Emotional ruled despite the facts

I think I have finally realized why I can never seem to agree with the majority of the positions taken over at Adventist Today. It is because they work from a factually vacant but emotionally dependent perspective.

 I have been zoom attending their Adventist Today Sabbath School. The moderator and head of the AToday organization sent me a message during the class over some discussion I was having with someone in their chat area. Of course, Loren Siebold was moderating the class so there is no doubt that he was not following the chat section very well. Here was his statement to me privately: “Ron, please be careful. Being a broad church means not making attacking sorts of statements to weak believers like Stephen.” This is the way they shut people down, they like to accuse anything that for whatever reason they don’t like as “attacking”. Factually it is vacant because there was no attack. I will place the major portions of the conversation at the end but for now here is the statement (corrected for a spelling error because zoom chat is horrible): “Re: Stephen: Not sure why you can't believe a particular thing. So many beliefs in the world, now it is very likely that those beliefs are chosen by most all that believe them though there may have been a multitude of influences involved in a belief.”

  It is this kind of emotional reading into what people say that is so common over at Adventist Today. It is why after several years I am still not allowed to comment on their Facebook articles. Facebook is the only way to comment on Adventist Today Articles by the way. It is kind of humorous now to remember what caused me to be banned from their Facebook page. It was dealing with the author Lindsey Painter, (My blog about her article, Confusionof symbol over substance).it was actually going fairly well when their moderator deleted my comments and Lindsey Painter’s comments as well. I was no longer able to post comments. In all, the Adventist Today writer was provably incorrect and even places like PragerU and major Newspapers have acknowledged that Trump never said what the Leftists said he said (if you recall it was the leftist shouting about Trump making a false moral equivalency). That there were some fine people on both sides, was stated after Trump excluded the White supremacists groups. https://www.prageru.com/video/the-medias-very-fine-people-myth/

  

Here is the conversation:

Jack: Stephen, God doesn't mind if we don't believe in him.  But as I  understand it is good if He can believe in us!  So keep being believable!

Stephen: i dont believe in god whatsoever, but i like the idea of that concept being flipped...that god believes in me regardless.  i can get with that on a certain level

Me: Re Stephen: The problem with that statement is that you can only say you believe God believes in you. It has no power because you could say I believe pink elephants believe in me. It only matters if it is spoken by God of you. So it sounds nice but is meaningless.

Stephen: you're correct. ultimately it is still meaningless to me, but i like the idea

Me: Re: Stephen You like the idea, let's press that, what would you want to believe that God believes about you.? When I say I believe in God it has a completely different meaning than I believe in my daughter. It is far more than the existence of something.

Jack: I'm not sure what you are pushing for, but I'd like to jump in.  As I suggested if a fish believes in water or not is not as important as that it keeps swimming, as if water exists.  IF a bird believes in air or not (it is invisible) is not as important as that it keeps flapping and gliding.  If we believe that life was given by a Life Giver, or not is not as important as that we keep living "as if" life were given.  Does this help anyone?

Stephen: i think jack hit it on the head with why i like the idea

Stephen: if there is a creator I'd like to believe that creator was for me and not against me...regardless im going to keep living my life the best way i know how and keep updating based on new information

Loren: that’s the faith I hold.

Me: Re: Stephen. So you want to believe in God as the life giver. That is not a believe you can say that God believes about you. It would be a belief you have in what God is. It is really the start of faith, why not believe in the lifegiver even if you don't know for sure.

Stephen: i dont think belief works like that

Stephen: i cant just choose to believe anything even if it seems that way

Stephen: i cant even say I want to believe in god as the life giver, any more than i want to believe in gravity

Art: I agree. You can’t just choose to believe.

Me: Re: Stephen: Not sure why you can't believe a particular thing. So many beliefs in the world now it is very likely that those beliefs are chosen by most all that believe them though there may have been a multitude of influences involved in a belief.

Loren privately: Ron, please be careful. Being a broad church means not making attacking sorts of statements to weak believers like Stephen.
*Note: Stephen stated earlier before my part in the conversation that he was an agnostic and “technically I'd probably fall more in the atheist camp currently,  cause I'm not "looking for answers" anymore…” Plus in my portion of the conversation “i dont believe in god whatsoever”.

Stephen: in order to believe something, i need a reason. the weight of evidence/ motivation for me to accept a belief is not something i can arbitrarily choose. i can pretend i believe something for many reasons, but the end of the day i either believe or or I don't

Me: of course you should have some reason or motivation. Though I think you already stated a motivation. The one thing about beliefs is they are personal, so you can adjust them accordingly

Stephen: i need to hop off now. thank you to everyone for the conversation and affirmation. sdas arent as bad as i thought lol