As simple as possible to summarize the best way you can, first, please. Feel free to expand after, or just say whatever you want lol. Honest question.

  • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    12 hours ago

    This is why a “feeling” should not be the reason you convert to a religion. You should be skeptical of Christians that argue their conversion on feelings alone. I certainly had feelings that I attribute to the Holy Spirit when I was an inquiring Christian but I frankly tried to ignore or diminish them to stay sober minded. Relying entirely on emotionalism or charism is historically discouraged as you could just as easily be swayed by demonic forces (e.g. prelest). It’s one of many critiques of charismatic Protestantism and the LDS church.

    • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      12 hours ago

      Everyone on earth that has adopted or converted to any religion has done so with a feeling as their reason. Nobody has ever converted due to cold hard facts or some research on the afterlife. Proof is unexisting by definition of faith.

      • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        12 hours ago

        Everyone on earth that has adopted or converted to any religion has done so with a feeling as their reason.

        Assertion

        Nobody has ever converted due to cold hard facts or some research on the afterlife.

        Applying material requirements to the metaphysical and transcendental

        Proof is unexisting by definition of faith

        Transcendental Argument for God makes an affirmative pre-suppositional argument for God.

        • KeenFlame@feddit.nu
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          11 hours ago

          I… Yes? That’s a correct interpretation, but you denied an answer to me. Or perhaps I misunderstood your position, that nobody should ever convert or consider any religion?

          • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 hours ago

            I’m saying that your assertion isn’t justified (e.g. it’s just a subjective opinion). That you can’t expect to apply the scientific method to something that transcends the material world and that there are indeed logical arguments for why someone should believe in God as opposed to not believing in God.

            I’m an Orthodox Christian.

            • Cethin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 hours ago

              I don’t think you’re correct with your argument. Why would someone choose any particular religion? That’s the argument. There is no logical argument for that. There are arguments for choose one in general, although logically very flawed. Still, there’s no logical argument I’m aware of to choose a specific one.

              • Manmoth@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 hours ago

                There is argumentation beyond the transcendental argument to believe, for example, the Christian God. It has to do with prophesy, metaphysics, theology etc