Asha'man

Blatantly false, and I'm walking proof.

I was a believer, and I heard nothing from God. I searched, I listened, I prayed, I sang, and I listened again, still nothing. I began to have doubts. I searched even harder. Still, God said nothing.

Now my doubts are resolved. I have done nothing wrong, and telling me that I have is a lie. You can wiggle and squirm in your analogies and arguments, but the end remains the same: God said nothing to me.

Telling me such lies destroys your credibility. Since I know you are lying about this, I don't believe you when you say other things. You cannot possibly convert me back to Christianity when we both know you are lying to me. So why continue this farce?

emur

Yes you do. You are denying the validity of experiences such as Asha'man's because they don't fit with the bible.

Where was God when Asha'man was seeking? The only answer you can come up with apparently is that either Asha'man wasn't seeking correctly (using the right formula - which of course makes God dysfunctional) or that Asha'man wasn't seeking at all and is lying about it.

The old "testimony of God working in a life" cuts both ways. There are people like Asha'man who have a testimony that God didn't work in their life. I remember as an evangelical being taught that one's testimony is powerful, because people cannot argue against your testimony. Yet here you are, an evangelical, arguing against Asha'man's. Maybe the rules about the validity of testimonies has changed?

My beef is with anyone and any system of belief that denies the real experiences of people. Of course Paul was a mere human, subject to human errors just like the rest of us.

Mel

Cross Examiner

all,

emur asks:
Now, I've been very reluctant to use real individuals as examples in our talk about the duty of man to God. Some of you are intent upon using your lives as personal examples and have done so. I did not think this wise since it hits so close to home, it is so personal and may turn what was once a discussion into an argument. But since some of you continually insist to say what about x?...I'll oblige to use a personal example though I wash my hands of making this thread "personal" in any way.

So, emur, you say Asha'man "was seeking?" My question is simply: why would our friend Asha'man be done seeking?

Asha'man said of himself regarding his search:
"Now my doubts are resolved"

Resolved? All of them? No qualifier whatsoever?

emur writes to me:
"Yet here you are, an evangelical, arguing against Asha'man's."

I ask emur; is that so? Am I arguing against Asha'man's? If you think so, please show me my words evincing this ad hominem attack against Asha'man...

My story: as I've reiterated many times here at iidb.org, I am 95% confident in that which I have examined, combining with personal experience to lead me to where I am now. I have 5% doubt and so I seek. Continually seek. Unlike Asha'man, my doubts are not resolved, so I seek, seek even today.

On an important aside, Emur and Demigawd try to pull a fast one, a bait and switch. Perhaps unintentionally. My admonition that he who would seek continue to seek (in accordance with Jer. 29:13 among other verses) now has become my doubt against Asha'man, Emur or some other specific individual in particular; that they didn't find because these individuals didn't seek the "right way" or are "lying" about seeking (read emur and Asha'man's recent posts for the accusation specifics)? What nonsense! I make no such claims against any individual. You'll notice all my appeals were to man (general) or the seeker (generic), never once to an individual. There seems to be some confusion over the general and the specific so I will give you an example of a specific personal attack in this very thread, so a general appeal and specific ad hominem attack do not get mixed up again:

Here is what many would call a personal insult to me that Demigawd affectionately calls a "pun":

"I'd like to see the basis for this assertion, Billy Graham is drool, and no, biblical gymnastics will not do."

Rather than rip into him, simply I question the propriety of such:

"Drool? Name calling? Interesting tactic."

to which, rather than a mea culpa or even a hint of apology, which would have been returned graciously, he blames me:

"See my post title. Are you so thin-skinned you cannot accept puns?"

I love humor. I'm an avid fan of the Simpsons among other things. Never do I make these things personal against another, especially strangers. Billy Graham is cool, my chosen name, being made "Billy Graham is drool" by a stranger who wishes to badger me personally is not a pun, nor is it appropriate. Also, I'd like to see how his chosen post title plays with my name in some humorous way.

Adding injury to insult, Demigawd says to me:

"You are making concrete, dogmatic judgements on the sincerity of others' quests for truth, and frankly, your credentials for doing so are very suspect."

to which I reply:

"Who are these "others" that I am "judging?" Names would be good. And what are my credentials that you know?"

and, rather than answer my question, Demigawd replies:

"Granted, so far you've presented precious little valitidy for your stance beyond "this is what I believe". However, stating your beliefs (biblical interpretations) as matter of fact do not make them so."

He ducked my request for specifics completely. He makes a serious accusation against me and then ducks me. Read his entire post and my replies... these two examples of impropriety are not the only elements of an ad hominem attack. If they were, or if he or another even showed the slightest bit of humility, or if Emur didn't frame my general appeal to seekers as a personal attack on Asha'man or others, or Asha'man refraining from telling me "...I know you are lying about this, I don't believe you..." without any specifics about the "lie" against him personally, or even receiving the slightest bit of grace or hospitality here, by any of you... I'd let it all flow like water off a duck's back. You skeptic, is this hospitality to your theistic guests?

Jobar, a moderator at iidb, has told me that iidb.org, unlike it's Christian counterparts, welcomes the individual who would oppose the beliefs of the resident skeptic. David M. Payne attested to nearly the same thing. I was outraged to hear that censorship or mistreatment of atheist guests occurred at sites proclaiming Christ. I wanted to take these accusations up with the administrator(s) of these site(s) themselves, in the right manner. I asked for David's and Jobar's handle(s) that they used and the list(s) of Christian sites that mistreated them that I might make a case for them against their Christian persecutors and I've have had no reply from them whatsoever. Not even a "thanks but no thanks." See here and here if you need "proof" of this.

So, you have a reputation at iidb.org for promoting free speech, open-mindedness; for hospitality? Golden reputations can be lost fairly easily. As a result, I am going to unsubscribe from this thread, participate no more, start a thread in BC&H dealing with the Resurrection, and bid you all adieu.

I've presented some questions and a challenge. Take care.

Regards,
BGic

emur

It is unfortunate that BGIC will not participate any longer on this thread. But I am going to respond anyway.

And I have asked why would God not respond to Asha'man while he was seeking?

You said:
"Ah. But who is the seeker? Seeking is not merely an action but is also a condition of the heart (character/will/conscience etc). I submit that even the man himself does not truly know his own heart as well as he thinks he does. God knows fully well though. Each seeker gets what he truly seeks for."

The implication is that the seeker who seeks and doesn't find is not truly seeking. That is the basis for my comments to you regarding Asha'man. Also note that I gave you an either/or. I didn't say that "the lie" option was the only one.


No fast one intended. The generalities you brought up are meaningless unless they have specific application, IMO.

You should note, I am not an atheist.

So have others on this thread.

Mel