killing in the name of

Originally posted by Penguin
I think (correct me if I am wrong RJ) that he he is saying he would believe the instruction to be from God if it felt similar to the experience he has already described. If he firmly believes that earlier experience came from God and this new instruction to kill felt the same, then he would comply with the instruction.

Do I have it right RJ?

--- Penguin.

Maybe, something like that and also if I see no conflict between it and the Holy Bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I guess with God, one must have faith. If I receive the truth from my so-called
hallucination, then I have faith it is from God; and if not, it must be from Satan.
That is all I can tell you. So my faith is not all based on scientific experiments
or the like, since the spirit world falls outside of what physical science can verify.

how can you trust that faith when it tells a different story for everyone?

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
how can you trust that faith when it tells a different story for everyone?

It tells the same story to all that will accept it. HalleluYah !!! 😏

Originally posted by Penguin
I think (correct me if I am wrong RJ) that he he is saying he would believe the instruction to be from God if it felt similar to the experience he has already described. If he firmly believes that earlier experience came from God and this new instruction to kill felt the same, then he would comply with the instruction.

Do I have it right RJ?

--- Penguin.

This is how I interpreted what RJHinds was saying and he seems to be semi agreeing with this interpretation so...


@RJHinds.

Ok so if you get a 'new' experience you check it against the old one to see if they are the same/similar, and you
'check against the bible' to see if this is consistent with your view of god.

But, this doesn't solve the problem because you still need an explanation for how you 'know' your first experience
was of god and not a hallucination. At most all you have done is move the problem from the new experience to the
old one.

However you haven't really even achieved that because even if we grant that the first experience was of god and
the new experience does tally with what you think the bible says, then you still can't know if this new experience
is actually of god because you now 'know' what experiencing god feels like and thus can remember/imagine/hallucinate
it and the fact that your vision tallys with your view of the bible tells you nothing about the visions authenticity.
You already know what your view of the bible is and so any hallucination you have is likely to agree with that.
It is completely unsurprising that any hallucination/delusion you have agrees with your world view.


And you still haven't explained how you can tell that the supposed 'visions' of god that people in the past allegedly
had (according to your bible) were of god and not them having hallucinations/delusions.

Your whole religion (and frankly every religion) is based on people having these visions or experiences of god 'guiding them'
and so when I ask "how can you possibly know [know not believe] if they were genuine experiences of god or not?" it is not
a trivial question.

It goes to the very core and root of your religion. (and pretty much every other religion)


If you want a great example of how and why you can't trust unverifiable 'personal experiences' you can't beat this guy.

YouTube&feature=plcp&context=C47cf383VAvjVQa1PpcFOYa9BovzPdy-iN4xDsVKffFu2QRZTkEeo=

http://blip.tv/the-atheist-experience-tv-show/aron-ra-what-we-can-and-cannot-honestly-say-we-know-5016609

YouTube

YouTube&feature=plcp&context=C41ccdd8VAvjVQa1PpcFOYa9BovzPdyy90ILUs6Tjf8Vo4zhj4BaI=

YouTube&feature=plcp&context=C4e56df5VAvjVQa1PpcFOYa9BovzPdy81smtUscfR1p07pAPMAAJE=

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is how I interpreted what RJHinds was saying and he seems to be semi agreeing with this interpretation so...


@RJHinds.

Ok so if you get a 'new' experience you check it against the old one to see if they are the same/similar, and you
'check against the bible' to see if this is consistent with your view of god.

But, this doesn't solve the ...[text shortened]... eature=plcp&context=C4e56df5VAvjVQa1PpcFOYa9BovzPdy81smtUscfR1p07pAPMAAJE=

As with Abraham's believing God was counted to him as righteousness, his faith in
God also played a part in it. Maybe this is what you do not understand and perhaps
you never will.

Originally posted by RJHinds
As with Abraham's believing God was counted to him as righteousness, his faith in
God also played a part in it. Maybe this is what you do not understand and perhaps
you never will.

I have no idea what that sentence means, perhaps if you explain it differently it would make more
sense to me.

But as written I have no clue what you are on about.

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is how I interpreted what RJHinds was saying and he seems to be semi agreeing with this interpretation so...


@RJHinds.

Ok so if you get a 'new' experience you check it against the old one to see if they are the same/similar, and you
'check against the bible' to see if this is consistent with your view of god.

But, this doesn't solve the ...[text shortened]... eature=plcp&context=C4e56df5VAvjVQa1PpcFOYa9BovzPdy81smtUscfR1p07pAPMAAJE=

To me the guy on the YouTube videos seems very pessimistic. He has many of
his so-called facts wrong and does not understand divine truth and doesn't even
believe one can know truth. Yet on another video he states all these so-called facts
as if they are true when he is trying to support evolution. Of course, many of
his facts are wrong, so in his case, he is right about not being able to know the
truth. 😏

Originally posted by googlefudge
I have no idea what that sentence means, perhaps if you explain it differently it would make more
sense to me.

But as written I have no clue what you are on about.

I forgot that you do not know the Holy Bible. It would take too much time and
effort to explain it to you and you still might not understand, so let's just forget it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I forgot that you do not know the Holy Bible. It would take too much time and
effort to explain it to you and you still might not understand, so let's just forget it.

No my problem is not that I don't know the bible it's that your sentence doesn't make sense.

I am not asking for much effort on your part, just that you take the time to actually make your
words coherent.

And you still have not presented anything resembling an explanation for how the people
in the bible could have possibly told the difference between visions of god or hallucinations.

And for you to answer to that question needs no knowledge of the bible on my part because I am
asking about the people who WROTE the bible.
I want to know how the people who wrote the bible could have possibly known the difference between
god talking to them and a hallucination and more importantly I want to know how YOU can POSSIBLY
be able to tell whether THEY were spoken to by god or had a hallucination (or were just making it up)?

For none of that do I need to know anything about the contents of the bible.
I am asking why anyone should trust the contents of the bible and to answer that you can't reference
the bible without forming a circular argument.

Originally posted by RJHinds
To me the guy on the YouTube videos seems very pessimistic. He has many of
his so-called facts wrong and does not understand divine truth and doesn't even
believe one can know truth. Yet on another video he states all these so-called facts
as if they are true when he is trying to support evolution. Of course, many of
his facts are wrong, so in his case, he is right about not being able to know the
truth. 😏

He doesn't say that you can't know truth so that's a lie to start with.
And he has none of his facts wrong.

If you think any of his facts are wrong say which ones and why (something other than evolution for f' sake).

I am not letting you get away with blandly saying he got many facts wrong, you are
going to have to say which and why.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It tells the same story to all that will accept it. HalleluYah !!! 🙄

wrong. it tells a different story to everyone.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No my problem is not that I don't know the bible it's that your sentence doesn't make sense.

I am not asking for much effort on your part, just that you take the time to actually make your
words coherent.

And you still have not presented anything resembling an explanation for how the people
in the bible could have possibly told the difference b ...[text shortened]... ible and to answer that you can't reference
the bible without forming a circular argument.

You seem to be just proving the point of my sentence that does not make sense to you.

Originally posted by googlefudge
He doesn't say that you can't know truth so that's a lie to start with.
And he has none of his facts wrong.

If you think any of his facts are wrong say which ones and why (something other than evolution for f' sake).

I am not letting you get away with blandly saying he got many facts wrong, you are
going to have to say which and why.

All the facts he gave that was wrong had to do with evolution being a fact.
Like him saying macroevolution has been observed. He gives an absurd
example of someone claiming to have seen dinosaurs to suggest eyewitness
testamony is unreliable when it comes to religion, but not when it comes to
scientific evolution which he claims is a fact. He claims religious people claim
things they can not possible know. Yet gives evolutionists a pass on the claims
they make that they can not possibly know to be true. Whe it comes to religion
he claims belief is not knowledge. Yet he still claims evolution is a fact because
he believes it. What a hypocrite!

Originally posted by RJHinds
You seem to be just proving the point of my sentence that does not make sense to you.

It doesn't make sense because it's bad grammar. Or more correctly it's nonsense.

"As with Abraham's believing God was counted to him as righteousness, his faith in
God also played a part in it."



"as with Abraham's believing god was counted to him as righteousness..."

WTF? That doesn't make any sense, it is certainly not any sort of answer to the questions
I was asking, you provide no context, this is gibberish.


Your sentence is meaningless to me not because I don't understand the bible, but because your
sentence is meaningless.

Please stop debating the point and try remaking your point with a clear and coherent sentence structure.

Or better yet as this seems to have no bearing whatsoever on the questions I was asking you could
actually answer my questions.

Originally posted by RJHinds
All the facts he gave that was wrong had to do with evolution being a fact.
Like him saying macroevolution has been observed. He gives an absurd
example of someone claiming to have seen dinosaurs to suggest eyewitness
testamony is unreliable when it comes to religion, but not when it comes to
scientific evolution which he claims is a fact. He claims re ...[text shortened]... knowledge. Yet he still claims evolution is a fact because
he believes it. What a hypocrite!

The difference is evidence.

The point of the 'absurd' example he gave about the dinosaurs walking down the
street is that he came away from having seen the dinosaur with absolutely no
evidence that the dinosaur existed.
He had no video footage, there were no crushed cars or dinosaur footprints, there
were no other eyewitnesses except eventually one other guy who's description of
the dinosaur is totally different from his meaning that if they saw anything it can't
have been the same thing.
They had no evidence.

Thus because there was no evidence he can't claim that the dinosaur really existed.

However there are mountains of evidence for evolution [and this wont change no
matter how many times you deny it] and this evidence is what allows people to talk
about the fact of evolution. Belief has NOTHING to do with it.

Now I know you are so deluded and indoctrinated that you will never accept evolution as
true regardless of the evidence or reason which is why discussing it with you is pointless.
Which is why I asked for any fact you disputed OTHER THAN ANYTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.
Because I don't give a rats a**s any more about what you think about evolution.
And nobody else does either.

Evolution is true and a fact because there is evidence supporting it and none contradicting it.
This is demonstrably true in that you can go look at all the evidence and I am not kidding when I
say you could literally bury your house in the peer-reviewed papers just detailing the evidence
for evolution. This is undeniably true and is why people accept evolution.

If you want to believe that everyone is deceived on this then I can't stop you and wont try but
when you claim that people just have faith that evolution is true, that they simply believe it
without evidence then YOU ARE LYING. Whether or not you agree with the evidence is up to you,
believe its manufactured by satan if you like, but denying it's existence is a moronic lie.
Like trying to claim that the democratic party doesn't exist just because you don't like them.

If your only argument you have is that you think evolution is wrong then don't bother making it
(anywhere near me) because I don't give a damn what you think about evolution and I already
know your view on it because you wont shut up about it.

It's boring and pointless to discus evolution with you because you are not prepared to change
your mind under any circumstances, you lie, and you have made every argument you've got a
hundred times before. Regardless of the number of times they have been refuted.


Now please answer the question I have been asking you that has nothing to do with and makes no
reference to evolution.

"Your whole religion (and frankly every religion) is based on people having these visions or experiences of god 'guiding them'
and so when I ask "how can you possibly know [know not believe] if they were genuine experiences of god or not?" it is not
a trivial question. "