The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom

[Texasbuckeye]

Beagle1, you are missing the point i am making, again. Both you and JP said uou meeded repeated verifiable evidence that God exists beofre you will belive. All i have done is stated, correctly, that you both accept emotions (which are not verifiable, not consistnet, and very dependent on the person experiencing) are real and valid. So i am just pointing out many people on this thread have given such experiences that prove TO THEM the existence of God, but you have discounted those experience and said they are not valid.

I have never said your or anyone else’s emotions are not valid, quite the contrary. I have acknowledged those emotions are very real and that you believe they are also real.

Take thay for what it is. If you don’t see the logical flaw of such a position, the. I can not help you.

Regarding the other stuff you wrote, i wont go into that since it was a post directly responding to JP and does not apply to anyone else per se (though it can be applicable in the correct settings).

 

[Jason Snyder]

If there were hugely evidential findings or events that demonstrated the existence of God, I doubt you would have to look very hard to find them. They wouldn’t be a secret, and it wouldn’t take 29 pages on a hunting forum.

As it is, you probably know as much as the rest of us. We just see it differently .

I didn’t grow up in the church and didn’t start attending until I was in my 30s. I’m a skeptic by nature. But, I choose to believe in and put my faith in God.

 

[Jason Snyder]

This tattoo holds a lot of significance to me.

The mountain is a place where I had my most impactful encounter with God. Enough so that I don’t question Gods existence.

The verse speaks to event as well.

“So the Lord must wait for you to come to him so he can show you his love and compassion. For the Lord is a faithful God. Blessed are those who wait for his help.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭30‬:‭18‬ ‭NLT.



Keep questioning. Keep searching. Everyone’s faith journey is their own. That’s what makes it authentic. For years, my faith was real, and true, but not fully authentic.

 

[Jpsmith1]

I think Jpsmith1 has been very clear about the reasons for his lack of belief in God yet he is repeatedly asked to re-explain himself, often in response to replies that disregard, misstate or distort what he's said.

Regarding Stoicism, he follows a moral code which stresses living a virtuous life in harmony with nature. Its core virtues are courage, wisdom, justice and temperance. These are not controversial values and I think any reasonable person would consider this a good way to live one's life. You mentioned modern therapy uses it. Could that be because it works?

You accuse him of being dishonest with himself because he requires verifiable evidence to prove the existence of God yet accepts emotional experiences in other areas of his life. This is a core point you keep misstating even though it has been explained in detail by him (and me) in numerous prior posts. Also, to turn it around would it be fair to accuse you of being dishonest with yourself for not requiring verifiable evidence.

So once again yes emotional experiences are real but are not sufficient to determine what is objectively true about the universe. A person can have quirky reactions to belt loops and feel love without a scientific experiment. But it is not reasonable to say one's quirks proves the existence of evil spirits or his love provides the basis for a worldview. The feelings are real and valid but not evidence God caused them. Strength of belief has nothing to do with whether the belief is true.

Now expand this further, people of all religions report life changing experiences they attribute to their god or gods. Which ones should we believe? What if they contradict each other? If all the experiences should be treated equally and some of them lead persons away from God are they still valid? This is the Pandora's box you are opening by relying on personal experiences, it offers no way to tell the truth from fiction. As you say this is a perfect example of something you need to keep a more open mind about going forward in the future.

You say you are not going to psychoanalyze him then proceed to do so. You also need to be careful about that. If someone said you believe in God because you had a loving father and projected that onto God the Father you would justifiably consider that unfair and be upset. What cuts one way also cuts the other. That's the problem with your one sided analysis. It puts a negative cloud around the position you don't agree with but leaves yours unexamined. You should apply your psychological analysis equally to believers as well as nonbelievers.

So he is not dismissing anyone's personal experience and he is not asking for evidence that is irrefutable proof. But he is asking for more than personal experiences and ancient texts when deciding whether God exists.

I would also be clear that I don't consider myself a stoic.

I use that small bit of Aurelius' writings as a counter to Pascal's Wager which is the context I presented it in originally.

I think it is a far better way to think about life and afterlife given the veritable cornucopia of deities we are presented with.

I think that Pascal's Wager, approached honestly, would require an evaluation of all the 'heavens' and all the 'hells' and choosing the best one/worst one and believing that because it is, at its core, a selfish idea.

 

[Jpsmith1]

Beagle1, you are missing the point i am making, again. Both you and JP said uou meeded repeated verifiable evidence that God exists beofre you will belive. All i have done is stated, correctly, that you both accept emotions (which are not verifiable, not consistnet, and very dependent on the person experiencing) are real and valid. So i am just pointing out many people on this thread have given such experiences that prove TO THEM the existence of God, but you have discounted those experience and said they are not valid.

I have never said your or anyone else’s emotions are not valid, quite the contrary. I have acknowledged those emotions are very real and that you believe they are also real.

Take thay for what it is. If you don’t see the logical flaw of such a position, the. I can not help you.

Regarding the other stuff you wrote, i wont go into that since it was a post directly responding to JP and does not apply to anyone else per se (though it can be applicable in the correct settings).

I think I see what you're trying to say.

Emotions are personal. They are very real and, to a large extent, within one psyche at least, repeatable. I guess for the sake of this, we should talk mostly about non-disordered brains because people with emotional disregulation issues are a whole different problem.

So, I experience emotions when I see my wife. When she talks to me or smiles at me or when I see the sun shine off of that little lock of grey she has developed and wears so beautifully. You don't experience those when seeing MY wife. You may when seeing YOUR wife which I wouldn't.

So, kind of to the heart of this.

Are YOUR internal experiences a reason to change MY life? Are MY internal experiences a reason to change YOUR life?

I mean, should I have married your wife? I'm quite attached to mine these days.

And yes, I'm being a bit flippant and absurd here trying to make this point

 

[Cowbell]

This tattoo holds a lot of significance to me.

The mountain is a place where I had my most impactful encounter with God. Enough so that I don’t question Gods existence.

The verse speaks to event as well.

“So the Lord must wait for you to come to him so he can show you his love and compassion. For the Lord is a faithful God. Blessed are those who wait for his help.”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭30‬:‭18‬ ‭NLT.

View attachment 908850

Keep questioning. Keep searching. Everyone’s faith journey is their own. That’s what makes it authentic. For years, my faith was real, and true, but not fully authentic.

This is good stuff man. If anyone wants to truely find God, I believe they will and the scriptures tell us that - Jeremiah 29:13 "You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart". Sometimes it comes as a surreal event of blessing, sometimes gradual, and sometimes in the valley of life when we realize we are internally broken.

 

[Cowbell]

You

I think I see what you're trying to say.

Emotions are personal. They are very real and, to a large extent, within one psyche at least, repeatable. I guess for the sake of this, we should talk mostly about non-disordered brains because people with emotional disregulation issues are a whole different problem.

So, I experience emotions when I see my wife. When she talks to me or smiles at me or when I see the sun shine off of that little lock of grey she has developed and wears so beautifully. You don't experience those when seeing MY wife. You may when seeing YOUR wife which I wouldn't.

So, kind of to the heart of this.

Are YOUR internal experiences a reason to change MY life? Are MY internal experiences a reason to change YOUR life?

I mean, should I have married your wife? I'm quite attached to mine these days.

And yes, I'm being a bit flippant and absurd here trying to make this point

Your relationship with your wife as you describe is really similar to a true Christian's relationship with God. Something that cant be seen or experienced by someone else until they have that relationship. Difference is God has personal relationships with many vs the one on one of marriage. And it sounds like your relationship has grown in experience and maturity as you have walked together. But those of us that don't know your wife would never understand the true value she is to you and or the love you share.

 

[Shortschaf]

I think that Pascal's Wager, approached honestly, would require an evaluation of all the 'heavens' and all the 'hells' and choosing the best one/worst one and believing that because it is, at its core, a selfish idea.

No it would not require an evaluation of all religions. Like any other wager, one would be best off believing in what is most likely--not which one is liked best

Christianity happens to be both the most likely, and totally fullfilling by my measure.

As for being a selfish choice--a follower of Christ quite literally is required to lead a selfless and charitable life.

Yes, certainly the motivation is to not suffer eternal hellfire and instead be in the presence of God and have eternal joy. But we care about our fellow man as much or more than ourselves.

If we could lasso everyone to come to heaven with us, we would. But as a rule of the free will we are given, each must believe and follow Christ on their own

 

[Beagle1]

Beagle1, you are missing the point i am making, again. Both you and JP said uou meeded repeated verifiable evidence that God exists beofre you will belive. All i have done is stated, correctly, that you both accept emotions (which are not verifiable, not consistnet, and very dependent on the person experiencing) are real and valid. So i am just pointing out many people on this thread have given such experiences that prove TO THEM the existence of God, but you have discounted those experience and said they are not valid.

I have never said your or anyone else’s emotions are not valid, quite the contrary. I have acknowledged those emotions are very real and that you believe they are also real.

Take thay for what it is. If you don’t see the logical flaw of such a position, the. I can not help you.

Regarding the other stuff you wrote, i wont go into that since it was a post directly responding to JP and does not apply to anyone else per se (though it can be applicable in the correct settings).

I do understand your point. You’re claiming there’s a logical flaw in accepting emotions as “real” while rejecting religious experiences as evidence for God. But again and this has been explained several times, you’re missing the crucial distinction.

No one here has denied the validity of emotions. I fully accept that emotional experiences are real and personally significant to you and others. What I am saying is that real emotional experiences do not automatically validate the conclusions people draw from them. That’s the core point, and it keeps getting sidestepped by you. At this point it feels less like a misunderstanding and more like a deliberate reframing by you of what I have said.

Take a simple example: someone walks into an old building and feels an overwhelming fear. That fear is real. But it doesn’t mean the building is haunted, even if they’re utterly convinced it is. The emotion is valid. The conclusion “this place is haunted” is not necessarily supported by evidence.

It’s the same with religious experience. People around the world report powerful feelings they attribute to God. But others have just as powerful experiences that lead them to different gods or to no god at all. So if we’re going to figure out what’s actually true about the universe, we can’t rely on subjective emotional experiences that contradict each other.

You're free to believe your experience points to God. Others are free to believe theirs point elsewhere. But when it comes to discovering what is objectively true, personal emotion just isn’t enough.

Think about it, in medicine, in science, in the legal system we don’t accept feelings alone as proof. Why would the question of God, probably the most important claim a person can make, require lower standards of evidence?

 

[Beagle1]

No it would not require an evaluation of all religions. Like any other wager, one would be best off believing in what is most likely--not which one is liked best

Christianity happens to be both the most likely, and totally fullfilling by my measure.

As for being a selfish choice--a follower of Christ quite literally is required to lead a selfless and charitable life.

Yes, certainly the motivation is to not suffer eternal hellfire and instead be in the presence of God and have eternal joy. But we care about our fellow man as much or more than ourselves.

If we could lasso everyone to come to heaven with us, we would. But as a rule of the free will we are given, each must believe and follow Christ on their own

You say Pascal’s Wager doesn’t require evaluating all religions but if you’re genuinely concerned with what’s most likely to be true you must fairly consider the opposing viewpoints. That’s the whole point of an honest discussion. Are you content with betting on what’s most familiar or comforting to you or on what’s most likely.

The odds of a belief being true aren't determined by how many people hold it or how fulfilling it feels. They depend on whether its claims are supported by evidence and reason. Christianity, like all religions, asks us to accept a long list of extraordinary claims, miracles, divine revelations, resurrection, with very limited or conflicting evidence. That’s why many of us are skeptical.

And as for the point that Pascal’s Wager is not selfish. It is based on a very self-centered calculation, believe in God just in case it's true, to avoid hell and gain heaven. That’s literally hedging your bets. Living a Christian moral life doesn't change the fact that the core motivation of the wager is self-preservation.

And your view on free will raises another question. You say God won’t violate free will when it comes to salvation — but doesn’t God, according to Christian belief, perform miracles, answer prayers, and influence lives in countless ways? Why is “free will” respected only when it would mean saving someone from eternal suffering? If the stakes are heaven or hell, then allowing people to go to hell for sincerely believing in the wrong religion (or none at all) makes this wager feel rigged from the start.

 

[Jason Snyder]

If the stakes are heaven or hell, then allowing people to go to hell for sincerely believing in the wrong religion (or none at all) makes this wager feel rigged from the start.

How is it rigged? It’s not a trick. It’s a decision anyone can come to of their own accord, at any time. With no cost.

That’s the essence of free will.

And, to counter your point, someone who has never been exposed to the gospel is not necessarily subject to hell.

First, you claim it’s not on the individual for not believing in God because he doesn’t reveal Himself enough, but now it’s a rigged venture because when He does reveal Himself in people’s lives that’s a violation of free will? How does that make sense?

 

[Jason Snyder]

“Give thanks to the Lord and proclaim his greatness. Let the whole world know what he has done. Sing to him; yes, sing his praises. Tell everyone about his wonderful deeds.

Exult in his holy name; rejoice, you who worship the Lord. Search for the Lord and for his strength; continually seek him.

Remember the wonders he has performed, his miracles, and the rulings he has given, you children of his servant Abraham, you descendants of Jacob, his chosen ones.”
‭‭Psalms‬ ‭105‬:‭1‬-‭6‬ ‭NLT‬‬

 

[Texasbuckeye]

Think about it, in medicine, in science, in the legal system we don’t accept feelings alone as proof. Why would the question of God, probably the most important claim a person can make, require lower standards of evidence?

I think you misunderstand the processes by which so much of life actually happens. In medicine, in the legal system, and even sometime sin science, feelings have a much larger role than you are giving them. Talk to any doctor, lawyer, researcher, and they will tell you there are feelings involved that help drive outcomes.

Now I will agree, feelings should have no place in study design by scientists and have no place in the data results, but I can tell you 100% feelings play a huge role in how that data is interpreted and written out in the conclusions. There are a ton of scientific studies which data does not follow conclusions because the feelings of the researchers showed through in the write up or even in the basic study design.

And I can also tell you, the worlds of law and medicine is largely feelings based...I have some pretty extensive experience in both realms and both are way different than what you are projecting them to be.

This is way off topic now.

 

[Shortschaf]

You say Pascal’s Wager doesn’t require evaluating all religions but if you’re genuinely concerned with what’s most likely to be true you must fairly consider the opposing viewpoints. That’s the whole point of an honest discussion. Are you content with betting on what’s most familiar or comforting to you or on what’s most likely.

I happen to share my faith with the largest majority on the planet. And the more I learn about my faith, the truer it seems. I have yet to run into any obstacle that I cannot accept. So yes, you could say I am very content. The only truly opposing world belief to Christianity are Islam and Judaism. And the more I learn, the more comfortable I am rejecting either. Hinduism, Buddhism, atheists, agnostics... A practicing Christian simply satisfies the basic instructions of "lead a good life" that they all preach

The odds of a belief being true aren't determined by how many people hold it or how fulfilling it feels.

Feel free to quantify it however you like.

They depend on whether its claims are supported by evidence and reason. Christianity, like all religions, asks us to accept a long list of extraordinary claims, miracles, divine revelations, resurrection, with very limited or conflicting evidence. That’s why many of us are skeptical.

A public hunting forum is not going to offer any concrete evidence for you to follow the faith. Maybe some skeptical topics explained however.

And as for the point that Pascal’s Wager is not selfish. It is based on a very self-centered calculation, believe in God just in case it's true, to avoid hell and gain heaven. That’s literally hedging your bets. Living a Christian moral life doesn't change the fact that the core motivation of the wager is self-preservation.

I already acknowledged the fact that self-preservation is a major goal. To deny that would be to pretend that we are not reasonable human beings.
Look up the definition of selfish -- lacking compassion for others.
Christian life encourages and embraces unrelenting compassion for others. However you choose to frame our motivations for leading a charitable life--I ask that you don't get too lost in the irony

And your view on free will raises another question. You say God won’t violate free will when it comes to salvation — but doesn’t God, according to Christian belief, perform miracles, answer prayers, and influence lives in countless ways?

No, we definitely teach that humans cannot and do not change the will of God. Miracles, answered prayers, and positive outcomes are effectively God's blessings. Generally speaking, prayer is more for preparing the person praying to accept God's will. This is admittedly a confusing concept that is wrapped up in the mysteries of God's timelessness and omnipotence. But in times of need, we are able to turn to Him in prayer, and it will always be a better outcome for our souls than if we internalize our suffering.

Why is “free will” respected only when it would mean saving someone from eternal suffering? If the stakes are heaven or hell, then allowing people to go to hell for sincerely believing in the wrong religion (or none at all) makes this wager feel rigged from the start.

As stated above, you are wrong to assume free will only applies in certain instances.
And to be clear there is no Christian authority that pretends to know who goes to heaven or who goes to hell.
It is reasonable to hope that hell is empty. After all, we universally trust that unbaptized babies will go to heaven by some mechanism.
So we do not pretend to know there is not some other (or same) mechanism that someone who never heard the name of Jesus once in their life might also be accepted to heaven. A free-will "ultimatum" at the end of their life, for example.




If you are interested in the faith, I would recommend seeking education on it outside of a public hunting forum. The full truth is best heard from experts. And back-and-forth on a public forum is not the same as a conversation or debate.
And if you came to be a contrarian, please leave that on Facebook.

 

[Beagle1]

I happen to share my faith with the largest majority on the planet. And the more I learn about my faith, the truer it seems. I have yet to run into any obstacle that I cannot accept. So yes, you could say I am very content. The only truly opposing world belief to Christianity are Islam and Judaism. And the more I learn, the more comfortable I am rejecting either. Hinduism, Buddhism, atheists, agnostics... A practicing Christian simply satisfies the basic instructions of "lead a good life" that they all preach





Feel free to quantify it however you like.







A public hunting forum is not going to offer any concrete evidence for you to follow the faith. Maybe some skeptical topics explained however.





I already acknowledged the fact that self-preservation is a major goal. To deny that would be to pretend that we are not reasonable human beings.
Look up the definition of selfish -- lacking compassion for others.
Christian life encourages and embraces unrelenting compassion for others. However you choose to frame our motivations for leading a charitable life--I ask that you don't get too lost in the irony





No, we definitely teach that humans cannot and do not change the will of God. Miracles, answered prayers, and positive outcomes are effectively God's blessings. Generally speaking, prayer is more for preparing the person praying to accept God's will. This is admittedly a confusing concept that is wrapped up in the mysteries of God's timelessness and omnipotence. But in times of need, we are able to turn to Him in prayer, and it will always be a better outcome for our souls than if we internalize our suffering.







As stated above, you are wrong to assume free will only applies in certain instances.
And to be clear there is no Christian authority that pretends to know who goes to heaven or who goes to hell.
It is reasonable to hope that hell is empty. After all, we universally trust that unbaptized babies will go to heaven by some mechanism.
So we do not pretend to know there is not some other (or same) mechanism that someone who never heard the name of Jesus once in their life might also be accepted to heaven. A free-will "ultimatum" at the end of their life, for example.




If you are interested in the faith, I would recommend seeking education on it outside of a public hunting forum. The full truth is best heard from experts. And back-and-forth on a public forum is not the same as a conversation or debate.
And if you came to be a contrarian, please leave that on Facebook.

Trust me I do not come to this forum for a religious education. As to outside sources, due to my education and personal interest in this area I have read and studied many but do so with an open mind.

 

[Beagle1]

How is it rigged? It’s not a trick. It’s a decision anyone can come to of their own accord, at any time. With no cost.

That’s the essence of free will.

And, to counter your point, someone who has never been exposed to the gospel is not necessarily subject to hell.

First, you claim it’s not on the individual for not believing in God because he doesn’t reveal Himself enough, but now it’s a rigged venture because when He does reveal Himself in people’s lives that’s a violation of free will? How does that make sense?

You say it isn’t rigged because anyone can accept it at any time with no cost which assumes the the wager is clear and fair.

For a decision where the stakes are heaven or hell don’t you think the evidence should be proportionately strong. Is it fair for God to create confusion by having seekers rely on contradictory religions, subjective experiences and ancient texts as the main means of revelation.

Do you seriously think everyone, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, secular thinkers, are all making the same "free choice" as you? Are they freely rejecting God, or are they sincerely following the path their culture, upbringing, and personal experience have led them on? From their perspective, they are often doing the best they can with the information they’ve been given, just like you.

And the traditional Christian view doesn’t let them off the hook. It says that all people are given some level of "natural revelation" and that they are ultimately responsible for what they do with it. So even if they've never heard the Gospel, their ignorance does not matter, they are still judged for "rejecting" something they may have never fully known or understood.

So yes the wager does seem rigged. It’s like playing a game where the deck is stacked, the rules are unclear, and the penalty for getting it wrong is hell.

That’s a free choice to you, not to me.

 

[Beagle1]

I think you misunderstand the processes by which so much of life actually happens. In medicine, in the legal system, and even sometime sin science, feelings have a much larger role than you are giving them. Talk to any doctor, lawyer, researcher, and they will tell you there are feelings involved that help drive outcomes.

Now I will agree, feelings should have no place in study design by scientists and have no place in the data results, but I can tell you 100% feelings play a huge role in how that data is interpreted and written out in the conclusions. There are a ton of scientific studies which data does not follow conclusions because the feelings of the researchers showed through in the write up or even in the basic study design.

And I can also tell you, the worlds of law and medicine is largely feelings based...I have some pretty extensive experience in both realms and both are way different than what you are projecting them to be.

This is way off topic now.

You’re right that emotion plays a role in human behavior and can influence interpretations or even lead to bias. A doctor might have a hunch about a diagnosis, a researcher might follow a gut feeling, a lawyer might be convinced their client is innocent. But that's entirely different from treating emotion as reliable evidence for objective truth and you know that.

The doctor still needs tests, labs, and clinical evidence to confirm the diagnosis. The researcher’s conclusions must be backed by replicable data and peer review. The lawyer must present admissible evidence that meets a legal burden of proof. In all these cases, personal, subjective feelings are not accepted as proof, they may start the process, but they don’t settle it.

So again, why should belief in God, maybe the most extraordinary claim a person can make, require lower standards than medicine, science, or law?

 

[Jason Snyder]

You say it isn’t rigged because anyone can accept it at any time with no cost which assumes the the wager is clear and fair.

For a decision where the stakes are heaven or hell don’t you think the evidence should be proportionately strong. Is it fair for God to create confusion by having seekers rely on contradictory religions, subjective experiences and ancient texts as the main means of revelation.

Do you seriously think everyone, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, secular thinkers, are all making the same "free choice" as you? Are they freely rejecting God, or are they sincerely following the path their culture, upbringing, and personal experience have led them on? From their perspective, they are often doing the best they can with the information they’ve been given, just like you.

And the traditional Christian view doesn’t let them off the hook. It says that all people are given some level of "natural revelation" and that they are ultimately responsible for what they do with it. So even if they've never heard the Gospel, their ignorance does not matter, they are still judged for "rejecting" something they may have never fully known or understood.

So yes the wager does seem rigged. It’s like playing a game where the deck is stacked, the rules are unclear, and the penalty for getting it wrong is hell.

That’s a free choice to you, not to me.

We’ll have to just agree to disagree. This isn’t a buy sell agreement, laid out in legalese. I didn’t make the rules, and no one is forced to play by them . Thats where free will and faith come into play, regardless of whether you agree with that.

 

[rabbithuntr]

You say it isn’t rigged because anyone can accept it at any time with no cost which assumes the the wager is clear and fair.

For a decision where the stakes are heaven or hell don’t you think the evidence should be proportionately strong. Is it fair for God to create confusion by having seekers rely on contradictory religions, subjective experiences and ancient texts as the main means of revelation.

Do you seriously think everyone, Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, secular thinkers, are all making the same "free choice" as you? Are they freely rejecting God, or are they sincerely following the path their culture, upbringing, and personal experience have led them on? From their perspective, they are often doing the best they can with the information they’ve been given, just like you.

And the traditional Christian view doesn’t let them off the hook. It says that all people are given some level of "natural revelation" and that they are ultimately responsible for what they do with it. So even if they've never heard the Gospel, their ignorance does not matter, they are still judged for "rejecting" something they may have never fully known or understood.

So yes the wager does seem rigged. It’s like playing a game where the deck is stacked, the rules are unclear, and the penalty for getting it wrong is hell.

That’s a free choice to you, not to me.

“For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools,”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭1‬:‭20‬-‭22‬

You are correct on the traditional Christian view with the exception that they are not living in ignorance but denial.

The evidence is overwhelming that the Bible is true all the historical, archaeological, and scientific findings line up with the Bible maybe not how most would initially expect in some cases. I’ll admit I am not an expert, but many experts have no problem at all looking at our world and it lining up with the Bible. When people are in denial and don’t want to find evidence that lines up with the Bible they can twist to fit their narrative.
Just like others have said this is easier to discuss on the phone or similar, feel free to reach out we would love for you to know Christ.

 

[Texasbuckeye]

@Beagle1 it really seems to me upu feel the decision to believe and follow God is seriously important, and upu even make claims most atheists dont by saying its a matter of heaven or hell….

So why not just go down the rabbit hole and see what happens? If it is so important, why are you so interested in making it all about upu and your reliance on verifiable repeatable evidence? Why not just accept that God exists and let Him do the convincing for you?

Not trying to tell you what to do here, but dang, you make a convincing argument to give it an honest trial and see what happens.