post no 24 and 26
I find that atheists are always trying to dictate what is Christian.This is especially true if one is supporting liberal sorts of theology.On CARM Keith made the statement derisively everlasting my experince of God's presence as "belief based on some grand feeling of being happy" soemthing of that nature. I told him: "there's a lot more to it. I have always said it doesn't turn on the actual feeling of the experience." I provided a link to my testimony.
Yes I have before, and cutting right to the "religious experience" part, there was nothing that stood out as "Christian" whatsoever. In fact you claim someone or something transmitted to you the names of Mayan cities, which could mean that the same extraterrestrials that influenced the Mayans still had residual technology that influenced you also. I don't see why this has to be "Jesus Christ".He's distorting what I said. A remark in my testimony (see link above) about when I first recieved the gift of tongues I was saying certain words that I latter found as Myan place names.He concludes that bedause he can't figure out immediately without knowing any of the facts of my life why God would tell me Myan place names that this must prove it's BS. The tpical narrow minded stupidity of thes hateful creatons to think that if they don't get something right away there's nothing to it.
Of course he's totally distorting the issue of the place names. Just for the record I have a theory about why God would give me Myan place names. I understand it and he doesn't need to know that. Of cousre he concludes that my whole faith is based upon that one thing. It's not. far from it. I could find tomorrow those were the words I said I wouldn't care a whit because that is a totally minor incident. The gist of the story is that I was knocked standing up from a sitting position out a chair by a bolt of what felt like electricity but it didn't hurt, my arts were pulled up by a magician feeling force, my palms seemed to burn with fire and I began moving my mouth in ways I had to fight against not to say. I could control it but decided to go with it. My ilfe changed completely and dramatically for the better form that point on. The one thing from that whole story that he chooses to comment on and that he deems is the only important thing is the place the names. They are a totally unimportant side bar. Even the dramatic feelings of extacy are a side bar. The narrow minded know alls must have their way.
I point out the Christian nature of tongues. It's in Acts, It's in 1 Corinthians. My testimony conforms basically to the standards of a thousand other Charismatic stories. He says:
I am familiar with the delusional charismatic groups and pentecostal groups that fall backwards in their chairs and run around the church screaming and yelling gibberish. When my old church was sold, it was sold to one of these groups. Nobody knows what they are talking about and the "interpreter" (if there is one) makes up even more gibberish, which is nothing like the story in Acts, which was real terrestrial human language to get converts from other nationalities.Here he is again trying to define what is Christian. Why should be allowed to do this? He went to chruch as a kid (as though I didn't). He beloved to a group that he deems is the only Christian group and they get to decide who is Christian and who isn't. you can tell he was a fundamentalist becasue he still is! Little does he realize that it was my group that I grew up in that was the only true Christian group.
When I show that my experience conforms to groups that are immanently understood to be Christian he pulls out this childhood prejudice and decliners them not Christian. This tactic is even more ridiculous because here is a guy whose only understanding of Christianity comes from some childhood experince in a very narrow provincial group trying to dictate to a guy with a Masters degree in theology form a major seminary in a mainline protestant chruch (UMC) what's what theologically.
The God hater club has to keep way form the Christian image any sort of positive elements like education or liberalism. So they insist that view that doesn't portray Christianity as stupid and unrefined is false and unchristian. this shows the circular nature of atheist reasoning, on the part of the segment of athesits who think this way (whihc is fortunatley not all of them). Their reason for hating Christianity is that it's narrow and unrefined and uneducated, yet when we show that it's not that way, they reject the reality and fight to keep the image of it that way. This means they are not concerned with what's true but with what helps their side.