Simple Truth of Christ

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]1) God is not a proposition - he's a living presence

I've never made the (daft) claim that God is a proposition. 'God exists' is a proposition, and it is a false one when the 'God' at issue is the God you've described on these boards. I've already explained to you through detailed arguments (I don't know how many times now in how many threads) ...[text shortened]... 6) I think you are quite capable of perceiving the truth[/b]

Thanks.[/b]

...in order to convince me that such would be warranted you would need to provide some actual reasons why explanations invoking God are better in this capacity than explanations that do not invoke God. These reasons are what exactly? Please explicitly list them.

What a shocker, KM, that you did not respond to this request....

Originally posted by LemonJello
...in order to convince me that such would be warranted you would need to provide some actual reasons why explanations invoking God are better in this capacity than explanations that do not invoke God. These reasons are what exactly? Please explicitly list them.

What a shocker, KM, that you did not respond to this request....

You might note that there are several people around here debating with me. Apologies if I have left you out. Maybe if you could re-state your question in plain English?

I think we were at the point that I was explaining that God is not a proposition and more of a living presence. Of course I know that God is not a proposition as such , but bear in mind that the technical ins and outs of accurate debating language is not my main concern here.

I think we were at the point that I was explaining that God is not a proposition and more of a living presence.

I would like to underscore this matter of God being a "living presence".

This presence of Jesus Christ (for God is thoroughly in Christ) is to man as radio waves are to a radio.

Now a radio with no antenna cannot pick up the radio waves. Or a radio with a mail functioning antenna cannot. The radio with its antenna in place and functioning normally can substantiate the real presence of the invisible radio waves in the air.

This illustration is far from perfect. It should help a little because every person has within them God detecting, God substanting, God communing, God touching part of their being. This part of their being is like a radio antenna. It is called the human spirit.

This human spirit however is comatose and damaged in fallen sinners. That includes all of us. Our God detecting, God touching "organ" is in a deadened state. I like to use the word comatose. It is like in a coma and needs healing, awakening, reviving, and resurrection.

The sinner born into this world with a comatose human spirit does not know he has this facility. But he is often aware THAT ...
SOMETHING about him is MISSING. The man with a deadened spirit does not know that his spirit is deadened. But he knows often that there should be SOMETHING more to his life than there is.

This is a sense of vacuum or emptiness. But it is in spite of the enjoyment he may have in his soul. For example, when one goes to a party of friends and has a good time, his human soul is quite entertained and even happy.

Yet in his private inner being he is aware that while he should be completely satisfied, he seems not to be. But this inner dissatisfaction is very deep - deeper than the mind, deeper than the emotions, deeper than the will.

This sense of something not quite full is the sense of the deadness of one's human spirit.

The "living presence" that the KN writes about, I believe is the enlivening, quickening, regenerating of the innermost part of a man's being and is being joined to Jesus Christ. God in Christ actually resurrects that deadened and comatose human "antenna" and the heavenly "radio waves" of God beging to transmit into the being of the one born of God.

The THIRD and missing dimension is added to the TWO present dimensions. A quite comfortable realization of the missing matter comes alive within the man who is born again through Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by jaywill

I think we were at the point that I was explaining that God is not a proposition and more of a living presence.

I would like to underscore this matter of God being a "living presence".

This presence of Jesus Christ (for God is thoroughly in Christ) is to man as radio waves are to a radio.

Now a radio with no antenna cannot pi he missing matter comes alive within the man who is born again through Jesus Christ.

The "living presence" that the KN writes about, I believe is the enlivening, quickening, regenerating of the innermost part of a man's being and is being joined to Jesus Christ. God in Christ actually resurrects that deadened and comatose human "antenna" and the heavenly "radio waves" of God beging to transmit into the being of the one born of God.
--------------------jaywill--------------------------

I like your analogy here jaywill. For me the amazing part about the living presence of God is that you can actually at times sense Him around you (like one would sense humidity or a wind for example). Other times you can just feel Him touching your spirit or placing something on your heart. It's this experiential aspect of Christ that opens up the debate to a different dimension.

What I am trying to discuss and put forward on this thread (as you are well aware) is this experience of his presence which transcends the intellectual considerations. Jesus promised that he and his Father would "make their home with us" - it is this promise and simple truth which I am putting forward here.

Obviously I am writing now in the knowledge that whitey , lemon et al might well be reading this , so I don't want to be disingenuous about this at this point (hi guys if you are reading). Do you notice how the experiential aspects of faith / non faith often don't get discussed. It's as if God is merely an intellectual puzzle to be solved and then given some rational sense of approval. This to me is a mistake. Even if one were able to prove intellectually that God existed beyond any doubt , the whole aspect of actually knowing God personally would still be needed.

For example , if someone could prove to me "intellectually" that Robin Hood actually existed (along with Maid Marion and John etc) then it would still not be as convincing as actually going back in time and meeting him in person. I imagine that if I wanted to be heartily convinced that Robin existed then I would choose the time machine over the intellectual "proof" any day.

My supposition is that many of our Atheist friends would feel the same way. I guess they would say they would want both , but it seems to me that their intellectual "craving" for certainty and "proof" is a substitute for an unwillingness to consider the experiential ways of knowing God?

Originally posted by knightmeister
The "living presence" that the KN writes about, I believe is the enlivening, quickening, regenerating of the innermost part of a man's being and is being joined to Jesus Christ. God in Christ actually resurrects that deadened and comatose human "antenna" and the heavenly "radio waves" of God beging to transmit into the being of the one born of God.
- tute for an unwillingness to consider the experiential ways of knowing God?

To prove that something exists that something must have properties that can be detected and measured.

There must be evidence.

As there is none-currently for god, any god, then no god or gods can currently be claimed to exist.


Given the brains abilities to deceive itself no personal experience of any kind is viable evidence for let alone
proof of god.


You can't prove something exists 'intellectually' without any supporting evidence.

And if you can't prove it, you can't know it.

Originally posted by knightmeister
You might note that there are several people around here debating with me. Apologies if I have left you out. Maybe if you could re-state your question in plain English?

I think we were at the point that I was explaining that God is not a proposition and more of a living presence. Of course I know that God is not a proposition as such , but bear in mind that the technical ins and outs of accurate debating language is not my main concern here.

My question was already stated in plain English.

I'm not talking about "technical ins and outs of accurate debating language". I'm talking about something very basic and foundational to the subject of debate -- namely, the give and take of actual reasons for and against. If you do not have any, then just say so and quit wasting others' time.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The "living presence" that the KN writes about, I believe is the enlivening, quickening, regenerating of the innermost part of a man's being and is being joined to Jesus Christ. God in Christ actually resurrects that deadened and comatose human "antenna" and the heavenly "radio waves" of God beging to transmit into the being of the one born of God.
- ...[text shortened]... tute for an unwillingness to consider the experiential ways of knowing God?

That's nonsense: when have I ever asked for "certainty" or "proof" from you? And you obviously just do not get it: I cannot, even in principle, presume to experience God if I simply have no evidential reasons to think he exists in the first place.

Let's just face the fact of the matter: you have no argument (an argument is to first order some set of premises that collectively go together to support some conclusion) worth taking seriously at all, let alone the question of certainty or proof.

Originally posted by googlefudge
To prove that something exists that something must have properties that can be detected and measured.

There must be evidence.

As there is none-currently for god, any god, then no god or gods can currently be claimed to exist.


Given the brains abilities to deceive itself no personal experience of any kind is viable evidence for let alone
proo ...[text shortened]... ectually' without any supporting evidence.

And if you can't prove it, you can't know it.

Given the brains abilities to deceive itself no personal experience of any kind is viable evidence for let alone
proof of god.


You can't prove something exists 'intellectually' without any supporting evidence.

And if you can't prove it, you can't know it.

-----------------------------------google fudge------------------------------

LOL!

How do you know that you are not deceiving yourself right now?

How do you know that "if you can't prove it , you can't know it" . Do you know this is true? If so , how do you know it? Can you prove this is true? If not then how can you claim to know it?

Whilst it is true that human beings are capable of self deceit , this is a truism that applies to ALL arguments and ALL positions. Why do you think that this argument applies only to Christians?

Bear in mind that the levels of self deceit within human nature is not big news for Christianity. Paul commented on this 2000 years ago. Infact , Christianity states that humanity itself is in a state of delusion and has been seduced by the god of this world.

The problem with your position is that the " if you can't prove it , then you can't know it" is merely a dogmatic statement that you cannot prove. You have yet to REALLY examine your position properly.

Me? I'm entitled to make a statement of faith and dogma because I'm not claiming anything else. Whereas you have made an absolute statement which you cannot prove. Which is fine with me , but I wonder if this is Ok with you?

Originally posted by LemonJello
That's nonsense: when have I ever asked for "certainty" or "proof" from you? And you obviously just do not get it: I cannot, even in principle, presume to experience God if I simply have no evidential reasons to think he exists in the first place.

Let's just face the fact of the matter: you have no argument (an argument is to first order some set of ...[text shortened]... usion) worth taking seriously [b]at all, let alone the question of certainty or proof.[/b]

I cannot, even in principle, presume to experience God if I simply have no evidential reasons to think he exists in the first place.

----------------------lemonjello--------------------------------------------

Why don't you ask God to give you some reason or evidence? I'm sure that you understand that he might not open the heavens and do something Biblical , but I'm sure if you asked Him sincerely with even a very tiny amount of faith that he might do something.

You could try this prayer " God , it's lemonJello , I am really very cynical about this whole Holy Spirit thing and whether you exist at all. But I am prepared to try an experiment. I will give you some time this week and I will just be still and quiet (and open minded) and if you are real I want you to give me some sense of what these darn Christians keep going on about. I can only offer you a miniscule amount of faith , but hey it's maybe worth a try to find out what you are about. "

Would something like this be acceptable?

Originally posted by moon1969
Wow, the simple minded. Did you guys see the thread in the debate forum about that UK study correlating low IQ with social conservatives and their simple minds finding comfort of structure and hiearchy in religious organizations.

So how does this apply to me? I am a Christian and yet I am one of the most politically liberal people I know. You assume much.

Originally posted by LemonJello
My question was already stated in plain English.

I'm not talking about "technical ins and outs of accurate debating language". I'm talking about something very basic and foundational to the subject of debate -- namely, the give and take of actual reasons for and against. If you do not have any, then just say so and quit wasting others' time.

I'm talking about something very basic and foundational to the subject of debate -- namely, the give and take of actual reasons for and against. If you do not have any, then just say so and quit wasting others' time.

-------------------lemon jello-------------------------

I am also talking about very basic and foundational issues. I have asked on this thread whether anyone has ever experienced a feeling , sensation (or whatever) of receiving strength during a time of need. No -one has as yet answered.

The proposition I put forward is that God is a living presence and loves us. One example of his love at work is when human beings say things like " I don't know where I got the strength to get through that , but I did". It's just one example of God doing his thing.

Because he loves Atheists and Christians alike there will be examples of God giving his strength to Atheists in times of need. I know Atheists who will say things like "isn't the human spirit amazing , it's incredible what strength/courage people find in times of crisis" etc etc .

Me? I don't actually believe that humans have such strength by their own means. They are being helped by the Holy Spirit. This is the proposition and it's not based on some abstract intellectual theorum , it's asking questions about REAL life and REAL people. So let's get talking about stuff like this , because this is where the Living God meets us and dwells with us.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I cannot, even in principle, presume to experience God if I simply have no evidential reasons to think he exists in the first place.

----------------------lemonjello--------------------------------------------

Why don't you ask God to give you some reason or evidence? I'm sure that you understand that he might not open the heavens and do somet ...[text shortened]... orth a try to find out what you are about. "

Would something like this be acceptable?

Would something like this be acceptable?

No. I cannot believe you still do not get it. Please re-read the following thread:
Thread 83831

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm talking about something very basic and foundational to the subject of debate -- namely, the give and take of actual reasons for and against. If you do not have any, then just say so and quit wasting others' time.

-------------------lemon jello-------------------------

I am also talking about very basic and foundational issues. I have asked on tuff like this , because this is where the Living God meets us and dwells with us.

I have asked on this thread whether anyone has ever experienced a feeling , sensation (or whatever) of receiving strength during a time of need. No -one has as yet answered.

Wow, that is just false. I answered this explicitly.** You are either blatantly lying at this point, or you just do not even bother to read my direct responses. Either way, I am done with you. You are just a waste of time.

**It's on page 5, for your information. Not that you really care...

Originally posted by LemonJello
[b]I have asked on this thread whether anyone has ever experienced a feeling , sensation (or whatever) of receiving strength during a time of need. No -one has as yet answered.

Wow, that is just false. I answered this explicitly.** You are either blatantly lying at this point, or you just do not even bother to read my direct responses. Either wa ...[text shortened]... e just a waste of time.

**It's on page 5, for your information. Not that you really care...[/b]

The truth is that I missed your post on page 5 - it was on the bottom of the page. I basically just didn't see it. I must have scrolled past it or something. It happens. I assure you that I am neither "blatantly lying" nor "not bothering". It was a mistake plain and simple. Please accept my apology because I wrote my previous response without having seen your reply.

You imply that I don't care but this is your projection on to me. I went back and re-read what you had written and I do understand that you have had such experiences that I spoke of. My feeling is that we could discuss this more but we would need to re-establish some good will first. Hopefully you will realize this was an innocent mistake. Sometimes I also make replies in bold without intending to because I still don't get how to affect the text the way others do.

If I could I would buy you a beer to show good will - but maybe an imaginary cyber pint will suffice?

Originally posted by knightmeister
The truth is that I missed your post on page 5 - it was on the bottom of the page. I basically just didn't see it. I must have scrolled past it or something. It happens. I assure you that I am neither "blatantly lying" nor "not bothering". It was a mistake plain and simple. Please accept my apology because I wrote my previous response without having s would buy you a beer to show good will - but maybe an imaginary cyber pint will suffice?

My feeling is that we could discuss this more but we would need to re-establish some good will first.

I accept your apology, and I do believe you sincerely just missed the post. But, no, I am done here. We have already discussed this in depth before. It is pointless to go through this again. My advice to you would be to go re-read the other thread to which I linked (start there around page 5 and you will surely see the eerie resemblance to this current thread). Cheers to you, KM.