Our "-isms" "-ologies"

@kellyjay said
I use 'if' to allow for reasoning it out.

Your use of "if" is a an indication that the very nature of our deductions and opinions about supernatural causality are speculative.

@kellyjay said
Why don't you ask him if Jesus was ever really in him?

divegeester is a man of strong Christian faith. Of course he believes Jesus was really in me. He also knows me well and has therefore heard me talk in depth about my faith. Why would he think that Christ was not real and that my faith was not real and that, according to his faith, Christ was in me?

@kellyjay said
Why don't you ask him if Jesus was ever really in him?

My loss of faith in Jesus does not alter divegeester's faith in Jesus.

@fmf said
Your use of "if" is a an indication that the very nature of our deductions and opinions about supernatural causality are speculative.

Because I don't believe it is hopeless to think about these things and reach a
conclusion that covers all of the bases we see in life. If we have gaping holes in the
meta-narrative, that too tells us something important more often than not.

@fmf said
My loss of faith in Jesus does not alter divegeester's faith in Jesus.

Well, I don't want to run past you my thoughts about dive any more than I want to
run past dive my thoughts about you.

@kellyjay said
Because I don't believe it is hopeless to think about these things and reach a
conclusion that covers all of the bases we see in life.

I haven't suggested that your faith [i.e. your "conclusion that 'covers all the bases' in life"] or that "to think about these things" is "hopeless". And it is disingenuous of you to insinuate that I have. Quite the opposite, in fact. If your faith gives you solace, hope, purpose etc., then all well and good.

@kellyjay said
Well, I don't want to run past you my thoughts about dive any more than I want to
run past dive my thoughts about you.

I don't give two hoots what you "want" in this respect here in a public arena for people to share their perspectives. If you are unable or unwilling to fully engage in the conversation, so be it. I also note that this pouty little retort from you has served the purpose of effectively dodging the substantial on-topic thing I said to you.

@kellyjay said
If we have gaping holes in themeta-narrative, that too tells us something important more often than not.

It's your prerogative to conclude that the lack of knowledge and/or the fact that there are things that are unknowable tells you "something important". It's also your prerogative to fill the "gaping holes" with theology.

@fmf said
I haven't suggested that your faith [i.e. your "conclusion that 'covers all the bases' in life"] or that "to think about these things" is "hopeless". And it is disingenuous of you to insinuate that I have. Quite the opposite, in fact. If your faith gives you solace, hope, purpose etc., then all well and good.

You say all we can do is speculate there is nothing disingenuous about my take on
your stance. From beginning to end, we can ask questions and see which is the most
reasonable, not just announce what we believe and leave it at that!

@fmf said
It's your prerogative to conclude that the lack of knowledge and/or the fact that there are things that are unknowable tells you "something important". It's also your prerogative to fill the "gaping holes" with theology.

It isn't the gaps that are the most telling today; it is what we do know and follow up
with what can explain what we do see. Unlike ancient days when we didn't know
why was filled in with various gods of the gaps, today it has been reversed now
what we do know has created more gaps that can only be explained by something
that transcends the material world, something immaterial.

@kellyjay said
You say all we can do is speculate there is nothing disingenuous about my take on
your stance.

To suggest that I think speculating [and by extension, faith] is "hopeless" is disingenuous, KellyJay. The complete opposite is the case... as you know full well, unless you have never read or understood any of my posts on the latter these last 10-12 years.

@kellyjay said
From beginning to end, we can ask questions and see which is the most
reasonable, not just announce what we believe and leave it at that!

No one is stopping you, KellyJay. But "the most reasonable" stuff you have come up with, viz a viz supernatural phenomena and beings, is that your beliefs make you immortal and I deserve to be tortured for eternity. So, expect a wee bit of discussion about these "truth claims" you make.

@kellyjay said
It isn't the gaps that are the most telling today; it is what we do know and follow up
with what can explain what we do see. Unlike ancient days when we didn't know
why was filled in with various gods of the gaps, today it has been reversed now
what we do know has created more gaps that can only be explained by something
that transcends the material world, something immaterial.

I am well aware of the tenets of your faith, KellyJay.

@kellyjay said
Why don't you ask him if Jesus was ever really in him?

Maybe I have, that’s not the issue.

You have no right to judge another person’s faith and it is totally against biblical teaching and instruction.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

@divegeester said
Maybe I have, that’s not the issue.

You have no right to judge another person’s faith and it is totally against biblical teaching and instruction.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

You are always going off on people about their faith, I think this only shows you that
you do not practice what you preach, again. I take him at his word, he made a
profession and changed his mind, while comparing that to both logic and scripture
what he said, about then and now cannot both be true, truth doesn't change. To be
a Christian, requires Jesus Christ, you cannot say Jesus Christ was never in you and
at the same time say you were once a Christian because in order to be one the other
simply can not be true.