of this thread ... 36 pages after you were shown there was no discrepancy concerning the two purchases of the potters' fields and 15 pages after you were shown there was no discrepancy concerning the "six days" of Matthew/Mark and the "about eight days" of Luke.

You need to understand that you have issues when it comes to even considering there is no inconsistency in Scripture. Why is that? What is it about Scripture which causes you to automatically reject anything written in Scripture?

I have not even begun to discuss whether "the accounts are describing true events or claims". All I have done is shown you that you were in error concerning the two records.

If you are in error concerning these two records, in what other areas could you be mistaken?

Why does it take 15 or 38 pages for you to finally admit "no inconsistency" in two relatively simple matters?

What is the issue? What are you wrestling against in your heart of hearts when it comes to Scripture?





Instead of considering you "failed to prove a contradiction", why not be thankful that you are no longer in error concerning these two records?

... and as an added bonus, you can share your new found knowledge of these records with other atheists so they are no longer in error.

For the most part, atheists I have come across consider themselves to be of above average intelligence and they prefer not to mistakenly promote error.





I am willing to admit that you are lacking spiritual cognizance.

Would you try to explain advanced algebra to an infant? Someone might be able to explain it, but the infant would not be able to grasp the information. I am uncertain whether you are even an infant (spiritually speaking) as I do not know whether you were born again at the time of your "conversion process" back in 1994. Again ... first milk of the word ... then meat.

There’s no such thing as a deconversion Spectrox. Conversion isn’t really a word that describes the new birth. To convert would just be changing one religion for another. And religion has never been what Jesus brought to man. But, religion is what we see more so than true disciples of Jesus. This statement will probably rouse some anger, but am past the point of caring. 😉

When one is born again, the old person we were is put to death with the death of Jesus, and raised in resurrection life. The spirit within our being is lit up so to speak with the Spirit of God, Holy. There is where a change occurs and it affects our soul, and even our body. Our whole being. We become a spiritual person when before we were just earthy. Tied to this realm of only knowing by what we can see, taste, smell, touch etc. The Spiritual Man/woman becomes aware of heavenly things.

How? Faith brings reality which is not of this earth. Reality is where God reigns. This life is temporary. Sort of the training ground of becoming ready for above. After all, we are the created beings of the Great Creator. And we all belong to Him.

It’s really an exciting life to experience the heavenly things of our Father God.

That scripture that says Oh taste and see that the Lord is good....? This does not come through religion but through Holy Spirit only.

Jesus loves you just as much as anyone else Spectrox, no matter if you are confused, or obstinate, or whatever your fallen mind says to you in unbelief. He wants to set you free from yourself, and give you His life. And that is pure joy.

All on my own.
Kapla! (I found the Dictionary).

How would you know abiogenesis is untenable? Are you an expert in the field? All we can say is we don't have enough information to know. Stop jumping to conclusions about a God or your particular flavour of God. Your argument is what's called an Argument from Ignorance. Please look it up.
I dont always agree with Dawkins but he does occasionally make good points. Certainly about evolution. Case in point the tortuous path taken by the laryngial nerve of a giraffe. If I was attaching a phone cable to my house and I went up and down stairs with it, across the roof and then round the house 10 times, would that be intelligent design?

I believed this after my conversion/having faith but lost it during my deconversion/loss of faith. Now I just find a lot of the Bible a bit sinister and weird. And irrelevant. Sorry.

I am well aware what an argument from ignorance is. You tell me to stop jumping to conclusions; take your own advice.

Abiogenesis is impossible. The probability of it happening is beyond mathematically impossible. Therefore I said "untenable" as in "logically untenable".

You cite 'argument from ignorance' yet argue about something that is clearly not fully understood. Giraffe anatomy might be known, but the whys of it aren't. Drawing conclusions at this point is therefore premature at best.

I'm glad you don't always agree with Dawkins; there is hope.