' Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.'

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Matthew 7:20
'Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.'

Are Christian's easily recognizable?
Are they obligated to act as examples?
Are they dramatically inconspicuous?
Are they dismally failing, and if so. WHY?

[TRANSPONDER]

I concede the point. In principle, anyway. There are some who will demonstrate the highest ideals of Christianity and will indeed impress others, even perhaps to converting them. However, I can only say in my experience they not only lose their savour but soon show themselves to have none, quite apart from having no credible case, even if they really do seem to be nice people.

I of course appeal to being a better person for its' own sake. That doubtless sounds like a futile appeal. But in my mind it is better than doing it because at worst they hope to gain a ticket to heaven or at best because they want to be the best example they can be - of a false belief.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #1]

Actually, this was said to believers so they could figure out false teachers from the true. It wasn’t a way for unbelievers to measure believers. Indeed, it’s doubtful that unbelievers would recognize a believer in any case. How would they know the “fruit” spoken of?

Well, Believers tend to identify themselves, and the yardstick is, isn't t, the Book itself? If the Believers don't seem any better than the worst examples of the Book, then their Fruit is rotten, yes? But the fact is, the Advert for the fruit in the book itself is pretty rotten.

To those with the capacity to doubt and question, the whole thing looks pretty rotten, never mind the denomination..

Well, those of us on the inside don’t actually measure ourselves by the Book. Might look that way from outside so I can see why you’d say that. But it’s really not that way.

The real way we know we are Christ-ians or followers of Christ is because we walk with Him and He guides and corrects us. We have something you probably cannot admit is there, a relationship with the living God.

So it’s not likely you’ll understand how we know we are his.

Ah...well, there's the Problem, and why we get so many sects and denomination. The Evidence is that religious people walk with the creations and opinions in their own heads, and unless they use the Book - as interpreted by a Religious Authority (I think that the reason America has various religions is because there was no Church of America) as a guide they end up walking just where they want to go, and not always within the ambit of the secularist moral society of their nation.

As I said, you likely will not be able to understand how we know we are his because the reason is a matter you deny altogether.

And cults and deviations come precisely because those people lack that relationship that generates guidance and correction. The importance of relationship is missing in your evaluation.

This same phenomena is seen in those who were never in a life long satisfying marriage. The experience of that kind of interaction is just too foreign. They insist choices are made for reasons that have nothing to do with the relationship when those in such a relationship know it’s the main reason.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Masterblaster in post #1]

Actually, this was said to believers so they could figure out false teachers from the true. It wasn’t a way for unbelievers to measure believers. Indeed, it’s doubtful that unbelievers would recognize a believer in any case. How would they know the “fruit” spoken of?

Well, Believers tend to identify themselves, and the yardstick is, isn't t, the Book itself? If the Believers don't seem any better than the worst examples of the Book, then their Fruit is rotten, yes? But the fact is, the Advert for the fruit in the book itself is pretty rotten.

To those with the capacity to doubt and question, the whole thing looks pretty rotten, never mind the denomination..

Well, those of us on the inside don’t actually measure ourselves by the Book. Might look that way from outside so I can see why you’d say that. But it’s really not that way.

The real way we know we are Christ-ians or followers of Christ is because we walk with Him and He guides and corrects us. We have something you probably cannot admit is there, a relationship with the living God.

So it’s not likely you’ll understand how we know we are his.

Ah...well, there's the Problem, and why we get so many sects and denomination. The Evidence is that religious people walk with the creations and opinions in their own heads, and unless they use the Book - as interpreted by a Religious Authority (I think that the reason America has various religions is because there was no Church of America) as a guide they end up walking just where they want to go, and not always within the ambit of the secularist moral society of their nation.

As I said, you likely will not be able to understand how we know we are his because the reason is a matter you deny altogether.

And cults and deviations come precisely because those people lack that relationship that generates guidance and correction. The importance of relationship is missing in your evaluation.

This same phenomena is seen in those who were never in a life long satisfying marriage. The experience of that kind of interaction is just too foreign. They insist choices are made for reasons that have nothing to do with the relationship when those in such a relationship know it’s the main reason.

Again, the Problem. Those doing their religious Thing assume that any other religious Thing is 'cults' and deviations', as you say. Which is no doubt what the others say about yours.

And what I say is we believe in one less cult and deviation that you do, and you deny it when we point that out.

I'm having to say this a bit recently: your denial doesn't matter. Inasmuch as 'winning' counts at all, Believers think they win if they deny everything and maintain their belief.

No, that's not how it works. The 'Win' is rather to those who have been given no valid reason to credit your argument and to anyone able to reason, it is with those making a case based on reason and evidence and the loser bases their case on Faith and denial. That you are absolutely content and happy to go on denying everything and believing proves nothing, but I'm happy if you are.

Just saying that your faithbased assertions validate nothing whatsoever.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

None of what you wrote in the above post matches reality. But it is impossible to explain a relationship with a Being and what that means to someone who does not know that experience. Relationships, what they require and give are powerful and beyond words. The outside of the matter for those who do not partake are just too different. The matter is too deep to understand sans experience. Thank you for the exchange.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

None of what you wrote in the above post matches reality. But it is impossible to explain a relationship with a Being and what that means to someone who does not know that experience. Relationships, what they require and give are powerful and beyond words. The outside of the matter for those who do not partake are just too different. The matter is too deep to understand sans experience. Thank you for the exchange.

I get how you think. The Believer is convinced that the funny feelings in their head and their imaginations represent reality, but there is good reason to think they are mistaken. Not least that other heads get the same funny feelings about different beliefs
It is what you write that doesn't really match reality, but you are misled into misinterpreting what the actual reality is. Or that's what I reckon the evidence indicates. Evidence that is of course ignored.

My goodness over 100 guests - a record. I suppose now Superbowl is over, everyone is catching up.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

None of what you wrote in the above post matches reality. But it is impossible to explain a relationship with a Being and what that means to someone who does not know that experience. Relationships, what they require and give are powerful and beyond words. The outside of the matter for those who do not partake are just too different. The matter is too deep to understand sans experience. Thank you for the exchange.

I get how you think. The Believer is convinced that the funny feelings in their head and their imaginations represent reality, but there is good reason to think they are mistaken. Not least that other heads get the same funny feelings about different beliefs
It is what you write that doesn't really match reality, but you are misled into misinterpreting what the actual reality is. Or that's what I reckon the evidence indicates. Evidence that is of course ignored.

My goodness over 100 guests - a record. I suppose now Superbowl is over, everyone is catching up.

Incorrect. I have a relationship with the living God which is no more comprised of “funny feelings” than the relationship I have with my husband. What it is comprised of is outside of your are of experience.

[Masterblaster]

Hello Mae von H

You say to TRANSPONDER - "None of what you wrote in the above post matches reality. But it is impossible to explain a relationship with a Being and what that means to someone who does not know that experience. Relationships, what they require and give are powerful and beyond words. The outside of the matter for those who do not partake are just too different. The matter is too deep to understand sans experience. Thank you for the exchange."
-------
I would regard this as condescending, especially within the context of a thread that suggests that there are clear observable signs of a real relationship with God and Jesus.

' Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.'

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

None of what you wrote in the above post matches reality. But it is impossible to explain a relationship with a Being and what that means to someone who does not know that experience. Relationships, what they require and give are powerful and beyond words. The outside of the matter for those who do not partake are just too different. The matter is too deep to understand sans experience. Thank you for the exchange.

I get how you think. The Believer is convinced that the funny feelings in their head and their imaginations represent reality, but there is good reason to think they are mistaken. Not least that other heads get the same funny feelings about different beliefs
It is what you write that doesn't really match reality, but you are misled into misinterpreting what the actual reality is. Or that's what I reckon the evidence indicates. Evidence that is of course ignored.

My goodness over 100 guests - a record. I suppose now Superbowl is over, everyone is catching up.

Incorrect. I have a relationship with the living God which is no more comprised of “funny feelings” than the relationship I have with my husband. What it is comprised of is outside of your are of experience.

I don't think you do. You have a relationship with an image in your own head as indeed you with the image of your partner in your head - you do not know what it is like to be Him. You hopefully do not suppose that you do.

The difference is that you can see your husband in reality, you cannot see the God in your head anywhere else in reality.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

None of what you wrote in the above post matches reality. But it is impossible to explain a relationship with a Being and what that means to someone who does not know that experience. Relationships, what they require and give are powerful and beyond words. The outside of the matter for those who do not partake are just too different. The matter is too deep to understand sans experience. Thank you for the exchange.

I get how you think. The Believer is convinced that the funny feelings in their head and their imaginations represent reality, but there is good reason to think they are mistaken. Not least that other heads get the same funny feelings about different beliefs
It is what you write that doesn't really match reality, but you are misled into misinterpreting what the actual reality is. Or that's what I reckon the evidence indicates. Evidence that is of course ignored.

My goodness over 100 guests - a record. I suppose now Superbowl is over, everyone is catching up.

Incorrect. I have a relationship with the living God which is no more comprised of “funny feelings” than the relationship I have with my husband. What it is comprised of is outside of your are of experience.

I don't think you do. You have a relationship with an image in your own head as indeed you with the image of your partner in your head - you do not know what it is like to be Him. You hopefully do not suppose that you do.

You would be surprised at how often I put his feelings into words. The words of Billy Joel reflect his feelings, “I have to laugh when she reveals me.” This is the awesome blessings singles never know. What it is like to live with someone who truly understands you AND loves you. Words are insufficient to express the pleasure this brings. And there is no human relationship like it. Again, you have not experienced it and so imagine something that doesn’t fit real life. We’ve reached a stalemate.

The difference is that you can see your husband in reality, you cannot see the God in your head anywhere else in reality.

A blind man cannot see their spouse either. Doesn’t mean they aren’t there. There are people who will tell you that they knew someone else was in the dark room although their eyes could not see them and their ears could not hear them. Nevertheless they knew they weren’t alone. This is common. Your view limits your ability to perceive reality.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #33]

None of what you wrote in the above post matches reality. But it is impossible to explain a relationship with a Being and what that means to someone who does not know that experience. Relationships, what they require and give are powerful and beyond words. The outside of the matter for those who do not partake are just too different. The matter is too deep to understand sans experience. Thank you for the exchange.

I get how you think. The Believer is convinced that the funny feelings in their head and their imaginations represent reality, but there is good reason to think they are mistaken. Not least that other heads get the same funny feelings about different beliefs
It is what you write that doesn't really match reality, but you are misled into misinterpreting what the actual reality is. Or that's what I reckon the evidence indicates. Evidence that is of course ignored.

My goodness over 100 guests - a record. I suppose now Superbowl is over, everyone is catching up.

Incorrect. I have a relationship with the living God which is no more comprised of “funny feelings” than the relationship I have with my husband. What it is comprised of is outside of your are of experience.

I don't think you do. You have a relationship with an image in your own head as indeed you with the image of your partner in your head - you do not know what it is like to be Him. You hopefully do not suppose that you do.

You would be surprised at how often I put his feelings into words. The words of Billy Joel reflect his feelings, “I have to laugh when she reveals me.” This is the awesome blessings singles never know. What it is like to live with someone who truly understands you AND loves you. Words are insufficient to express the pleasure this brings. And there is no human relationship like it. Again, you have not experienced it and so imagine something that doesn’t fit real life. We’ve reached a stalemate.

But that is no more than how we interact with others and learn how they think. It is how cold readers fool people into thinking they know their past and even thoughts. We do it by knowing friends, family and partners No doubt a partner can read their spouse as often as the spouse reads the partner.

That said, the mental image of a god is not the same thing because, since there is (so I reckon) no being there to interact with the believer either either bases their 'readings' on their Holy Book and doctrines (which is why the god in our heads differ so much, unless codified by dogma) or they simply impose their own personality, wishes and beliefs on that god in the head. I know this because an opponent on a former board used to believe in Hell.Then he went for UR Universal redemption and no Hell. And the god he thought he was talking to endorsed that view, too.

"God hates the same things you do".

The difference is that you can see your husband in reality, you cannot see the God in your head anywhere else in reality.

A blind man cannot see their spouse either. Doesn’t mean they aren’t there. There are people who will tell you that they knew someone else was in the dark room although their eyes could not see them and their ears could not hear them. Nevertheless they knew they weren’t alone. This is common. Your view limits your ability to perceive reality.

And yours leads to self - delusion. First, the analogy you use is self -serving. (part of the "Skeptics denied powered flight" apologetic. We know that things are there and we even perceive color. So we know they are there, even if a blind person cannot see them. Just as we know there is cosmic background radiation though nobody can actually see it. That does not justify claims of ghosts, flying saucers and magical beings on the grounds that they are there even if we can't see them.

p.s I have an argument that analogy used as evidence is a fallacy, but I don't see that generally known, as yet.)

Your last analogy is the fallacy of appeal to unknowns. The Unknown is - unknown. It is not evidence of anything at all other than there are unknowns. The existence of the Andromeda nebula even if some uneducated person in a remote place has never heard of it does not validate claims of an elephant headed god, because they believe in it, pray to it and even feel its' influence, though of course they have never seen it except in their imagination.