posted
Does your Katie hat have a four-leaf clover in it?
I have to beat myself everyday to remember that God is who he is, and it's totally pointless for me to try and resist that. It's like those people who sat around with their sunglasses on watching the A-bombs go off. It's like putting your hand up to stop a speeding train.
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its either that or revelation, and I don't acknowledge the existence of revelation. If we are unable to discriminate about God on any earthly (such as, reasoned and personal) basis, we are unable to discriminate about God at all except by revelation (which, as previously mentioned, I don't consider to exist).
'sides, don't you believe that God has to follow universal laws? In which case it would certainly be possible to evaluate God.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just for the record, since it was brought up in my now dead, deleted thread, I think, as an expression of good will, saying 'I will pray for you' is perfectly dandy. Given the very small number of people who actually take the time to give a rat's ass about anything, I'm personally amazed when anyone says anything like that to me.
There are about a gazillion people who do, in fact, want to do harm to others or who just don't give a damn. Is it an 'empty' gesture? Maybe. But so is saying 'Good morning' or 'Have a nice day'. In the material world it does nothing, but in the social world of words and ideas that people also inhabit, I think sentiments like 'I will pray for you' can only do good by greasing the skids of life to make it easier for us all to get by.
All of this has been said before. I just wanted to make sure my position on this highly important matter was clear.
Have a great day, y'all. Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just curious, Fugu: Why don't you acknowledge the existence of revelation? I don't know if you've explained this before, so please bear with me.
[ January 30, 2004, 05:19 PM: Message edited by: Jon Boy ]
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, note I said I couldn't believe in. Not that such a God couldn't exist. Clearly people believing in something doesn't mean it exists (that resulting in many mutually contradicting things being true). Similarly, not believing in something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its quite simple, really. I don't believe in anything being out there to give revelation . As for the various supporting evidence for it, I'm fairly familiar with a large number of belief systems and human psychology. People consistently have very powerful experiences, and are clearly not capable (this is going to get some disagreement) of distinguishing a real revelation from a false one even if there were revelations. Which leads me to strongly suspect that if a god were to exist he wouldn't use such a silly way to get people to believe.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What epiphany? Why does one need epiphany to believe something? I see little connection.
And I see no problem with restricting what sorts of God I could believe in (or respect, if given absolute proof of said God's existence ('cause it isn't belief then)). Its not theoretically troubling, as its just statements about what I am prepared to accept, and its not practically troubling, because I can prove its existence by example .
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
So what way would he use to convince people to believe? I mean, if physically coming to earth and showing himself to people is out, then what indubitable method is left?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
He's omnipotent (in this case used in the limited sense), let him figure it out. Stop trying to place limits on God .
But more seriously, there are several answers to that question. One quite common one (among Christians, among others) is that he doesn't. That part of the point is that its a matter of faith without absolute proof. A supporting idea is that if thats the method of distributing of the truth, why do only the people who've already heard the message get the revelation (with typically one exception for each religion, the originator of that religion)? Does God only take yes/no questions so you have to know what to ask, first?
Another is, of course, that there isn't a God, which is what I tend towards. I would never say I believe there isn't a God, because I don't. I would say there is no God I can believe in -- quite different.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, I never said he couldn't physically come to earth. I said I didn't acknowledge the existence of revelation. The two are not equal.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
saxon, I think the second part of my post answered your question.
Tom, I think the PowerPoint bible is amusing, especially Day Three. One nitpick: there was no day zero.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have to beat myself everyday to remember that God is who he is, and it's totally pointless for me to try and resist that. It's like those people who sat around with their sunglasses on watching the A-bombs go off. It's like putting your hand up to stop a speeding train.
PSI...those are the two weirdest similies describing God that I have ever seen.
It's like you expect God to obliterate you at any moment!!!
I have it on good authority that your obliteration is scheduled for a long time from now.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
LOL Bob. I thought of that too. I actually picked speeding train over comet-hurdling-towards-earth for that reason.
I'm sure you realize that my analogies were supposed to illustrate the unstoppable force of God Almighty. Not necessarily the destructive power, although I'm sure that's pretty impressive, too.
I just remember seeing those people during Operation Ivy, sitting on a hill watching the bombs go off less than a mile away, with their pitiful little sunglasses on, like that would do anything. I heard they used to say that if a nuke went off while you were in school, to get under your desk. o_O
Posts: 6367 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of the early test subject turned their backs and put their hands over their eyes, and they could see the bones in their hands anyway. I'm guessing they were too close. So is there a drawback to getting too close to God, analogously?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
For your spiritual development probably not, but your interactions with other humans might deteriorate.
Posts: 1364 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again, here's the thing that I really don't think people are getting. *ahem* YOU DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL PAUL WHAT HE SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT BE OFFENDED BY.
That's what the dicussion has come down to. Paople saying, "Oh, well I don't think you should be offended by that, so it's ok that they pray for you against your wishes." Dictating to another person what they should or shouldn't think and claiming that you know better than they do for themselves is completely disrespectful of them. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong, but it's still always disrespectful.
Two personal analogies.
1) I'm a very tactile person. I love to touch and feel things, especially people. I give excellent massages, especially when I'm nervous, because they calm me down. I'm the guy that people routinely think is dating some of my female friends, because we're always touching each other. I can honestly say, I'm uncomfortable in situations when I can't have physical contact with people I care about or are interested in.
I don't see why people in our culture are so against physcial contact. I think that communicating without physicality is limiting and leads to less caring and empathy. Also, when I touch people, I'm doing for their own good and I don't think that you could claim I'm hurting them in any way. And yet, I don't go around touching everyone I know. No one here is going to argue that I should be allowed to do so or is going to side with me if I get offended when someone tells me not to touch them after I do. Explain to me the difference between those situations.
2) I hate greeting cards nearly as much as I love touching. I think that they symbolize a disconnect in a relationship. It's sort of like, "I don't know how to express to you how I feel about you or it's too much trouble to try, so here's a pre-packaged, factory created approximation." To me, giving someone a greeting card is me saying that I don't really care about them.
I make no bones about telling other people this, and yet they usually seem to send me greeting cards. I'll tell them I don't want them, that they make me doubt the strength of our relationship, but they send them anyway. No doubt, they think that they are doing a good thing for me. However, for me, each card I get is a symbol that they don't really care about the real me, that the social construction of what you're supposed to do is more important to them than what I actually want. For someone who links love strongly to understanding, each card saying they love me is actually saying the exact opposite.
Again, how is that situation different from Paul's with the prayer?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
. As for the various supporting evidence for it, I'm fairly familiar with a large number of belief systems and human psychology. People consistently have very powerful experiences, and are clearly not capable (this is going to get some disagreement) of distinguishing a real revelation from a false one even if there were revelations. Which leads me to strongly suspect that if a god were to exist he wouldn't use such a silly way to get people to believe.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
