True Christians as some like to put it are people with a personal relationship with God.

It is not just some feeling.

Sorry – but when a true christian is pressed for evidence of a “personal relationship with god” the only thing they ever seem to produce is “I can feel it.” They don’t get e-mails from god, god doesn’t walk their dog when they are out of town, babysit the kids, or join them at the pub and buy a round of drinks. All I ever hear are “feelings”. Well if you feel it, and you are happy, fine. But until your god actually shows up and does something real, I prefer a personal relationship with chocolate.

And you seem to be re-emphasizing the point of the original post rather well. What would you say about someone who said they were once convinced they had a “personal realtionship with god” and that “they could feel it” but then later decided it was all in their head after all?

“all true christians have a personal r/ship with god”

“If you do not have a personal r/ship with god, you are not a true christian.”

Truth by definiton. And unverifiable to boot. How do you know, in practical, observational terms, when you have the necessary relationship?

‘It is not just some feeling.” Okay, so what is it?

Christians have a personal relationship with God.

Think about that statement.

True Christians as some like to put it are people with a personal relationship with God.

It is not just some feeling.

I happened to read several chapters of ‘Mere Christianity’ yesterday and this morning and found that it didn’t quite explain everything as neatly as it promised.

I still believe in God, but I’ve been doubting what’s been said in church and even in the Bible for quite some time. I’ve been asking questions like these: http://de-conversion.com/2008/10/15/how-much-doubt-is-too-much/ . Still in the middle of the reflection process.

I’ve actually been an on and off lurker at de-Conversion for a while. Good blog, everyone.

“When properly understood, the “evidence” confirms the biblical account.” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/about)

They are saying:

All properly understood evidence confirms the Bible

Therefore,

Any evidence that does not confirm the Bible is not properly understood.

This could be used to posit any evidence (even poor evidence) as evidence for the Bible. If someone says that it is not evidence for the Bible, all AIG has to say is that the person does not “understand it properly”. This redefining what evidence means can also be used to explain away all good evidence against the Bible, by arguing that it cannot be good evidence against the Bible because it is not properly understood.

It is hard to trust anyone who redefines truth so that they cannot ever be wrong.

Thanks so much Richard, your note has been so helpful.

Incredible analogy. To use Richard’s explanation in this post, this would be similar to defining married people as those who never get divorced. Only true married people stick together for life. Therefore all divorced people were never *truly* married.

Gosh, can’t imagine trying to figure out how to update the law books on that one…

If you were committed to someone, went through the social and legal procedures of matrimony, loved them, lived with them, tried to work things out with them, and yet they turned out not to be the person you thought you were marrying, it doesn’t mean you never really loved them, and it certainly doesn’t mean you were never really married.

It just means its over now.