This last week, I have had an exchange with a YouTube commenter with whom I have engaged in the past, Josh.
This time our conversation began with his claim that he knew that the people featured in a video were either demon possessed or demon influenced. I asked him why he believed that to be true. Here is the conversation that followed. Before I detail out the lengthy conversation, here is a link to the YouTube video where the conversation took place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsxcaG4Myyk
Josh: There are only two rulers, God and the devil. Yeshua said, if your not with me you are against me. This spells it out as clear as day, if your not on God's side there is no middle ground, no neutral ground, your on the devils side. Therefore when these people pretend do be preachers but are just after the money, they are the worst, and most likely demon possessed. Not only are they denying Christ, they are spitting all over Christ and making a mockery of Christ.
You will be happy to know that God judges them harsher than he will judge you, much harsher. They will get the full blow of judgement, you might have an excuse here and there.
Gavagai: How do you know that's true?
Josh: Because i trust what Yeshua said because he rose from the dead.
Gavagai: Josh, correct me if i'm wrong, but what you actually mean is that you trust what a whole line of people say that other people say that Jesus/Yahweh said. And you are also trusting what people said other people said about seeing a dead man alive again. Am I wrong?
Josh: ok i will correct you, your wrong.
Gavagai: So how does it actually happen that you come to know this information?
Josh: Gavagai i will not answer your questions because months back you refused to answer my questions, just know from the master himself ( me ) that your wrong as usual. That is all class dismissed.
Gavagai: What question have I refused to answer?
Josh: i asked you where you get meaning purpose morality from, you never answer it. Then i ask where you get truth from, once again no answer. It is you who has questions to answer. We will not assume you are correct this time, you need to prove that you can 1st know truth, then you need a worldview which supports a purpose in evaluating things, and then your going to need a worldview which supports meaning. You will then need a worldview which supports objective good and evil in order to argue your case that 1 way of seeing the world is in fact better than another. Go ahead. The world is waiting to see you contradict, refute yourself and make a total dingle berry of yourself. And ACTION !
Gavagai: fair enough. If I answer your question, you will answer mine?
Josh: you won't be able to, because your worldview does not allow you to make claims. I have gone over this with hundreds of atheist who never spent 2 seconds thinking about their own pre suppositions.
Not knowing your own weaknesses makes you an extremely easy target. If you want to try anyways and just get shut down one after another go for it, or you could just admit that you have no ground to step on and maintain a little bit of honor.
The choice is yours to make.
Gavagai: That's a cute rhetorical trick you've employed. You refused to answer the question I asked and complain that I haven't answered your question from some other thread. Then, when I offer to answer your question (which I believe I have answered in the past) on condition that you agree to answer the question I asked you, you dodge again by asserting that I don't have an answer to your questions. It seems that you would rather ridicule me and tell me what I can and cannot do than provide a simple response as to how you know something you claim to know.
To be fair, you have asked 4 questions here (each of which has had volumes written to define and develop theories and arguments related to their origin, significance, and application etc), so I would appreciate it if you would limit to any 1 of the 4.
From where do I get
1. meaning
2. purpose
3. morality
or
4. define for truth
The question I have asked you is comparatively simple, which leads me to believe that I am correct and you are playing a game of dodge-ball here, or you have no answer. If not, I'm sure this will be easy enough for you.
I ask again. If I answer one of your questions, will you answer the question as to where you get knowledge that Jesus rose from the dead?
Please provide a simple yes or no and select any one of the 4 questions you have asked of me.
Josh: Q will represent Question
A will represent Answer
" ...... " is you
" That's a cute rhetorical trick you've employed. "
Q: what would your point be even if it was a trick ? It is not actually objectively bad in any way according to your worldview. So why mention it ?
NEXT
" You refused to answer the question I asked and complain that I haven't answered your question from some other thread "
Q : Is it objectively bad to refuse to answer a question ? If not than what is the problem ?
" Then, when I offer to answer your question (which I believe I have answered in the past) "
A: No, you ran away
" on condition that you agree to answer the question I asked you, you dodge again by asserting that I don't have an answer to your questions. "
Q : For sake of argument let's pretend i avoided or " dodged " your question. Is that objectively bad ? If not what is the problem ?
Q: is there an objective purpose to me answering your question ? Be careful if you answer yes than your not an atheist, if you answer no your entire statement collapses in on itself.
" It seems that you would rather ridicule me and tell me what I can and cannot do than provide a simple response as to how you know something you claim to know. "
Q: Is it objectively bad to ridicule you for any reason at all ?
Q: Why do you keep on assuming a purpose in 1 response to another response in a universe void of purpose meaning and morality ?
" To be fair, you have asked 4 questions here (each of which has had volumes written to define and develop theories and arguments related to their origin, significance, and application etc), so I would appreciate it if you would limit to any 1 of the 4.
From where do I get "
A: Your right much has been written and the conclusion is, in atheism, you have no grounds for morality, meaning and purpose, and certainly not truth.
" The question I have asked you is comparatively simple, which leads me to believe that I am correct and you are playing a game of dodgeball here, or you have no answer. If not, I'm sure this will be easy enough for you. "
A: Well incase you have not noticed that you and other atheist do this or not i will try to spell it out as simply as possible. You start with the assumption that you are correct in order to go on the attack in any way. I do not concur to that assumption. So 1st you have to prove to me that you can make an argument standing on your pre suppositions alone before i can begin to actually take your arguments serious. I can take you serious but your logic completely relies on God's existence. I am thus waiting for one argument which does not contradict your worldview to work, then i am all ears.
" I ask again. If I answer one of your questions, will you answer the question as to where you get knowledge that Jesus rose from the dead?
Please provide a simple yes or no and select any one of the 4 questions you have asked of me. "
A : You do not understand apparently. It is not about answering a question, it is about asking questions which do not contradict your worldview, which you and other secularist can't seem to do.
EXAMPLE : If you ask for evidence you are assuming there is a purpose to doing so, or else you would not ask for evidence. The problem is your worldview does not allow for purpose, therefore i hold you to your worldview and do not allow you to step out of the atheist box you proclaim to reside within. I am merely making sure you make an argument which is consistent with your position.
Truth is that which corresponds CORRECTLY with reality. The problem is if you know anything about pre suppositional argumentation you will know that everything you believe about reality is an assumption, so you can't make a truth claim about reality without assuming your correct and you have yet to prove that. I can make a strong argument for why i am more rational for believing in reality being a Christian than you. Since i ground my belief in revelation given to us by the creator of reality, you ground your belief in......... in.............. well you don't. You just assume it and that assumption is then used as evidence which is then called out and then you guys go and look up frantically an answer, then your answer gets destroyed then you will inevitably resort to name calling.
But yes we will start with Truth. How do you know that anything is true in atheism ?
Gavagai: Truth is that which corresponds to reality. We apprehend the real world through our senses and we interpret our perceptions of the world using our mind and reasoning.
Now answer the question I asked you.
Josh: You have not answered anything Gavagai. You made a statement which does not mean anything, because you assumed your senses were correct to assume that you can know truth. An assumption does not make another assumption go away lol.
So let us probe a little bit deeper, how do you know your senses are correct ?
Gavagai: As far as I'm aware, sense perception is the only means we have to navigate and apprehend reality. Is there some other means that you use to accomplish this?
This time our conversation began with his claim that he knew that the people featured in a video were either demon possessed or demon influenced. I asked him why he believed that to be true. Here is the conversation that followed. Before I detail out the lengthy conversation, here is a link to the YouTube video where the conversation took place.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsxcaG4Myyk
Josh: There are only two rulers, God and the devil. Yeshua said, if your not with me you are against me. This spells it out as clear as day, if your not on God's side there is no middle ground, no neutral ground, your on the devils side. Therefore when these people pretend do be preachers but are just after the money, they are the worst, and most likely demon possessed. Not only are they denying Christ, they are spitting all over Christ and making a mockery of Christ.
You will be happy to know that God judges them harsher than he will judge you, much harsher. They will get the full blow of judgement, you might have an excuse here and there.
Gavagai: How do you know that's true?
Josh: Because i trust what Yeshua said because he rose from the dead.
Gavagai: Josh, correct me if i'm wrong, but what you actually mean is that you trust what a whole line of people say that other people say that Jesus/Yahweh said. And you are also trusting what people said other people said about seeing a dead man alive again. Am I wrong?
Josh: ok i will correct you, your wrong.
Gavagai: So how does it actually happen that you come to know this information?
Josh: Gavagai i will not answer your questions because months back you refused to answer my questions, just know from the master himself ( me ) that your wrong as usual. That is all class dismissed.
Gavagai: What question have I refused to answer?
Josh: i asked you where you get meaning purpose morality from, you never answer it. Then i ask where you get truth from, once again no answer. It is you who has questions to answer. We will not assume you are correct this time, you need to prove that you can 1st know truth, then you need a worldview which supports a purpose in evaluating things, and then your going to need a worldview which supports meaning. You will then need a worldview which supports objective good and evil in order to argue your case that 1 way of seeing the world is in fact better than another. Go ahead. The world is waiting to see you contradict, refute yourself and make a total dingle berry of yourself. And ACTION !
Gavagai: fair enough. If I answer your question, you will answer mine?
Josh: you won't be able to, because your worldview does not allow you to make claims. I have gone over this with hundreds of atheist who never spent 2 seconds thinking about their own pre suppositions.
Not knowing your own weaknesses makes you an extremely easy target. If you want to try anyways and just get shut down one after another go for it, or you could just admit that you have no ground to step on and maintain a little bit of honor.
The choice is yours to make.
Gavagai: That's a cute rhetorical trick you've employed. You refused to answer the question I asked and complain that I haven't answered your question from some other thread. Then, when I offer to answer your question (which I believe I have answered in the past) on condition that you agree to answer the question I asked you, you dodge again by asserting that I don't have an answer to your questions. It seems that you would rather ridicule me and tell me what I can and cannot do than provide a simple response as to how you know something you claim to know.
To be fair, you have asked 4 questions here (each of which has had volumes written to define and develop theories and arguments related to their origin, significance, and application etc), so I would appreciate it if you would limit to any 1 of the 4.
From where do I get
1. meaning
2. purpose
3. morality
or
4. define for truth
The question I have asked you is comparatively simple, which leads me to believe that I am correct and you are playing a game of dodge-ball here, or you have no answer. If not, I'm sure this will be easy enough for you.
I ask again. If I answer one of your questions, will you answer the question as to where you get knowledge that Jesus rose from the dead?
Please provide a simple yes or no and select any one of the 4 questions you have asked of me.
Josh: Q will represent Question
A will represent Answer
" ...... " is you
" That's a cute rhetorical trick you've employed. "
Q: what would your point be even if it was a trick ? It is not actually objectively bad in any way according to your worldview. So why mention it ?
NEXT
" You refused to answer the question I asked and complain that I haven't answered your question from some other thread "
Q : Is it objectively bad to refuse to answer a question ? If not than what is the problem ?
" Then, when I offer to answer your question (which I believe I have answered in the past) "
A: No, you ran away
" on condition that you agree to answer the question I asked you, you dodge again by asserting that I don't have an answer to your questions. "
Q : For sake of argument let's pretend i avoided or " dodged " your question. Is that objectively bad ? If not what is the problem ?
Q: is there an objective purpose to me answering your question ? Be careful if you answer yes than your not an atheist, if you answer no your entire statement collapses in on itself.
" It seems that you would rather ridicule me and tell me what I can and cannot do than provide a simple response as to how you know something you claim to know. "
Q: Is it objectively bad to ridicule you for any reason at all ?
Q: Why do you keep on assuming a purpose in 1 response to another response in a universe void of purpose meaning and morality ?
" To be fair, you have asked 4 questions here (each of which has had volumes written to define and develop theories and arguments related to their origin, significance, and application etc), so I would appreciate it if you would limit to any 1 of the 4.
From where do I get "
A: Your right much has been written and the conclusion is, in atheism, you have no grounds for morality, meaning and purpose, and certainly not truth.
" The question I have asked you is comparatively simple, which leads me to believe that I am correct and you are playing a game of dodgeball here, or you have no answer. If not, I'm sure this will be easy enough for you. "
A: Well incase you have not noticed that you and other atheist do this or not i will try to spell it out as simply as possible. You start with the assumption that you are correct in order to go on the attack in any way. I do not concur to that assumption. So 1st you have to prove to me that you can make an argument standing on your pre suppositions alone before i can begin to actually take your arguments serious. I can take you serious but your logic completely relies on God's existence. I am thus waiting for one argument which does not contradict your worldview to work, then i am all ears.
" I ask again. If I answer one of your questions, will you answer the question as to where you get knowledge that Jesus rose from the dead?
Please provide a simple yes or no and select any one of the 4 questions you have asked of me. "
A : You do not understand apparently. It is not about answering a question, it is about asking questions which do not contradict your worldview, which you and other secularist can't seem to do.
EXAMPLE : If you ask for evidence you are assuming there is a purpose to doing so, or else you would not ask for evidence. The problem is your worldview does not allow for purpose, therefore i hold you to your worldview and do not allow you to step out of the atheist box you proclaim to reside within. I am merely making sure you make an argument which is consistent with your position.
Truth is that which corresponds CORRECTLY with reality. The problem is if you know anything about pre suppositional argumentation you will know that everything you believe about reality is an assumption, so you can't make a truth claim about reality without assuming your correct and you have yet to prove that. I can make a strong argument for why i am more rational for believing in reality being a Christian than you. Since i ground my belief in revelation given to us by the creator of reality, you ground your belief in......... in.............. well you don't. You just assume it and that assumption is then used as evidence which is then called out and then you guys go and look up frantically an answer, then your answer gets destroyed then you will inevitably resort to name calling.
But yes we will start with Truth. How do you know that anything is true in atheism ?
Gavagai: Truth is that which corresponds to reality. We apprehend the real world through our senses and we interpret our perceptions of the world using our mind and reasoning.
Now answer the question I asked you.
Josh: You have not answered anything Gavagai. You made a statement which does not mean anything, because you assumed your senses were correct to assume that you can know truth. An assumption does not make another assumption go away lol.
So let us probe a little bit deeper, how do you know your senses are correct ?
Gavagai: As far as I'm aware, sense perception is the only means we have to navigate and apprehend reality. Is there some other means that you use to accomplish this?
Btw, this is the 4th or 5th time you have dodged my simple question as to how you know that Jesus was raised from the dead.
Josh: Your right it is the only way to scope reality ( our senses ).
That is why i want to know how you know your senses are accurate and correct, are you using your senses to tell you that your senses are accurate and correct ? Are you assuming they are correct as proof that they are correct ? If so than you do not know anything about reality for certain, therefore you do not know anything for certain, therefore you really can't say you know anything. Therefore i can't take anything you say seriously if i am to be logically rigorous.
That is why i want to know how you know your senses are accurate and correct, are you using your senses to tell you that your senses are accurate and correct ? Are you assuming they are correct as proof that they are correct ? If so than you do not know anything about reality for certain, therefore you do not know anything for certain, therefore you really can't say you know anything. Therefore i can't take anything you say seriously if i am to be logically rigorous.
Gavagai: I don't have to assume, but yes I do have to use my senses and reasoning
to validate that they are functioning properly. If my senses were not
functioning properly, I would expect to have difficulty navigating in
the world. If my capacity to reason was not functioning properly, I
might have difficulty understanding and predicting how the my
surroundings are presently and how my actions and the actions of others
might change our surroundings.
This is not an assumption. These are testable claims. They are verifiable through my own experience, through the observations made casually by my friends and family, and by educational and medical professionals.
It is true that I must rely on my senses to gather information and verify that my senses and reasoning are functioning properly, but it seems that I have no alternative as you have already conceded.
I hope that this account satisfies your inquiry into my base-level epistemology and theory of truth. If you have a viable alternative to validate your senses and reasoning that does not rely on your senses and reasoning for verification, I would be very interested to hear it. If not, please proceed to answer the question that you have now dodged 5 times; the one that is actually related to the content of this thread. In case you don't recall, you made the claim that Jesus is a god (or the god if you want) because he rose from the dead. You said that you don't know that he rose from the dead by way of copies of copies of copies of testimony that there were some other people who claimed to have seen Jesus alive after he was crucified.
The question remains. How do you know Jesus rose from the dead?
This is not an assumption. These are testable claims. They are verifiable through my own experience, through the observations made casually by my friends and family, and by educational and medical professionals.
It is true that I must rely on my senses to gather information and verify that my senses and reasoning are functioning properly, but it seems that I have no alternative as you have already conceded.
I hope that this account satisfies your inquiry into my base-level epistemology and theory of truth. If you have a viable alternative to validate your senses and reasoning that does not rely on your senses and reasoning for verification, I would be very interested to hear it. If not, please proceed to answer the question that you have now dodged 5 times; the one that is actually related to the content of this thread. In case you don't recall, you made the claim that Jesus is a god (or the god if you want) because he rose from the dead. You said that you don't know that he rose from the dead by way of copies of copies of copies of testimony that there were some other people who claimed to have seen Jesus alive after he was crucified.
The question remains. How do you know Jesus rose from the dead?
Josh: "I don't have to assume, but yes I do have to use my senses and reasoning to validate that they are functioning properly."
So you assumed your senses are accurate and correct to use your senses to prove that your senses are accurate and correct. If that is not circular reasoning, nothing is.
Failed. I did not bother reading past this point, i am sorry but i must hold you to your worldviews logical conclusions if this talk is going to be of any usefulness. Anyways please do tell us how you know your senses are accurate and correct, we are all waiting.
So you assumed your senses are accurate and correct to use your senses to prove that your senses are accurate and correct. If that is not circular reasoning, nothing is.
Failed. I did not bother reading past this point, i am sorry but i must hold you to your worldviews logical conclusions if this talk is going to be of any usefulness. Anyways please do tell us how you know your senses are accurate and correct, we are all waiting.
Gavagai: You have dodged answering the question for a total of 6 times now. You
are playing games and clearly don't care about what is real or true. But
if you want to play this game of epistemology, How is it that you
validate your senses and reasoning without using your senses and
reasoning?
Josh: I told you before, you have not answered my question however, therefore i
conclude that you can't know truth, therefore i should not listen to a
word your saying. Sorry simple logic
Gavagai: You have dodged every question I have asked you. You refuse to answer
the question as to how you know that Jesus was raised from the dead, and
now you have refused to answer the question as to how you validate your
senses and reasoning. You didn't read my explanation. You are more
interested in holding on to your superstitions that you are concerned
with what is real and true. You have dodged 7 times now. Either answer a
question or come back when you are ready to have a serious
conversation.
What method do you use to verify your senses and reasoning that does not employ the use of your senses are reasoning?
How do you know that Jesus raised from the dead if not from more than 1000 years of hand copied manuscripts of testimonies that other people besides the authors saw Jesus after he was dead?
What method do you use to verify your senses and reasoning that does not employ the use of your senses are reasoning?
How do you know that Jesus raised from the dead if not from more than 1000 years of hand copied manuscripts of testimonies that other people besides the authors saw Jesus after he was dead?
Josh: Hold on man let us not get side tracked, don't try to pass blame onto
me. We are trying to see if you have the authority to ask statements of
Christianity. If you can prove that you are than i will answer any
question you ask. We are currently trying to see if you are qualified or
in a position to ask such questions 1st.
So how do you know that your senses are accurate and correct?
So how do you know that your senses are accurate and correct?
Gavagai: Go back and read the post where I explained. Dodge number 8.
Josh: You mean the one where i showed it's flaw ? You can't assume it as proof of it.
I know you do not like it but i am just being tidy. There is no sense having a discussion riddled with assumptions correct ? That is supposedly your issue with Christianity is it not ? That we followers of Christ are assuming certain aspects to be true ?
Then i will hold you to your own reasoning concerning your ability to make truth claims. Essentially your question is built on the assumption that you can know truth, i am questioning your question to see if it can stand without 1st assuming God exist. Thus far you have been un able to answer the most basic of question, how do you know your senses are accurate and correct without assuming they are to prove that they are ?
If you do not like the medicine, you should not attempt to dish it out.
We all await your response because as i stated, i would shut you down everywhere because i know more about your worldview than you know about your own worldview.
Makes me giggle that you never thought about this question before. Must stink knowing that everything you think about life is based on an un provable assumption.
I know you do not like it but i am just being tidy. There is no sense having a discussion riddled with assumptions correct ? That is supposedly your issue with Christianity is it not ? That we followers of Christ are assuming certain aspects to be true ?
Then i will hold you to your own reasoning concerning your ability to make truth claims. Essentially your question is built on the assumption that you can know truth, i am questioning your question to see if it can stand without 1st assuming God exist. Thus far you have been un able to answer the most basic of question, how do you know your senses are accurate and correct without assuming they are to prove that they are ?
If you do not like the medicine, you should not attempt to dish it out.
We all await your response because as i stated, i would shut you down everywhere because i know more about your worldview than you know about your own worldview.
Makes me giggle that you never thought about this question before. Must stink knowing that everything you think about life is based on an un provable assumption.
Gavagai: Dodge #9. What do you use to validate your senses and reasoning?
Josh: Ok so you have admitted that you have no system by which to determine if
your senses are accurate and correct, you merely assume it not
grounding it in anything at all. Therefore i can't take you serious,
nothing you say can be known with certainty to be true, therefore i
choose not to listen to someone who only has assumptions to bring to the
table.
I am sorry it had to end like this, it is a sad state of affairs when everything you say can't possibly be proven to be true.
Take care and thank you for playing ! You were a Great contestant !
I am sorry it had to end like this, it is a sad state of affairs when everything you say can't possibly be proven to be true.
Take care and thank you for playing ! You were a Great contestant !
Gavagai: Josh, I have provided the answer to your question and honestly admitted that
there are flaws. You pretend to have answers, but you provide none. You
are a coward and have dodged each and every time. You should be ashamed
of yourself. This was the 10th time you have dodged the questions I have
asked you. Whenever you are ready to provide any alternative to the
method of epistemology I have provided, I am happy to hear it. Here
again are the two questions that you have repeatedly dodged.
1. How do you know Jesus was raised from the dead?
2. What method of validating your senses and reasoning do you employ that does not depend on your senses and reasoning?
1. How do you know Jesus was raised from the dead?
2. What method of validating your senses and reasoning do you employ that does not depend on your senses and reasoning?
...moreover, you are not a man of your word. The agreement we made was
that I would answer whichever question you chose for me to answer and
you, in return, would answer the question about how you came to know
Jesus was raised from the dead. You chose for me to define truth. I not
only defined truth, but made my best effort to answer your followup
question related to how it is that I recognize truth. I went above and
beyond and you have not fulfilled your end of the bargain.
Cowardly.
Cowardly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That was the end of the conversation as of Sunday 2014/08/17 . I don't normally like to hurl negatives at people, but when someone gets so arrogant and condescending, I think it's ok to call it like you see it. This kind of dishonest discussion and dodging of legitimate questions is sometimes difficult for me to navigate. I think I did pretty good in this instance and I was more than fair to Josh. I think it is worth seeing how other people deal with this kind of debate tactic, which is why I have posted the content here.
Thanks for stopping by,
Gavagai
I sincerely apologize to you, Sir, and to all the brothers and sisters out there who has been scarred and condescended and attacked by our unloving, judgmental, and condemning comments and arguments. We have been unwise in our choice of words and our hearts are not right. Forgive us that we sometimes forget that praising an infallible God doesn't cancel out the fact that we are still fallible human beings. We immediately think that we are more perfect than others and see everyone as lesser beings. We are sinners, sir. Often when we forget that truth (that we are sinners originally condemned), we become the biggest jerks. 'Religiousness' don't get into heaven, sir (there need not be any more batshit crazy debates and arguments; all questions will find its answers). Since you've read the NT, you should already know Jesus condemns those who are depends on their religion and self righteousness (which caused them to overlook God himself). Even us, who call ourselves 'believers' are still vulnerable to this sin issue.
ReplyDeleteI came here not to prove you wrong, or to seek debate, or to offend. I came across some of your comments on YouTube, and I saw how poorly your inquiry for truth has been treated by my fellow brothers and sisters. We shouldn't see your questions as threat, but as a gift. Thank you for your bold questions that challenges our faith and reason. Sometimes we fail to see that way (hence, we feel insecure and become defensive) because we see knowledge of God as if it is a vulnerable bubble that will easily pop if being 'poked'. It is actually caused by our lack of faith, instead of 'too much of faith' as one might think. We are too afraid we would 'outsmart' God and hence 'lose our faith', which, come to think of it, is actually an oxymoron. We, 'believers' who bash you, are not doing it because we think highly of God, but because we think too little of God. You challenge our view of God, that's how God has been (by grace) using you. You are a gift, brother.
Keep inquiring the truth, brother (I really do wish I'll be able to call you brother even in eternity). I don't know the plans God has for you, but I believe he has shown you mercy, simply by the fact that you are still breathing and inquiring. One thing I learn from you personally is your hunger of truth. You are not yet satisfied, and you are boldly and honorably inquiring for truth. It's something that is taken for granted especially for 'believers' and we grow complacent as we think we know 'enough'. You show us there is much more to know about God. There is a deeper well to fill.
It's been a long comment, but to sum everything up, basically, sorry and thank you. :)
Dear Anonymous,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your kind words. I don't take any of the interactions with people on the internet personally, so these engagements really don't cause me any grief or pain. As I see it, things that are true do not need to hide and they shouldn't need to employ "tactics" to derail conversations. If something is true, it should be able to stand on its own.
Also, bad behavior on the internet is definitely a problem within my camp as well. I try to both condemn the bad and praise the good when I see it no matter whose side of "the great debate" the individual falls.
Please add me on Google+ and feel free to engage or ask any questions of me you would like.
Cheers
Gavagai