Why, so tomorrow people can claim that all the videos of it were faked, and that the testimonies were a bunch of liars...
Truth is, Even if god did decide to give proof, though it does say thou shalt not test thy lord, meaning dont ask for proof, That no matter what proof he gave, that people would still just call him a liar, Unless he killed everyone and sent them to heaven, then MAYBE, oh wait the bible already predicts that happening.
Wow this is a long thread lol. Time to make one post after disappearing for 6 months.
I'm not really religious at all because that's how I was raised (and well, Vancouver is a pretty non-religious area)... but also it seems too easy of a solution for our creation. To me it's like astrological-signs, psychics, "the secret", etc... all stuff made by us because it feeds into our brain's needs to want to have a reason for things, or find patterns and whatever else... but in reality there's nothing. I have no problem with the good messages that many religions preach though, especially Buddhism.
Also, practicing religion is just a time/money sink I couldn't deal with. But I guess if you thought your afterlife depended on it, you'd make time :O
I think a lot of you are substituting Catholicism for Christianity as a whole. This isn't fair to the many, many other denominations of Christianity that don't share the same beliefs. It's pretty obvious that many of you don't like the Catholic church's history and are using it for the bulk of your evidence for why you believe religion is a terrible thing. I think that it's more reasonable for you to argue that the Catholic church is a terrible thing (from your perspective) instead. I'm not saying I agree with this, but it's silly to lump all forms of religion into one group branded by your own stereotypes.
I'm not correcting all the errors in your post. I genuinely can't be bothered. If you want to summarise some key points, I'll reply.
This is a pretty lazy stance to take. I could just as easily say you don't understand Christianity and leave it at that. Why should anyone bother providing formulated opinions if you're unwilling to do the same?
If you were to view Christianity from the perspective of someone outside Catholicism a lot of your arguments fall apart. A simple example of this is Mormonism. We believe that we're the only complete restoration of the church first founded by Jesus Christ. This means that we don't associate ourselves with Catholicism (or any other religion). Furthermore, we describe the period of time after the death of Christ and His Apostles as the Great Apostasy. During the Great Apostasy, many churches were established, but they did not have priesthood power to lead people. We also believe that parts of the scriptures were corrupted or lost. This means that we don't attribute any of the religious history before Joseph Smith "restored" the LDS church as being a part of "the church." To us, this was a time of corruption during which "Christianity" was incomplete and abused for power by men lacking the spiritual authority to lead.
This also carries over to the Bible. There are so many translations that one of the central principles of Mormonism is that we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, but we only believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. This means that if you are using a version of the Bible other than the one we use (King James Version), your point(s) may not mean anything to us. It would be the same as taking the Book of Mormon and using it as evidence against Catholicism. On the other hand, many denominations don't consider Mormonism (or our books) to be part of Christianity. If Christianity itself can't agree on what makes you Christian, how can you hope to substitute one part for the whole in this argument when some wouldn't even consider the part you're using a part at all? Having the proper context when discussing Christianity makes all the difference.
Even if evolution is totally wrong, this is what the bible proposes as an alternative:
1. Fire breathing monster in the book of job
2. Giants once walked the earth
3. People once lived to be 800 years old
4. A talking donkey
5. The trinity. God gives birth to himself so that he can sacrifice himself to himself
6. Samson slays 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass. This is basically Christianity's version of Hercules.
7. Man lived in a whale for 3 days
8. Jacob wrestles with god WINS
You could switch this stuff with any of the other fairy tales you grew up with, like three little pigs or snow white, and you wouldn't know the difference. Personally, for me, I choose to be an adult. Quote:
1.) This passage describes a conversation in which God describes a creature named the Leviathan to Job. Given the context of the passage, it is likely that this was a creature that existed long before Job. While I can't offer up a definitive example of such creature, it is a common belief that the Leviathan was some form of crocodile.
The Sarcosuchus Imperator is an extinct creature that lends credibility to everything but fire breathing as most believe it probably couldn't produce flames. Given the fact that we are always discovering new species and the majority of Earth is unexplored, it's not unreasonable to believe that a property found in today's Bombardier Beetle could have produced flames in a larger creature.
2.) Some context would be nice. What book, which version of the Bible? I've read of giants in Deuteronomy 3:11 where a bed was 9 cubits by 4 cubits (13.5 feet by 6 feet), David and Goliath (described as a giant) at 6 cubits and a span (9.5+ feet tall) and of course Abraham being the height of 74 men in some books.
Ignoring the 3rd example, a cubit is based on the length from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. Today this has been accepted as 18 inches, but using my own arm, a cubit is 17 inches (I'm 5'11.5"). Given that humans are getting taller over time, it's logical that humans were shorter in biblical times. I've seen estimates from 4'10" to 5.4" feet being the average. Taking a few liberties, I'd estimate the following:
In America, a queen size mattress (which I have) is 80 inches by 60 inches. That's 6'8" by 5' (3'1.5" on a twin). Using the Queen length with the Twin width, that's a 2.13:1 ratio. 9 cubits by 4 cubits is a 2.25:1 ratio. Thus the bed is comparable to modern beds in terms of proportionality.
Subtracting my height from the mattress length (6'8" - 5'11.5) we have 8.5 inches.
Used exactly, I approximate a man on a 9 cubit bed being 9.63 to 10.70 feet tall.
Used proportionally, I approximate a man on a 9 cubit bed being 9.5 to 10.62 feet tall
This same process would put Goliath between 6-7 feet tall.
Considering the tallest recorded height is 8'11" and we're continuing to get taller, this doesn't sound that crazy. It's also important to note that the tallest people tend to have a genetic defect that caused them to grow much faster/taller than normal. It is very easy to speculate that a similar occurance happened in Biblical times.
4.) First, I'd like to point out that various birds can mimic human speech. While I agree that Donkey's don't have this ability naturally, it doesn't scream fairy tale. If you believe in God, this makes perfect sense. If you don't, then talking birds provide a potential, albeit stretched, explanation.
5.) Mormonism is a Nontrinitarianism denomenation meaning we believe God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ to be three separate individuals. To us, this statement is utterly false. This only applies to Trinitarianism
6.) I can agree this sounds like a fairy tale. You either believe it or you don't. Not really possible to "prove" it happened.
7.) A lot of explanations are admittedly thin, but this article in particular has portions that explain the natural methods by which this could have happened. Ultimately it's not a matter of whether or not a man could be swallowed whole (because they can), but how long, exactly, Jonah was in the fish/whale and whether or not he could survive that long.
8.) This is another instance where Mormonism doesn't agree. We don't believe Jacob wrestled with God, but with a messenger/angel of God. Entirely plausible as this could have simply been another man.
I don't plan to actively engage in this thread, but I felt that it's important to remember that there are many ways to interpret the Bible and other religious texts. Taking but one example and ignoring the rest is a rather ignorant way of "battling" religion.
This is a pretty lazy stance to take. I could just as easily say you don't understand Christianity and leave it at that. Why should anyone bother providing formulated opinions if you're unwilling to do the same?
It would take me hours to correct all that, and I offered to reply if he summarised his post down to a few key points. Furthermore, I present my opinions in as clear and short a format as possible. I would like people to do the same.
If you were to view Christianity from the perspective of someone outside Catholicism a lot of your arguments fall apart. A simple example of this is Mormonism. We believe that we're the only complete restoration of the church first founded by Jesus Christ. This means that we don't associate ourselves with Catholicism (or any other religion). Furthermore, we describe the period of time after the death of Christ and His Apostles as the Great Apostasy. During the Great Apostasy, many churches were established, but they did not have priesthood power to lead people. We also believe that parts of the scriptures were corrupted or lost. This means that we don't attribute any of the religious history before Joseph Smith "restored" the LDS church as being a part of "the church." To us, this was a time of corruption during which "Christianity" was incomplete and abused for power by men lacking the spiritual authority to lead.
This also carries over to the Bible. There are so many translations that one of the central principles of Mormonism is that we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, but we only believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. This means that if you are using a version of the Bible other than the one we use (King James Version), your point(s) may not mean anything to us. It would be the same as taking the Book of Mormon and using it as evidence against Catholicism. On the other hand, many denominations don't consider Mormonism (or our books) to be part of Christianity. If Christianity itself can't agree on what makes you Christian, how can you hope to substitute one part for the whole in this argument when some wouldn't even consider the part you're using a part at all? Having the proper context when discussing Christianity makes all the difference.
On the contrary, this is actually one of the reasons I'm an atheist.
There are a lot of religions. All are mutually exclusive. You can't be a Mormon and a Christian. They have mutually exclusive requirements. Likewise, Islam rejects Jesus as being the son of God. Hindus are polytheistic, and so on.
All religions are mutually exclusive. Only one can be correct.
This means that, at best, 67% of the world (non-Christians) are wrong.
This is why it's so easy for me to reject the concept of hell (pascal's wager), because I'd be joining most of the world's total population there for, basically, being born into the wrong religion.
If Christianity itself can't agree on what makes you Christian, how can you hope to substitute one part for the whole in this argument when some wouldn't even consider the part you're using a part at all?
This isn't exactly a defense of Christianity. The fact that Christianity is not the only option, let alone of the fact that Christians can't even agree between themselves, is the most telling proof that people have absolutely no idea what god wants or that god even cares whether you follow arcane protocols or not.
The universe does not revolve around us. In the lifetime of the universe it is likely that thousands of other civilizations flourished. There is no reason for God to notice our insignificant speck of a planet, let alone care whether we prostrate to Mecca at a certain time, to what specifications we cut our penis at birth, or whether we work on the Sabbath. There would be no reason for the creator of the entire universe to be thinking about you, Josh. Or you, Sarah. Or you, Kyle.
Granted, this is speculation. I don't know how the mind of an omnipotent creator of the universe would actually work, but neither does anyone else. It's the height of hubris to say otherwise.
6.) I can agree this sounds like a fairy tale. You either believe it or
you don't. Not really possible to "prove" it happened.
You could have just used this same excuse for all the examples instead of going through a series of mental gymnastics & handwaving.
Quote:
Taking but one example and ignoring the rest is a rather ignorant way of "battling" religion.
But there's more:
9. God created light before he created the sun & stars.
10. Elisha ordered bears to maul 42 children for calling him a "baldhead".
11. Resurrection was something of a triviality in biblical times. A bunch of dead saints appeared to people in the city. (Matthew 27:52-53)
12. Virgins births.
13. At one point, the entire world spoke one language.
14. God played hide & seek with Adam & Eve in the garden.
15. Talking trees (Judges 9:8).
16. God once tried to kill Moses (Exodus 4:24).
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.2 Peter 3:15
Do not bother arguing with Gradius, anyone(Christians). Eventually it comes to a point that you must remember Matthew 7:6. Let him live in wonderland which is devoid of any truth and requires more faith than our knowledge.
You keep claiming that you have such concrete knowledge of God. But I am still waiting for you to actually explain how you know that he is and does what you think is and does.
So far all we have established is that there was something that turned a lot of energy into a lot of mass ("creation", if you will) some time ago. I can agree with you here; Science has a place for something like this called the Higgs Boson particle - it's what the Large Hadron Collider (SUPER expensive machine) was built to find.
But how do you get from (A) turning energy into mass to (B) a deity/god/father that cares about me, wants me to believe in and worship him so he can perform miracles and reward me with eternal life, has 10 commandments he will judge me with and punish me if I don't follow, and does all of this for his own glory?
Seems like a bit of a stretch to me - was hoping you had more to explain.
Grad, I would not recommend prayer. There are theories that somehow relate to something that could happen without the aid of a supernatural entity. I forgot where I read it.
An amputee growing limbs. This implies an act that is currently beyond our capability, or that goes somewhat beyond what we'd call "within the laws" either it be at the macro level or micro level.
Stories have been spread in the past and even today about Resurrection (not the one where a person's body can behave like in a quantum level, just the simple, dead for 3 days and ta-da!).
There are also stories that have been handed down to a vast community about blind people able to see, lame people able to walk, deaf able to hear, leprosy cured, hormonal imbalance in a female cured, etc. etc.
But of course even video footage can be edited now and no one can believe even the authenticity of UFO footage as being of intelligent design that is beyond human technology. Ghost footage, strange white jumpy fast protoss like being zipping behind a small kid? People say fake.
I guess what I'm saying is, what possible evidence could anyone come up with that will be so clear that a supernatural, sentient (is God capable of subjective experience?) God has revealed himself.
============================
On Tempting God (Putting God to the Test):
--------------------------------------------------------
Asking for proof isn't putting God to the test. To test here means to provoke into doing something to prove supremacy for example or any other thing that can be turned against Him. To provoke is different than to ask for a miracle, help, or enlightenment. I believe.
Matthew 4:1-11 <- Dawkins tempts Jesus? Just kidding.
In any case, the question is somewhat says, "Show me something that I can believe, which others cannot deny ever." I believe this summation is correct, yes?
=======================
TLBarrin:
----------------------------------------------
If I were to answer your question, it is possible to take any knowledge from other sources by investigation as revelation from God. It is crucial though to accept as believers that all we know about God is what is revealed.
"Am I a God at hand, and not far away? Do I not fill the heavens?" or something like that.
But there is a "filter" so to speak, in order to be able to investigate whether the idea presented is in line.
In theology, Principalities, rulers, etc. of the air, come in different flavors and colors. Jesus said something that could be taken in response, "What is not against you, is for you". Regardless the preacher or scientist, the information if validated as truthful can be taken by the believer and establish greater perspectives from that.
This is true in some way since at some text it said something like, "Jesus is the foundation" and there's a message that says something like, "the things God establishes will not be destroyed or will remain" something like that.
In any case, given that there are 9000 levels of denominations, it is safe to conclude that none of us has the single and whole truth, rather each one may contain things that will be shaken off, and things that will remain. It's like water and oil really.
There is though a single truth that when split will kaboom everything around it. An honest theist will be open and flexible, but always watchful.
About why Jesus and his message is superior to others is another topic. This struggle has created apologetics and theologians. And in some form or other it's a big mess. This is evidence enough, that if one is serious in finding God or knowing who and what He is, you don't want to look at things from both inward reflection and objective observation. It has to be of "the fourth dimension" so to speak. That somewhat mysterious knowing one gets from all forms of movement.
=============================
On evolution vs. Creationism
----------------------------------------------------------
2 Peter 3:8
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Though this text was in context with the return of Christ and "why he's taking so long", this can be applied also in the creation of the world.
============================
#9 Light prior to Sun and Stars
-------------------------------------------------------
Here's an idea how to answer that Grad:
"Well, gravity must exist first prior to matter coalescing yes? Thus, the matter that light exists must be established first prior to creating Gigantic balls of things that in the process produce things that bounce off things which when entering the eye will be filtered and fed into the brain etc, etc."
It's crazy, I know. :)
======================
#10 Fallibility of Bible figures
--------------------------------------------
This is a common theme. David did something nasty, Solomon, Abraham, Sarah. Let me focus on this.
I think, should we consider Abraham to be real and his experiences real, we can only assume that whoever was talking to him and saying, "Sacrifice your son" is either speaking metaphorically or otherwise it is not the God who promised him a nation out from his seed.
Whoever the God of the old testament is, either it is the actual invisible great unknowable one, or it was someone else claiming to be God. Not necessarily the devil, but hey, the universe is vast, right? :D
Do not bother arguing with Gradius, anyone(Christians). Eventually it
comes to a point that you must remember Matthew 7:6. Let him live in
wonderland which is devoid of any truth and requires more faith than our
knowledge.
Yeah, I'm down here living in "wonderland" aka. observable reality. It's a blast.
└(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐
Asking for proof isn't putting God to the test. To test here means to provoke into doing something to prove supremacy for example or any other thing that can be turned against Him. To provoke is different than to ask for a miracle, help, or enlightenment. I believe.
Religion employs several mental traps to keeps its believers complicit, and this is one of them.
There is no evidence for god -> why doesn't god prove himself -> you cannot tempt god OR god removed himself from our sight after original sin
There is no evidence for god -> show me the evidence -> evidence is not needed because:
1) Not asking for evidence will multiply your rewards in the afterlife. "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.""
2) This is the correct religion anyway. People who disagree are just setting out to deceive you. See EternalWraith's last quote.
3) The scripture is the word of god, and the priests are entrusted with the authority of God. They have divine authority, therefore it's not even up for debate.
The con men who wrote the bible put in hundreds of these verses which reassure believers of how virtuous they are for the mere act of believing, and how foolish everyone else is for not, most notably "no one can come to the Father except through me". This is why believers consistently reiterate that not only do they not need evidence, but they're also proud of the fact that they don't need evidence. It's a sad state of affairs.
Nah, it's metaphoric. I don't think the guys 2000 years ago had atomic scale.
9000 years, 7777 years, 70x7 times, it's all symbolic. Asking a tribe somewhere here, who don't have numbers for use will just say, "oh, that's pleanty; oh that's few no deal".
But I see what you did there. :)
Take this for example:
Luke 12:29-31
And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.
And the crusades happened flawlessly, and now we have this shit.
It's crazy. Obviously that means science to me. If we can develop technology where we can create 7000 loaves of bread from a machine...
--------------------------------------------------------
this might be blasphemous, but bear with me:
1 Peter 2:9
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
1. Priests in the past went into chambers or were the officials trusted to seek the signs of the times, to mix stuff and remove mold in a house, to mix herbs to cure disease.
2. They were entrusted to look into the vast unknown, formulate theories, and test them out with themselves first, then announce to others.
3. Holy - means to be separate, not subjective. Objective. To be different.
"who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light"
possible translation:
"through the laws of nature inexorably evolve intelligence and mental capacity that takes you from mystery into workable theories which seem so strange and yet brilliant."
Don't try to claim science is in the bible. That's really stupid.
No scientific discoveries have been made via studying the bible. Fact.
What you're doing is taking modern science and twisting scripture until it fits.
In addition, Dr. Kaku's quote refers to the innate curiosity within all children. Religion destroys this curiosity by saying "God-dun-it and that's that." Dr. Kaku is a known atheist.
That is Christianity, be you Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, etc. It doesn't matter. We're all Children of God.
I won't spend time debating with the atheists because no matter what points you (Christians of any denomination) make, you can't prove the existence of God because it is based on faith, a concept they have no desire to give merit.
Trust me, I used to be one (an atheist), and without a stimulation of all five senses through the Holy Spirit, they won't even consider higher power as a possibility.
I will say this, especially to Eiviyn, as you seem quite passionate. I will... no one on this forum will ever be able to convince you there is a God through logic or reason. But I ask you this from the bottom of my heart to please pray one more time to God, and ask him to reveal himself to you, when no one is around. Soften your heart if for only one moment to the possibility he may be on the other end of the line. Pour your heart unto him, and he will give you a
resolution like nothing you've ever known... but only if you mean it, if only for a moment in time.
If you abandoned religious faith and poured your effort into scientific pursuit, you would comprehend the universe so much better and appreciate the universe so much more.
On the contrary, this is actually one of the reasons I'm an atheist.
There are a lot of religions. All are mutually exclusive. You can't be a Mormon and a Christian. They have mutually exclusive requirements. Likewise, Islam rejects Jesus as being the son of God. Hindus are polytheistic, and so on.
All religions are mutually exclusive. Only one can be correct.
This means that, at best, 67% of the world (non-Christians) are wrong.
This is why it's so easy for me to reject the concept of hell (pascal's wager), because I'd be joining most of the world's total population there for, basically, being born into the wrong religion.
I'm not saying that you would become a Christian, I'm stating that much of your argument is built upon Catholic history and does not represent all parts of Christianity. Especially the part where you'd land in hell for being born into the wrong religion. Mormonism (and many other religions) do not believe this. It stands as a prime example of where your knowledge of one small portion of Christianity is generalizing the whole.
I'd also argue that religions are not mutually exclusive and that I am not aware of any requirements in Mormonism that prevent us from being considered Christian. Christianity is, at its core, the belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings through the Bible (and other works). Any other requirements for being considered Christian are imposed by the various denominations and not Christianity itself.
I would also disagree that only one religion can be correct. A suitable analogy would be a school exam. Assume the topic is "Where did we come from?" and there are 10 questions. Most religions believe they got 9/10 while everyone else scored 0-8 out of 10. There are certainly religions that directly oppose each other, but it would be ignorant to NOT see the parallels that run through religions all over the world. I was very specific when I said that Mormonism considers itself the only "complete" restoration. I didn't say the only "true" restoration because that's not what I (nor Mormonism) believe. We fully acknowledge that many religions out there practice beliefs we agree with, but we disagree on parts and/or are more specific about what we believe in. I think it is presumptuous to say that we are the only correct way of believing in God and if you don't believe our way you're not [Insert Religion Here]. You might not be a Mormon, but you could still be a Christian. Just like I wouldn't be a Catholic, but could still be Christian.
This isn't exactly a defense of Christianity. The fact that Christianity is not the only option, let alone of the fact that Christians can't even agree between themselves, is the most telling proof that people have absolutely no idea what god wants or that god even cares whether you follow arcane protocols or not.
The universe does not revolve around us. In the lifetime of the universe it is likely that thousands of other civilizations flourished. There is no reason for God to notice our insignificant speck of a planet, let alone care whether we prostrate to Mecca at a certain time, to what specifications we cut our penis at birth, or whether we work on the Sabbath. There would be no reason for the creator of the entire universe to be thinking about you, Josh. Or you, Sarah. Or you, Kyle.
Granted, this is speculation. I don't know how the mind of an omnipotent creator of the universe would actually work, but neither does anyone else. It's the height of hubris to say otherwise.
So scientists are allowed to consistently disagree (something that will never change so long as science is pursued by humans), but religion (based heavily upon human interpretation of human translations) isn't allowed to disagree? This is a weak argument and a stretch at best.
I'd also suggest that you're making the same mistake as Eiviyn by using one Christian belief to represent the whole. What you're talking about has no bearing on what I believe. I believe in many things including life on other planets as described in the Bible. In fact, many religions believe that life exists on other planets. I find your point to be incredibly ignorant of this. It was the mistake of men (of which some weren't even religious) to claim that we are the center of the universe, not the Bible. You would to better to separate the two.
I also believe there are many reasons for God to care about our planet, but it is not a discussion that I could have with you because it would require you to understand the principles that lead to that conclusion in the first place. I doubt that you know much about Mormon beliefs, so it it would be a waste of time until you researched the subject.
As for the idea that knowing what God wants is hubris, I think you're being dramatically grandiose. You might have a point if religion was based entirely upon the ideas of men without any literature to support it, but that's not the case. We believe God told us what he wants and that the personal accounts of those from Biblical times illustrate these things. We don't assume "God wants us to be good because I think that's what he'd want," we believe this because the scriptures contain what we believe is the word of God.
Obviously you have to believe in these religious texts in the first place, but we don't presume to know what God is thinking. We don't know how his mind works else we wouldn't rely so heavily on faith. Mormons are encouraged to seek out answers for themselves despite the fact that we have a Prophet we believe communes with God. This is because mistakes happen and we shouldn't automatically assume what the Prophet tells is 100% true. Mormonism opposes blind faith.
Even if evolution is totally wrong, this is what the bible proposes as an alternative:
6. Samson slays 1000 men with the jawbone of an ass. This is basically Christianity's version of Hercules.
I can agree this sounds like a fairy tale. You either believe it or you don't. Not really possible to "prove" it happened.
You could have just used this same excuse for all the examples instead of going through a series of mental gymnastics handwaving.
Now you're trying too hard. This isn't an excuse and I'd suggest you go learn what an excuse actually looks like. Not only did I agree with you (it does sound like a fairy tale), I went further and said I couldn't prove it happened. An excuse would have been "I don't need proof, I have faith."
While I would have found that answer acceptable, I knew you wouldn't. Somehow me agreeing with you is still an excuse and thus unacceptable to you. Brushing aside the rest of what I said as "mental gymnastics" and/or "handwaving" tells me that you're not interested in hearing what I have to say. I didn't use the Bible to justify the Bible, I used real world examples to justify the Bible and admitted those points that couldn't justify in a manner you would accept.
I'm not going to entertain anymore of your points until you address mine. It would be a waste of my time to exert effort providing my perspective when you're going to ignore the bulk of my points by jumping to points that I agree with you on. . . which you then attempt to spin as if I'm dodging your criticism.
I will say this, especially to Eiviyn, as you seem quite passionate. I will... no one on this forum will ever be able to convince you there is a God through logic or reason. But I ask you this from the bottom of my heart to please pray one more time to God, and ask him to reveal himself to you, when no one is around. Soften your heart if for only one moment to the possibility he may be on the other end of the line. Pour your heart unto him, and he will give you a
resolution like nothing you've ever known... but only if you mean it, if only for a moment in time.
That is all.
I've tried. It would be unscientific of me to have not tried.
I am a very open minded individual and if someone said to me "Hey, try this, see if you find God", I'd (and I have in the past) give it an honest go. Anything less would make me unreasonable.
The 3rd reason I'm an atheist is the above. If there were a god, any god, and we're "children of that god", then it'd clearly be part of his, or her, plan for me to be an atheist.
Trust me, I used to be one (an atheist), and without a stimulation of all five senses through the Holy Spirit, they won't even consider higher power as a possibility.
Let me ask you a simple question.
Which is more likely, that the creator of the universe took a moment out of his schedule to bestow upon you (and not 67% of the non-Christians) this complete sensational experience? Or, that you are under a misapprehension?
To compound the latter, these experiences happen in every faith. Some, like Hinduism, don't even believe in Yahweh (though they're free to pray to him, there's no real restrictions), yet they also receive this.
You can retort that by saying "They're just misinterpreting it", which is fair enough, but it begs the question; "How do you know you aren't the one misinterpreting it?"
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
@Eiviyn: Go
Why, so tomorrow people can claim that all the videos of it were faked, and that the testimonies were a bunch of liars...
Truth is, Even if god did decide to give proof, though it does say thou shalt not test thy lord, meaning dont ask for proof, That no matter what proof he gave, that people would still just call him a liar, Unless he killed everyone and sent them to heaven, then MAYBE, oh wait the bible already predicts that happening.
You're guessing. You can't make that claim until credible proof is presented.
Wow this is a long thread lol. Time to make one post after disappearing for 6 months.
I'm not really religious at all because that's how I was raised (and well, Vancouver is a pretty non-religious area)... but also it seems too easy of a solution for our creation. To me it's like astrological-signs, psychics, "the secret", etc... all stuff made by us because it feeds into our brain's needs to want to have a reason for things, or find patterns and whatever else... but in reality there's nothing. I have no problem with the good messages that many religions preach though, especially Buddhism.
Also, practicing religion is just a time/money sink I couldn't deal with. But I guess if you thought your afterlife depended on it, you'd make time :O
I think a lot of you are substituting Catholicism for Christianity as a whole. This isn't fair to the many, many other denominations of Christianity that don't share the same beliefs. It's pretty obvious that many of you don't like the Catholic church's history and are using it for the bulk of your evidence for why you believe religion is a terrible thing. I think that it's more reasonable for you to argue that the Catholic church is a terrible thing (from your perspective) instead. I'm not saying I agree with this, but it's silly to lump all forms of religion into one group branded by your own stereotypes.
This is a pretty lazy stance to take. I could just as easily say you don't understand Christianity and leave it at that. Why should anyone bother providing formulated opinions if you're unwilling to do the same?
If you were to view Christianity from the perspective of someone outside Catholicism a lot of your arguments fall apart. A simple example of this is Mormonism. We believe that we're the only complete restoration of the church first founded by Jesus Christ. This means that we don't associate ourselves with Catholicism (or any other religion). Furthermore, we describe the period of time after the death of Christ and His Apostles as the Great Apostasy. During the Great Apostasy, many churches were established, but they did not have priesthood power to lead people. We also believe that parts of the scriptures were corrupted or lost. This means that we don't attribute any of the religious history before Joseph Smith "restored" the LDS church as being a part of "the church." To us, this was a time of corruption during which "Christianity" was incomplete and abused for power by men lacking the spiritual authority to lead.
This also carries over to the Bible. There are so many translations that one of the central principles of Mormonism is that we believe the Book of Mormon to be the word of God, but we only believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly. This means that if you are using a version of the Bible other than the one we use (King James Version), your point(s) may not mean anything to us. It would be the same as taking the Book of Mormon and using it as evidence against Catholicism. On the other hand, many denominations don't consider Mormonism (or our books) to be part of Christianity. If Christianity itself can't agree on what makes you Christian, how can you hope to substitute one part for the whole in this argument when some wouldn't even consider the part you're using a part at all? Having the proper context when discussing Christianity makes all the difference.
1.) This passage describes a conversation in which God describes a creature named the Leviathan to Job. Given the context of the passage, it is likely that this was a creature that existed long before Job. While I can't offer up a definitive example of such creature, it is a common belief that the Leviathan was some form of crocodile.
The Sarcosuchus Imperator is an extinct creature that lends credibility to everything but fire breathing as most believe it probably couldn't produce flames. Given the fact that we are always discovering new species and the majority of Earth is unexplored, it's not unreasonable to believe that a property found in today's Bombardier Beetle could have produced flames in a larger creature.
2.) Some context would be nice. What book, which version of the Bible? I've read of giants in Deuteronomy 3:11 where a bed was 9 cubits by 4 cubits (13.5 feet by 6 feet), David and Goliath (described as a giant) at 6 cubits and a span (9.5+ feet tall) and of course Abraham being the height of 74 men in some books.
Ignoring the 3rd example, a cubit is based on the length from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger. Today this has been accepted as 18 inches, but using my own arm, a cubit is 17 inches (I'm 5'11.5"). Given that humans are getting taller over time, it's logical that humans were shorter in biblical times. I've seen estimates from 4'10" to 5.4" feet being the average. Taking a few liberties, I'd estimate the following:
Me: 5'11.5" (71.5 inches) = 3.97 cubits @ 17 inches/cubit
Biblical Low: 4'10" (58 inches) = 81.12% = 13.79 inches/cubit
9 Cubits = 124.11 inches or 10.34 feet (length of bed)
Biblical High: 5'4" (64 inches) = 89.51% = 15.22 inches/cubit
9 Cubits = 136.95 inches or 11.41 feet (length of bed)
In America, a queen size mattress (which I have) is 80 inches by 60 inches. That's 6'8" by 5' (3'1.5" on a twin). Using the Queen length with the Twin width, that's a 2.13:1 ratio. 9 cubits by 4 cubits is a 2.25:1 ratio. Thus the bed is comparable to modern beds in terms of proportionality.
Subtracting my height from the mattress length (6'8" - 5'11.5) we have 8.5 inches.
Used exactly, I approximate a man on a 9 cubit bed being 9.63 to 10.70 feet tall.
Used proportionally, I approximate a man on a 9 cubit bed being 9.5 to 10.62 feet tall
This same process would put Goliath between 6-7 feet tall.
Considering the tallest recorded height is 8'11" and we're continuing to get taller, this doesn't sound that crazy. It's also important to note that the tallest people tend to have a genetic defect that caused them to grow much faster/taller than normal. It is very easy to speculate that a similar occurance happened in Biblical times.
3.) While this isn't strictly a Mormon belief, here is an interesting attempt at explaining this phenomenon.
4.) First, I'd like to point out that various birds can mimic human speech. While I agree that Donkey's don't have this ability naturally, it doesn't scream fairy tale. If you believe in God, this makes perfect sense. If you don't, then talking birds provide a potential, albeit stretched, explanation.
5.) Mormonism is a Nontrinitarianism denomenation meaning we believe God, the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ to be three separate individuals. To us, this statement is utterly false. This only applies to Trinitarianism
6.) I can agree this sounds like a fairy tale. You either believe it or you don't. Not really possible to "prove" it happened.
7.) A lot of explanations are admittedly thin, but this article in particular has portions that explain the natural methods by which this could have happened. Ultimately it's not a matter of whether or not a man could be swallowed whole (because they can), but how long, exactly, Jonah was in the fish/whale and whether or not he could survive that long.
8.) This is another instance where Mormonism doesn't agree. We don't believe Jacob wrestled with God, but with a messenger/angel of God. Entirely plausible as this could have simply been another man.
I don't plan to actively engage in this thread, but I felt that it's important to remember that there are many ways to interpret the Bible and other religious texts. Taking but one example and ignoring the rest is a rather ignorant way of "battling" religion.
It would take me hours to correct all that, and I offered to reply if he summarised his post down to a few key points. Furthermore, I present my opinions in as clear and short a format as possible. I would like people to do the same.
On the contrary, this is actually one of the reasons I'm an atheist.
There are a lot of religions. All are mutually exclusive. You can't be a Mormon and a Christian. They have mutually exclusive requirements. Likewise, Islam rejects Jesus as being the son of God. Hindus are polytheistic, and so on.
All religions are mutually exclusive. Only one can be correct.
This means that, at best, 67% of the world (non-Christians) are wrong.
This is why it's so easy for me to reject the concept of hell (pascal's wager), because I'd be joining most of the world's total population there for, basically, being born into the wrong religion.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumThis isn't exactly a defense of Christianity. The fact that Christianity is not the only option, let alone of the fact that Christians can't even agree between themselves, is the most telling proof that people have absolutely no idea what god wants or that god even cares whether you follow arcane protocols or not.
The universe does not revolve around us. In the lifetime of the universe it is likely that thousands of other civilizations flourished. There is no reason for God to notice our insignificant speck of a planet, let alone care whether we prostrate to Mecca at a certain time, to what specifications we cut our penis at birth, or whether we work on the Sabbath. There would be no reason for the creator of the entire universe to be thinking about you, Josh. Or you, Sarah. Or you, Kyle.
Granted, this is speculation. I don't know how the mind of an omnipotent creator of the universe would actually work, but neither does anyone else. It's the height of hubris to say otherwise.
You could have just used this same excuse for all the examples instead of going through a series of mental gymnastics & handwaving.
But there's more:
9. God created light before he created the sun & stars.
10. Elisha ordered bears to maul 42 children for calling him a "baldhead".
11. Resurrection was something of a triviality in biblical times. A bunch of dead saints appeared to people in the city. (Matthew 27:52-53)
12. Virgins births.
13. At one point, the entire world spoke one language.
14. God played hide & seek with Adam & Eve in the garden.
15. Talking trees (Judges 9:8).
16. God once tried to kill Moses (Exodus 4:24).
Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. 2 Peter 3:15
Do not bother arguing with Gradius, anyone(Christians). Eventually it comes to a point that you must remember Matthew 7:6. Let him live in wonderland which is devoid of any truth and requires more faith than our knowledge.
@EternalWraith: Go
You keep claiming that you have such concrete knowledge of God. But I am still waiting for you to actually explain how you know that he is and does what you think is and does.
So far all we have established is that there was something that turned a lot of energy into a lot of mass ("creation", if you will) some time ago. I can agree with you here; Science has a place for something like this called the Higgs Boson particle - it's what the Large Hadron Collider (SUPER expensive machine) was built to find.
But how do you get from (A) turning energy into mass to (B) a deity/god/father that cares about me, wants me to believe in and worship him so he can perform miracles and reward me with eternal life, has 10 commandments he will judge me with and punish me if I don't follow, and does all of this for his own glory?
Seems like a bit of a stretch to me - was hoping you had more to explain.
Do you rely on faith?
On 'Ultimate' Proof of God:
Grad, I would not recommend prayer. There are theories that somehow relate to something that could happen without the aid of a supernatural entity. I forgot where I read it.
An amputee growing limbs. This implies an act that is currently beyond our capability, or that goes somewhat beyond what we'd call "within the laws" either it be at the macro level or micro level.
Stories have been spread in the past and even today about Resurrection (not the one where a person's body can behave like in a quantum level, just the simple, dead for 3 days and ta-da!).
There are also stories that have been handed down to a vast community about blind people able to see, lame people able to walk, deaf able to hear, leprosy cured, hormonal imbalance in a female cured, etc. etc.
But of course even video footage can be edited now and no one can believe even the authenticity of UFO footage as being of intelligent design that is beyond human technology. Ghost footage, strange white jumpy fast protoss like being zipping behind a small kid? People say fake.
I guess what I'm saying is, what possible evidence could anyone come up with that will be so clear that a supernatural, sentient (is God capable of subjective experience?) God has revealed himself.
============================
On Tempting God (Putting God to the Test):
--------------------------------------------------------
Asking for proof isn't putting God to the test. To test here means to provoke into doing something to prove supremacy for example or any other thing that can be turned against Him. To provoke is different than to ask for a miracle, help, or enlightenment. I believe.
Matthew 4:1-11 <- Dawkins tempts Jesus? Just kidding.
In any case, the question is somewhat says, "Show me something that I can believe, which others cannot deny ever." I believe this summation is correct, yes?
=======================
TLBarrin:
----------------------------------------------
If I were to answer your question, it is possible to take any knowledge from other sources by investigation as revelation from God. It is crucial though to accept as believers that all we know about God is what is revealed.
"Am I a God at hand, and not far away? Do I not fill the heavens?" or something like that.
But there is a "filter" so to speak, in order to be able to investigate whether the idea presented is in line.
In theology, Principalities, rulers, etc. of the air, come in different flavors and colors. Jesus said something that could be taken in response, "What is not against you, is for you". Regardless the preacher or scientist, the information if validated as truthful can be taken by the believer and establish greater perspectives from that.
This is true in some way since at some text it said something like, "Jesus is the foundation" and there's a message that says something like, "the things God establishes will not be destroyed or will remain" something like that.
In any case, given that there are 9000 levels of denominations, it is safe to conclude that none of us has the single and whole truth, rather each one may contain things that will be shaken off, and things that will remain. It's like water and oil really.
There is though a single truth that when split will kaboom everything around it. An honest theist will be open and flexible, but always watchful.
About why Jesus and his message is superior to others is another topic. This struggle has created apologetics and theologians. And in some form or other it's a big mess. This is evidence enough, that if one is serious in finding God or knowing who and what He is, you don't want to look at things from both inward reflection and objective observation. It has to be of "the fourth dimension" so to speak. That somewhat mysterious knowing one gets from all forms of movement.
=============================
On evolution vs. Creationism
----------------------------------------------------------
2 Peter 3:8
But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
Though this text was in context with the return of Christ and "why he's taking so long", this can be applied also in the creation of the world.
============================
#9 Light prior to Sun and Stars
-------------------------------------------------------
Here's an idea how to answer that Grad:
"Well, gravity must exist first prior to matter coalescing yes? Thus, the matter that light exists must be established first prior to creating Gigantic balls of things that in the process produce things that bounce off things which when entering the eye will be filtered and fed into the brain etc, etc."
It's crazy, I know. :)
======================
#10 Fallibility of Bible figures
--------------------------------------------
This is a common theme. David did something nasty, Solomon, Abraham, Sarah. Let me focus on this.
I think, should we consider Abraham to be real and his experiences real, we can only assume that whoever was talking to him and saying, "Sacrifice your son" is either speaking metaphorically or otherwise it is not the God who promised him a nation out from his seed.
Whoever the God of the old testament is, either it is the actual invisible great unknowable one, or it was someone else claiming to be God. Not necessarily the devil, but hey, the universe is vast, right? :D
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
Curse PremiumYeah, I'm down here living in "wonderland" aka. observable reality. It's a blast.
└(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┘┌(-.-)┐└(-.-)┐
Religion employs several mental traps to keeps its believers complicit, and this is one of them.
There is no evidence for god -> why doesn't god prove himself -> you cannot tempt god OR god removed himself from our sight after original sin
There is no evidence for god -> show me the evidence -> evidence is not needed because:
1) Not asking for evidence will multiply your rewards in the afterlife. "Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.""
2) This is the correct religion anyway. People who disagree are just setting out to deceive you. See EternalWraith's last quote.
3) The scripture is the word of god, and the priests are entrusted with the authority of God. They have divine authority, therefore it's not even up for debate.
The con men who wrote the bible put in hundreds of these verses which reassure believers of how virtuous they are for the mere act of believing, and how foolish everyone else is for not, most notably "no one can come to the Father except through me". This is why believers consistently reiterate that not only do they not need evidence, but they're also proud of the fact that they don't need evidence. It's a sad state of affairs.
Science has designed a "space-time" clock that can outlast the universe and tell time with perfect precision down to the last picosecond: http://www.tgdaily.com/general-sciences-features/66404-spacetime-clock-could-outlast-the-universe-as-we-know-it
Yet religion cannot decide whether a day is a day or 1000 years. I wonder which I should go with. :P
Nah, it's metaphoric. I don't think the guys 2000 years ago had atomic scale.
9000 years, 7777 years, 70x7 times, it's all symbolic. Asking a tribe somewhere here, who don't have numbers for use will just say, "oh, that's pleanty; oh that's few no deal".
But I see what you did there. :)
Take this for example:
Luke 12:29-31
And do not seek what you are to eat and what you are to drink, nor be worried. For all the nations of the world seek after these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, seek his kingdom, and these things will be added to you.
And the crusades happened flawlessly, and now we have this shit.
It's crazy. Obviously that means science to me. If we can develop technology where we can create 7000 loaves of bread from a machine...
--------------------------------------------------------
this might be blasphemous, but bear with me:
1 Peter 2:9
9 But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of him who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light.
1. Priests in the past went into chambers or were the officials trusted to seek the signs of the times, to mix stuff and remove mold in a house, to mix herbs to cure disease.
2. They were entrusted to look into the vast unknown, formulate theories, and test them out with themselves first, then announce to others.
3. Holy - means to be separate, not subjective. Objective. To be different.
"who called you out of darkness into his marvelous light"
possible translation:
"through the laws of nature inexorably evolve intelligence and mental capacity that takes you from mystery into workable theories which seem so strange and yet brilliant."
As Mr. Kaku said, "we are all born scientists..."
Whatever you do, wholeheartedly, moment by heartfelt moment, becomes a tool for the expression of your very soul.
Don't try to claim science is in the bible. That's really stupid.
No scientific discoveries have been made via studying the bible. Fact.
What you're doing is taking modern science and twisting scripture until it fits.
In addition, Dr. Kaku's quote refers to the innate curiosity within all children. Religion destroys this curiosity by saying "God-dun-it and that's that." Dr. Kaku is a known atheist.
Love God. Love people.
That is Christianity, be you Catholic, Baptist, Protestant, etc. It doesn't matter. We're all Children of God.
I won't spend time debating with the atheists because no matter what points you (Christians of any denomination) make, you can't prove the existence of God because it is based on faith, a concept they have no desire to give merit.
Trust me, I used to be one (an atheist), and without a stimulation of all five senses through the Holy Spirit, they won't even consider higher power as a possibility.
I will say this, especially to Eiviyn, as you seem quite passionate. I will... no one on this forum will ever be able to convince you there is a God through logic or reason. But I ask you this from the bottom of my heart to please pray one more time to God, and ask him to reveal himself to you, when no one is around. Soften your heart if for only one moment to the possibility he may be on the other end of the line. Pour your heart unto him, and he will give you a
resolution like nothing you've ever known... but only if you mean it, if only for a moment in time.
That is all.
@Creation25: Go
Superstitious nonsense.
@FDFederation: Go
Thank God we're all entitled to our own opinion.
@Creation25: Go
If you abandoned religious faith and poured your effort into scientific pursuit, you would comprehend the universe so much better and appreciate the universe so much more.
@FDFederation: Go
I've done both. I'm happier where I am this time, and I appreciate God's gift of life with great humility.
@FDFederation: Go Agreed, explaining everything by God is probably fucking boring.:
I'm not saying that you would become a Christian, I'm stating that much of your argument is built upon Catholic history and does not represent all parts of Christianity. Especially the part where you'd land in hell for being born into the wrong religion. Mormonism (and many other religions) do not believe this. It stands as a prime example of where your knowledge of one small portion of Christianity is generalizing the whole.
I'd also argue that religions are not mutually exclusive and that I am not aware of any requirements in Mormonism that prevent us from being considered Christian. Christianity is, at its core, the belief in Jesus Christ and his teachings through the Bible (and other works). Any other requirements for being considered Christian are imposed by the various denominations and not Christianity itself.
I would also disagree that only one religion can be correct. A suitable analogy would be a school exam. Assume the topic is "Where did we come from?" and there are 10 questions. Most religions believe they got 9/10 while everyone else scored 0-8 out of 10. There are certainly religions that directly oppose each other, but it would be ignorant to NOT see the parallels that run through religions all over the world. I was very specific when I said that Mormonism considers itself the only "complete" restoration. I didn't say the only "true" restoration because that's not what I (nor Mormonism) believe. We fully acknowledge that many religions out there practice beliefs we agree with, but we disagree on parts and/or are more specific about what we believe in. I think it is presumptuous to say that we are the only correct way of believing in God and if you don't believe our way you're not [Insert Religion Here]. You might not be a Mormon, but you could still be a Christian. Just like I wouldn't be a Catholic, but could still be Christian.
So scientists are allowed to consistently disagree (something that will never change so long as science is pursued by humans), but religion (based heavily upon human interpretation of human translations) isn't allowed to disagree? This is a weak argument and a stretch at best.
I'd also suggest that you're making the same mistake as Eiviyn by using one Christian belief to represent the whole. What you're talking about has no bearing on what I believe. I believe in many things including life on other planets as described in the Bible. In fact, many religions believe that life exists on other planets. I find your point to be incredibly ignorant of this. It was the mistake of men (of which some weren't even religious) to claim that we are the center of the universe, not the Bible. You would to better to separate the two.
I also believe there are many reasons for God to care about our planet, but it is not a discussion that I could have with you because it would require you to understand the principles that lead to that conclusion in the first place. I doubt that you know much about Mormon beliefs, so it it would be a waste of time until you researched the subject.
As for the idea that knowing what God wants is hubris, I think you're being dramatically grandiose. You might have a point if religion was based entirely upon the ideas of men without any literature to support it, but that's not the case. We believe God told us what he wants and that the personal accounts of those from Biblical times illustrate these things. We don't assume "God wants us to be good because I think that's what he'd want," we believe this because the scriptures contain what we believe is the word of God.
Obviously you have to believe in these religious texts in the first place, but we don't presume to know what God is thinking. We don't know how his mind works else we wouldn't rely so heavily on faith. Mormons are encouraged to seek out answers for themselves despite the fact that we have a Prophet we believe communes with God. This is because mistakes happen and we shouldn't automatically assume what the Prophet tells is 100% true. Mormonism opposes blind faith.
Now you're trying too hard. This isn't an excuse and I'd suggest you go learn what an excuse actually looks like. Not only did I agree with you (it does sound like a fairy tale), I went further and said I couldn't prove it happened. An excuse would have been "I don't need proof, I have faith."
While I would have found that answer acceptable, I knew you wouldn't. Somehow me agreeing with you is still an excuse and thus unacceptable to you. Brushing aside the rest of what I said as "mental gymnastics" and/or "handwaving" tells me that you're not interested in hearing what I have to say. I didn't use the Bible to justify the Bible, I used real world examples to justify the Bible and admitted those points that couldn't justify in a manner you would accept.
I'm not going to entertain anymore of your points until you address mine. It would be a waste of my time to exert effort providing my perspective when you're going to ignore the bulk of my points by jumping to points that I agree with you on. . . which you then attempt to spin as if I'm dodging your criticism.
I've tried. It would be unscientific of me to have not tried.
I am a very open minded individual and if someone said to me "Hey, try this, see if you find God", I'd (and I have in the past) give it an honest go. Anything less would make me unreasonable.
The 3rd reason I'm an atheist is the above. If there were a god, any god, and we're "children of that god", then it'd clearly be part of his, or her, plan for me to be an atheist.
Let me ask you a simple question.
Which is more likely, that the creator of the universe took a moment out of his schedule to bestow upon you (and not 67% of the non-Christians) this complete sensational experience? Or, that you are under a misapprehension?
To compound the latter, these experiences happen in every faith. Some, like Hinduism, don't even believe in Yahweh (though they're free to pray to him, there's no real restrictions), yet they also receive this.
You can retort that by saying "They're just misinterpreting it", which is fair enough, but it begs the question; "How do you know you aren't the one misinterpreting it?"