Lack of accurate knowledge....

@fmf said
Your belief in the supposee authenticity and authority of "God's Word" does not alter the fact that all your opinions rooted in that belief are subjective.

You are simply projecting your own subjective religious experience into the narrative.

The authentic and authoritative truth of God's Word is an objective fact regardless of ones subjective response to it.

You're confusing apples with oranges. Again.

@secondson said
The authentic and authoritative truth of God's Word is an objective fact regardless of ones subjective response to it.

Your repeated assertions regarding the supposed "authentic and authoritative truth of God's Word [being] an objective fact" are completely subjective and faith-based.

@secondson said
You are simply projecting your own subjective religious experience into the narrative.

I am simply saying that I am fully aware of what having strong convictions and certainty about one's faith is like. I understand why you feel the way you do ~ and why you believe what you do ~ about Jesus and God.

@fmf said
From my point of view ~ and in my experience of having had strong faith and the sense of exuberance and fulfilment that comes with it ~ I understand that you feel absolutely certain you've had some kind of supernatural "experience of regeneration". But it's not something that's actually real in any objective way; it's just something that feels very, very real to you.

The reason you insist on subjectivity is because your argument depends on it.

The new birth is real and an objective fact experientially contrary to the exuberant and emotional fulfillment you had through your subjective religious experience.

You knew about Jesus, but you never had an encounter with the risen savior, because if you had you never would have lost your faith.

@fmf said
I used to believe stuff similar to this about myself so I fully understand why you believe it about yourself.

I'm sure you thought you believed "stuff similar" to what I believe, but yours was only a subjective religious experience and lacked the substance of truth relative to the objective experience of the genuine encounter with the living God.

@fmf said
Rest assured, I get why you believe this kind of thing.

No you don't.

But it might be interesting to hear you say how you "get why" I believe "this kind of thing".

Spare me the "solace" argument please.

@secondson said
The reason you insist on subjectivity is because your argument depends on it.

All you and I are doing are sharing our subjective opinions and perspectives.

@secondson said
it might be interesting to hear you say how you "get why" I believe "this kind of thing".

Because I know what it's like to have strong faith in Jesus and for it to permeate my life and my thinking.

@secondson said
I'm sure you thought you believed "stuff similar" to what I believe, but yours was only a subjective religious experience and lacked the substance of truth relative to the objective experience of the genuine encounter with the living God.

You don't seem to know what "objective" means.

@secondson said
You knew about Jesus, but you never had an encounter with the risen savior, because if you had you never would have lost your faith.

It was all just as real to me then as it is to you now.

@fmf said
Twenty or so years ago I would have been asserting these kinds of things with every bit as much conviction as you are now.

Maybe with an intellectual assent to a set of religious beliefs, but not with the substance of conviction that comes from knowing the living God.

You thought you knew God, but then you thought you didn't, so logically, according to that process, you now think that what you used to think was wrong, which makes your assertions about knowing "these kinds of things" substance-less.

And as an agnostic-atheist your points of view and assertions relative to the supernatural, based on the fact that your mind is fickle and subject to the vagaries of the winds of change brought about by unsubstantiated information, lack credibility.

In other words, there's nothing in your arsenal of arguments against faith in the reality of the genuine experience of an encounter with the living God that carries any weight because in one day you think you believe and the next day you don't.

@fmf said
It's not the only thing you have seemed unable to remember despite them coming up in discussions.

Rest assured, I haven't forgotten what you imagined you thought you said to me about having been a Catholic.

@secondson said
there's nothing in your arsenal of arguments against faith in the reality of the genuine experience of an encounter with the living God that carries any weight because in one day you think you believe and the next day you don't.

I am not making "arguments against [your] faith". I am just sharing my perspective.

@secondson said
And as an agnostic-atheist your points of view and assertions relative to the supernatural, based on the fact that your mind is fickle and subject to the vagaries of the winds of change brought about by unsubstantiated information, lack credibility.

You say I lack credibility, which is your prerogative of course, but, having been a follower of Jesus for many years and having had strong faith, I probably have more credibility talking about the nature of faith than I would have if I'd only ever been a non-believer all my life.

@divegeester said
Are you suggesting that FMF cannot have had a relationship with God because he was a catholic?

I notice you ducked this question secondson.