leurz, on 01 October 2011 - 09:00 AM, said:
According to Dictionary.com, Ineffable:
1. incapable of being expressed or described in words;inexpressible: ineffable joy.
2. not to be spoken because of its sacredness; unutterable:the ineffable name of the deity.
Are you sure ineffable is the word you want to use here? If not, what did you really mean? If so, you think a book, full of words, cannot be expressed in words? That it shouldn't be read out loud?
What, precisely, have you experienced which has solidified this belief?
Hahaha I definitely meant infallible. That was a stupid switch of those words. My bad. In regards to the question regarding my experiences of God, it's something that will take me a few days to articulate properly so I'll get on that. A good book that I've read that thoroughly explains the Christian reality of 'experiencing God' is called "Experiencing the Presence of God" by A.W. Tozer. I'm not trolling anyone.
leurz, on 01 October 2011 - 11:16 AM, said:
Huh, that's funny. I looked through all her posts and didn't see her post either of those things. On the contrary, I saw some thoughtful, non-religious contributions to other threads. Just because a person is Christian does not mean they agree with everything that every other Christian has ever said, just like I doubt you agree with everything every atheist has ever said. While onethreezerotwo may have meant infallible, she may have meant something else. I think we should give her the chance to explain herself before calling her small-minded in bumper sticker style posts.
First, I'm a guy. Second, I never said anything explaining my beliefs on evolution vs. creation vs. Christianity in any sense. Third, thanks for the open mindedness leurz. I can assure you all that I'm not small minded (unless we're talking about switching vocabulary words, then I would have to plead guilty..). I'm a former atheist turned Christian because of my experiences. I've talked to a lot of people and can say that you'll probably be disappointed with my arguments because they don't conventionally quantify or qualify their claims. Something that I've recently read, although I'm not entirely sure how much I agree with just yet (I've only read thorough it once) is a comment on a blog a few years ago:
"The evidence for faith is exhibited first in a soul-to-spirit connection (a personal experience and one in which, unless shared, is hidden from view)and continual internal movement towards human heartedness and the ability to increase ones' capacity to care. To try and conform/corrupt the standard for supernatural evidence to that of natural standards is a frustrating and vain pursuit.God doesn't enable it. God's miracles are built on a foundation of compassionate relationship, not to appease arrogance or manipulative exploitation."
Sorry if you don't understand, or think I'm small-minded because of my viewpoints. It doesn't bother me.