Christianity v. MAGA Christianity

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
Now, I'm sure there are many theists who believe they have had some kind of direct contact with God, and in which case their belief (to them) is not void of proof. - My previous post was in response to Suzianne's assertion that there 'can be no proof of God' and that everything she thought of God was 'without evidence.'

Well, exactly, but my personal proof is just that, MY personal proof. God is not that shy about proving himself to people who have made their choice. That doesn't affect their free will, they have already exercised their free will. Thus we have saints and others who have directly felt the touch of God. Yes, I have testimony, and as always people are free to believe me or to disbelieve me. They have that choice.

@Suzianne said
Well, exactly, but my personal proof is just that, MY personal proof. God is not that shy about proving himself to people who have made their choice. That doesn't affect their free will, they have already exercised their free will. Thus we have saints and others who have directly felt the touch of God. Yes, I have testimony, and as always people are free to believe me or to disbelieve me. They have that choice.

I wont even buy chocolate without hard evidence it has a high coco content.

@moonbus said
One of the conceptual problems of Christian theology is that too many omnis are not all mutually consistent. Omniscience (knowing all things), omnipotence (unlimited power to do things), omnifecence (doing all things, i.e., moving molecules), and omnipresence (being everywhere at once) don't all fit under the same hat.

If one assumes that God's Hand is guiding evolution, ...[text shortened]... -it's really not compatible with traditional Christian conceptions of God or mankind's purpose here.

"or based on some theological argument (the Vatican)"

They also believe that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation). I cannot buy into that. Even if they think it is some 'miracle'. We don't get many of those these days. Yet they think their 'miracle' happens all over the country every Sunday. Not buying it. Miracles are not wasted on those who do not follow him. Part of their purpose is to strengthen the belief of the faithful.

But God does not do "parlor tricks", even if some high priest or whoever asks him to.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
I wont even buy chocolate without hard evidence it has a high coco content.

No, I imagine you wouldn't. 😀 Me neither.

@moonbus said
It would require an omniscient Being to foresee which mutations would survive the next hundred thousand years. We'll never know which ones they are though. We have to go on what evidence we have now.

Yes, exactly. No argument there.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
And yet many Christians do speak with certainty when it comes to what they believe and the errors of what others might believe.

How is this certainty substantiated if faith is merely opinion or conjecture that can't be proven.

Well, as I was saying, there is undeniable proof, such as something many have witnessed, then there is personal proof, meant for only you.

One {"did you see that?" ) is easier than the other {"hey, guess what happened to me?" ).

@Suzianne said
"or based on some theological argument (the Vatican)"

They also believe that the Eucharist is the actual body and blood of Jesus (transubstantiation). I cannot buy into that. Even if they think it is some 'miracle'. We don't get many of those these days. Yet they think their 'miracle' happens all over the country every Sunday. Not buying it. Miracles a ...[text shortened]... e faithful.

But God does not do "parlor tricks", even if some high priest or whoever asks him to.

Yes, exactly, no argument there.

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
And yet many Christians do speak with certainty when it comes to what they believe and the errors of what others might believe.

How is this certainty substantiated if faith is merely opinion or conjecture that can't be proven.

It is substantiated by sheer numbers of believers (‘they can’t ALL be wrong” (of course they can) ), and by putting a demagogue in power who rewrites history to support your preferred narrative, that’s how. That is, until a reality check comes due. Like, say, videos of the future president bonking under-aged girls. GOP - the party of greedy old pedophiles. Of course, the MAGA acolytes would find some way to spin even that … “Trump is doing God’s will in spite of himself” or some such twaddle.

PS “he didn’t know they were under age” isn’t a valid excuse when it comes to child molesting.

@moonbus said
It is substantiated by sheer numbers of believers (‘they can’t ALL be wrong” (of course they can) ), and by putting a demagogue in power who rewrites history to support your preferred narrative, that’s how. That is, until a reality check comes due. Like, say, videos of the future president bonking under-aged girls. GOP - the party of greedy old pedophiles. Of course, the MAG ...[text shortened]... .

PS “he didn’t know they were under age” isn’t a valid excuse when it comes to child molesting.

Polls have shown that 47% of responding Republicans say they will still support Trump, even if it is proved he was part of Epstein's little pedo gang.

Clearly, his base is completely morally bankrupt.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-epstein-republican-voters/

@moonbus said
It is substantiated by sheer numbers of believers (‘they can’t ALL be wrong” (of course they can) ), and by putting a demagogue in power who rewrites history to support your preferred narrative, that’s how. That is, until a reality check comes due. Like, say, videos of the future president bonking under-aged girls. GOP - the party of greedy old pedophiles. Of course, the MAG ...[text shortened]... .

PS “he didn’t know they were under age” isn’t a valid excuse when it comes to child molesting.

"The greater the sin, the greater the Grace."

"If I hadn't dallied with those young teenagers, I wouldn't be your Blessed and God-Protected President today because of the Butterfly Effect."

@Suzianne said
Yes. You'd probably have to get somewhere like a different universe or dimension to change the laws of physics, and even then it's not certain.

But at this stage of the game we are not capable of jaunting about within the Greater Cosmos to do some spot-checks at great remove to confirm that the so-called "Laws of Physics" might really be constant throughout the Cosmos.

@Suzianne said
Well, exactly, but my personal proof is just that, MY personal proof. God is not that shy about proving himself to people who have made their choice. That doesn't affect their free will, they have already exercised their free will. Thus we have saints and others who have directly felt the touch of God. Yes, I have testimony, and as always people are free to believe me or to disbelieve me. They have that choice.

It might surprise you to learn that I'm happy you have had such an experience or experiences and confirmation(s).

@Suzianne said
No, I imagine you wouldn't. 😀 Me neither.

As an aside, what did the Tibetan monk say when he saw the face of Jesus in a tub of margarine?

“I can’t believe it’s not Buddha.”


(Might not work outside of the UK)

@Ghost-of-a-Duke said
As an aside, what did the Tibetan monk say when he saw the face of Jesus in a tub of margarine?

“I can’t believe it’s not Buddha.”


(Might not work outside of the UK)

Lol!


I remember the Fabio commercials.

@Arkturos said
But at this stage of the game we are not capable of jaunting about within the Greater Cosmos to do some spot-checks at great remove to confirm that the so-called "Laws of Physics" might really be constant throughout the Cosmos.

There is no reason they wouldn't be, and observations are exactly as expected.

The only places the laws of physics gets a kick in the ass is inside the event horizon of a black hole.