If I had said “God is in the business of the faithful” you probably would’ve said that isn’t correct either. From what I’ve experienced, all that most care about is simply finding a way to object to whatever the theist posts.
Deities - regardless of flavor - aren't in business. The people behind most of them, on the other hand, are: the business of selling fiction.
It’s clear you grasp the language. Sure I could’ve selected another term and you would’ve understood that as well. I have "faith" in the comprehension abilities of the reader.
Of course I grasp it, but the problem is that by using such "common" terms confusion sets is. Can one meet God? What about know him? Can one go out for a beer with God? Which words sorta-kinda apply and which don't?
And how is it that you know that?
Because - even if viewed in the light most positive to your position - the Christian God is not a physical person.
Clearly you grasp that use of the word "meet" is used for different contexts.....one "meet" is about interacting with human beings in the natural world and one "meet" is about interacting with the supernatural God.
The problem is that
you instigated confusion when you started comparing those two contexts, which you agree are different, by comparing meeting a person to meeting God.
Some scripture is anthropomorphic and some isn’t. You accuse me of cherry picking. Please provide me some examples.
I'm not accusing you, personally. I'm accusing the Bible.
How what is different exactly? Sorry, need more clarification.
How is your particular book is different to a non-believer from, say, the Qur'an, or some vedic writings. The answer is it isn't.
You don't believe in Islam and you reject the Qur'an. I don't believe in Islam or Christianity and I reject both the Qur'an and the Bible. I called the bible a "grimoire" which literally means "a book of magic spells and invocations." To someone who doesn't believe it's divinely inspired, is it not a book of magic spells and invocations? There's detailed descriptions of how to sacrifice animals to God to curry favor, or how to pray for a deity to intercede. Again, if that's not magic spells and incantations what is it?
There are plenty of facts and a huge body of evidence to support Christianity. Atheists simply reject it. Again, their rejection doesn’t negate anything.
Please list three
facts which support Christianity. Do note that per the definition, a fact is something that is, essentially, indisputable.
Why would you use Christian theology to understand the natural environment? Wouldn’t you use theology to understand the supernatural (God) and scientific methods to understand the natural? Of course with the atheist caveat being that there is no supernatural.
So, you assert that the natural environment is outside the purview of Christianity then?
This is silly. In your worldview, the answer is always "Science!" and what could be easier than that? Why does the earth orbit the sun? Science! Why is the sky blue? Science! One needn't even finish a question: the answer is Science!
No, you're wrong. In my worldview, the answer is: "Well, the theory I have is <W>, supported by <X> and <Y> and predicting <Z>. Let's see if we can observe <Z>." Before that, my answer is "Huh, I don't know. Let's find out." And I base that on one simple maxim: that we live in a world that can be understood by using logic and our rational faculity.
The difference between the answers "God!" and "Science!" is that one requires blind faith in the absence evidence while the other reasoned examination of presented evidence. The difference is that "God!" is not testable of falsifiable, whereas "Science!" is. Here, I'll give you an example: why do we fall back down to the earth after we jump?
God answer: "Because God has only allowed birds to fly."
Science answer: "Because the earth exerts a force on you that is directly proportional to the product of your two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them."
One answer is meaningless - it answers nothing and couldn't be tested. The other provides useful information that can be tested and if found to be incorrect, improved.
Comments like this are just meant to annoy. Clearly this is not how I respond to things and it's not how you respond either.
Of course it's not how people generally respond. It's a gross simplification. But people do respond along those lines, even if not that simplistically.
If you want to know the reality of God you must proactively approach him as outlined in scripture. Yes, “faith and belief” are a part of that. Folks that truly desire to know God in their lives follow through and seek him on his terms.....it's about humility and surrender.
There's an invisible flying unicorn in my back yard - a unicorn that was the source of all creation as outlined in his scripture. Are you willing to proactively approach that invisible flying unicorn as outlined in the scripture? If not, why not?
Whichever context you feel best supports your preferred scientific theories about this particular topic. I'm not married to a particular theory.....sun exploding, universe expanding, asteroid hitting earth, super-flu, etc.....all could theoretically wipe out humanity.
Well, there's no arguing that our sun will go nova. So, let's assume that humans will remain a one planet species and survive long enough for Sol to become a red giant. Let's talk...
