Chris Langan, the man with 200 IQ

Not at all. You make a claim but are not forthcoming. This is a forum to exchange the basis for views, not withhold them. You said:

God reveals Himself to people, more often than you’d think. (Post #58)

Are you able to read my mind, or is this statement presumptious?

Don’t know why, or who He’ll choose, but He does. (Post #58)

You've made a claim now, presuming to have more insight. So if you do, it's only fair to give at least one example to prove it. Otherwise, one must assume you've only offered a baseless opinion, not a fact.

Sometimes God reveals himself by getting right up in someone’s face. (Post #64)

Now you've jacked up the idea of immanence of The God, of His immediate Presence in this dimension to influence a human subject (and I'll do you the favor of assuming this employs figurative language). If this is so, you really need to back it up to maintain credibility.

These are private experiences. People who have them very often choose not to share them, because of the negative reactions. (Post #73)

My negative reaction here is to assume you are dodging the issue, not being responsive. How would you know of a supernatural revelation if the person receiving it chose not to mention it to you. Or, to make it more personal, have you had such a supernatural manifestation? If so, describe it, lay it open for examination.

Then also in Post #69 I requested: ". . . then tell me whose doctrine he/she is following"; the purpose to discern whom it is that is doing the supernatural prompting, and to what system of belief the recipient turns for direction in guiding his/her life. To which you responded:

That could only matter if you’re starting with the presumption that what I say is untrue. (Post #73)

Now, that is a totally illogical reply, again giving the impression that you can read my mind. Actually, there is no reason why I should believe in what you have said, lacking any concrete example. So far, my acceptance of you, as the fallible human that you (like myself) are, is an open issue. If what you are saying is true, then it is verifiable. In God I do trust, but you need to bring facts to the discussion. I expect the same treatment and am open to it. Finally, in your Post #83, we have you quoting me and responding to it:

Me: "I guess you don’t have an example that’s worthy of showing."

You: Well, that’s malicious.

That's jumping to the wholly undeserved accusation that my insistence for you to validate your stance is a hurtful demand from a mean-minded adversary. Such a response indicates that you are acting like a child whose feelings have been hurt by forcing him/her to communicate in a mature, reasoned way.

Unless you can respond appropriately, continuing this exchange doesn't look like it is going to be profitable for us.

My original point, based on Scripture, is that in this Age, The God of the Bible enters and beneficially shapes one's life on the basis of faith, to such as have faith; and that the gift of faith is imparted by the preaching of the Gospel.(Romans 1:16-17, Hab. 2:4; Rom. 10:8-19,16-17).

A truly regenerated (spiritually born anew) believer-disciple has the indwelling, guiding Personhood of God, The Holy Spirit, and has no need for some kind of extraneous get-in-your-face god to remind him/her of a sinful act or condition. There is also an undercurrent here, which is the fact that the god of this world, Satan--that old Devil--also answers prayer and confronts unwary humans with his manifestations or manipulation of events or man-made religions to get people to think it is the God of Heaven acting, when it is not.

For instance, take the motivation behind the Twin Towers attack.There, you get all three.

Neither assumption applies. There is not enough data to validate that the "bell-curve" probability model even applies. The definition of "intelligence quotient" is that of one's intelligence "age" (in years") divided by one's chronological age in years, the product multiplied by 100 to normalize. That is, a ten-year-old child with a 150 I. Q. would think with the facility of a 15-year-old having an I. Q. of 100. But so would a 20-year-old with an I. Q. of 75.

So, according to that measure and definition, a 40-year-old would have the capacity of an average person of 80, which is a year younger than me. But if I take one of these roughly-estimating pop tests on the internet, and it comes up 140 (which it does, give or take a point or two), what does it mean to a 40-year-old who gets the same score?

Actually, it doesn't mean anything, IMHO.

The Stanford-Binet "I. Q." tests may be useful to begin to distinguish between "slowness" and "giftedness" in children early on, but what it means in adults is probabilistically indeterminate.

To speak of having an IQ of 200 at age 40 only means that one is a little quicker, more widely read, and cosmopolitan than your average unchallenged neighbor who stays at home and watches TV for entertainment, and has few above-average associates.

Just sayin' . . .

“Not at all.”

Denial is not rebuttal. My statement was correct.

“You make a claim but are not forthcoming. This is a forum to exchange the basis for views, not withhold them.”

No one is required to adhere to your “rules” in posting here, or to dance to any tune you feel like calling.

“Are you able to read my mind, or is this statement presumptuous?”

Just going by what you said.

“it’s only fair to give at least one example to prove it. Otherwise, one must assume you’ve only offered a baseless opinion, not a fact.”

Fair? Ridiculous. After your remarks, I’ve decided not to continue, because you will dismiss whatever I say as “baseless opinion.” It’s an article of faith with you that God doesn’t do “face-to-face” encounters with people, and only God could knock you off that dime.

Thought it might be an opportunity for a good discussion. I was wrong.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.