What interactions with theists say about God

[wynn]

From your interactions with theists, what have you learned about God or what considerations about God have those interactions given you?




For myself, it is only after interacting with theists that I seriously began to consider that God may be evil, or that He doesn't exist.

 

[Lori_7]

god's not evil. he's just not going to coddle you, or buy any of your bullshit. until you're willing to be humble and sincere, like a child, god won't have anything to do with you.

is this an addition to the list of reasons why you don't want to know god? there's really no need to continue to rationalize it in public. i'm not sure who you're trying to convince. perhaps blame. but really signal, if you don't want to know god, then don't know god. it's your call, and it's your decision, and it's no one else's fault.

stop trying to blame other people for your own desire. some other people might buy your excuse, but god sure as hell won't.

 

[wynn]

god's not evil. he's just not going to coddle you, or buy any of your bullshit. until you're willing to be humble and sincere, like a child, god won't have anything to do with you.

is this an addition to the list of reasons why you don't want to know god? there's really no need to continue to rationalize it in public. i'm not sure who you're trying to convince. perhaps blame. but really signal, if you don't want to know god, then don't know god. it's your call, and it's your decision, and it's no one else's fault.

stop trying to blame other people for your own desire. some other people might buy your excuse, but god sure as hell won't.

And God has made you His official representative, with full authority to act on His behalf?

 

[Lori_7]

And God has made you His official representative, with full authority to act on His behalf?

yes, it's called witnessing and discernment. i'm telling you what i know about god and what i observe about you. would you rather i lie?

 

[wynn]

yes, it's called witnessing and discernment. i'm telling you what i know about god and what i observe about you. would you rather i lie?

So you are hereby declaring your divinity?

 

[Lori_7]

So you are hereby declaring your divinity?

you don't have to be god to be a witness signal.

see, this is what i mean by "bullshit". i find it really hard to believe that you're really lacking this much common sense.

 

[wynn]

you don't have to be god to be a witness signal.

see, this is what i mean by "bullshit". i find it really hard to believe that you're really lacking this much common sense.

Interestingly, even though you are a free-style Protestant, you understand and employ the principle of authoritarianism, as understood by the disciplic succession in the Catholic Church or in some Hindu schools.

However, since you are a free-style Protestant, you understand and employ the principle of authoritarianism against individual persons, as one person against another, with claiming, directly or indirectly, that God is on your side but not on the other person's side.

You are the Church, the Holy Inquisition, the Clergy, the Scholars - all in one person! How economical!

 

[Lori_7]

Interestingly, even though you are a free-style Protestant, you understand and employ the principle of authoritarianism, as understood by the disciplic succession in the Catholic Church or in some Hindu schools.

However, since you are a free-style Protestant, you understand and employ the principle of authoritarianism against individual persons, as one person against another, with claiming, directly or indirectly, that God is on your side but not on the other person's side.

You are the Church, the Holy Inquisition, the Clergy, the Scholars - all in one person! How economical!

why in the hell do you feel the need to slap all of these labels on people? i am lori, and i have been made aware of god's existence, come to know god, and have been transformed by the holy spirit. and you are some whiney bitch who wants to hate me because of that. who wants to accuse me.

you come out here and lie, pretending to be desperate for answers, desperate for god. you're a liar. and until you get real, you'll never know god. now you can call me what you want, but that won't change the truth about you. :shrug:

 

[Yazata]

From your interactions with theists, what have you learned about God or what considerations about God have those interactions given you?

Well, I don't believe in God, so the answer would have to be 'nothing'. I don't believe that the word 'God' has any reference, so I don't think that there's anything in existence to learn about.

I'm not entirely comfortable with the word 'theist'. It's an awfully broad and rather artificial analytical category, seemingly derived in large part from the special monotheistic concerns of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic family of religions.

When it comes to interactions with theists and studying theistic traditions, I've learned quite a bit about how these people conceive of 'God'. (That's rather different than learning about God.)

I'm not sure if I can summarize it, since ostensibly theistic conceptions of God seem to be all over the map. Some say God has these qualities, some say those qualities, and others question whether God has qualities at all (and perhaps go with a theory of analogical language or something).

For myself, it is only after interacting with theists that I seriously began to consider that God may be evil, or that He doesn't exist.

I've never thought that God existed, even as a small child. Talking to theists hasn't done much to move me towards thinking that 'he' does.

As for God being being evil, I'm with you. That idea never crossed my mind until after too many religious nuts had preached turn-or-burn hell-fire in my direction.

It suddenly occurred to me that the image of a God that would torture people unspeakably for eternity with no possibility of escape... ever... merely for the crime of not groveling properly, was an image that's morally indistinguishable from Satan.

In fact Satan emerges as the more sympathetic and far more heroic character, since he's the one willing to say 'No!' to God's face, in full knowledge that God will eventually tear him to pieces for his disobedience. Satan becomes the model of one who's willing to stand up for principle, even in the face of impossible odds.

 

[wellwisher]

I think the problem many atheists have is they fixate on a narrow perception of God and religion that helps them justify their biased position. The extreme southern bible toker or muslim suicide soilder, becomes the expert witness aginst whom they can confidently disagree and prove their thesis. This is not even rational, since real science would challenge using the best data, not the worse. Atheist science is spin.

For example, if I irrationally hated grapes because they are the most yucking fruit in the world, and I wanted to prove that to myself, I would not at anything that would create doubt in my mind. Rather I would look just at a narrow data set that makes me feel my irrational position is rational. I was right grapes are the youckiest; QED.

For example, the God you refer to is from the Old Testament. That God changed his approach beginning in the new testament. God=Christ=love. Up the the New testament Satan is in heaven as the left hand man of God, with influence. Satan may be better model for an atheist, since he is historically a master of illusions. He is one of the first liberal politicians getting Eve to buy into a power illusion.

After God hand authority to his son=love, the son went even one step further. Religion was to change from an outward herd movement into inward individual religion, since this is how you access the spirit of truth. This is not much different than atheist self reliance on their own minds. ALl it added was extra mainframe support to the ego.

 

[spidergoat]

Maybe he changed his approach again with the Book of Mormon?

 

[leopold]

From your interactions with theists, what have you learned about God or what considerations about God have those interactions given you?

i have found that otherwise intelligent people believe in god.
some of the nicest people go to church.
some of the ugliest i have ever met also go to church.

For myself, it is only after interacting with theists that I seriously began to consider that God may be evil, or that He doesn't exist.

on a personal note my mind will not allow me to accept a "supernatural being" or "ghosts".

 

[RedRabbit]

I think the problem many atheists have is they fixate on a narrow perception of God and religion that helps them justify their biased position. The extreme southern bible toker or muslim suicide soilder, becomes the expert witness aginst whom they can confidently disagree and prove their thesis. This is not even rational, since real science would challenge using the best data, not the worse. Atheist science is spin.

For example, if I irrationally hated grapes because they are the most yucking fruit in the world, and I wanted to prove that to myself, I would not at anything that would create doubt in my mind. Rather I would look just at a narrow data set that makes me feel my irrational position is rational. I was right grapes are the youckiest; QED.

For example, the God you refer to is from the Old Testament. That God changed his approach beginning in the new testament. God=Christ=love. Up the the New testament Satan is in heaven as the left hand man of God, with influence. Satan may be better model for an atheist, since he is historically a master of illusions. He is one of the first liberal politicians getting Eve to buy into a power illusion.

After God hand authority to his son=love, the son went even one step further. Religion was to change from an outward herd movement into inward individual religion, since this is how you access the spirit of truth. This is not much different than atheist self reliance on their own minds. ALl it added was extra mainframe support to the ego.

That's a beautiful theory wellwisher. The irony is exquiste.

I for one don't look at "southern bible toker or muslim suicide soilder" to formulate mine though. I just think anyone that believes all that is bat shit crazy. Not very scientific I know, but it cuts out the middleman.

 

[NMSquirrel]

i want so bad to join Lori in her rant against signal, but since others have posted on topic, i think i will keep shut about it.

that said..
Other theists are not the reason i believe, other theists have increased what i know about God, but they are not the foundation of my belief, God is.
IOW i don't need other ppl to validate my belief in God, that belief exists by itself.

 

[wynn]

When it comes to interactions with theists and studying theistic traditions, I've learned quite a bit about how these people conceive of 'God'. (That's rather different than learning about God.)

Sure, this is why I phrased the OP "what have you learned about God or what considerations about God have those interactions given you?".

I've never thought that God existed, even as a small child.

As far as I can remember, I didn't take issue with God's existence one way or the other. It was all mysterious and too incomprehensible to me. I think though that I was somehow open to it, and had my own ideas about what "Creator of the Universe" means, and those ideas didn't fill me with discomfort either.

But I gathered from the heated exchanges between other people that God's existence is apparently something to be angry and defensive about.

This caused me an internal conflict - since the same people from whom I have heard about God and based on whose words I had my not uncomfortable ideas about God, were the people who were angry and defensive about God.
We obviously experienced ideas about God very differently, and I didn't understand why. But since I have heard about God from them, and felt that I must give credit where credit is due, I imagined that they were more right about God than I was - and that their feelings about God were thus the correct ones.

 

[Lori_7]

i want so bad to join Lori in her rant against signal, but since others have posted on topic, i think i will keep shut about it.

that said..
Other theists are not the reason i believe, other theists have increased what i know about God, but they are not the foundation of my belief, God is.
IOW i don't need other ppl to validate my belief in God, that belief exists by itself.

signal would call that solipsism (as a criticism), and then while speaking out of the other side of his/her mouth would demand that you use this solipsism as a basis for claiming your divinity, and then become his/her guru and hence responsible for his/her salvation.

and then signal would want to talk about logic of all things.

and become offended at accusations of insincerity.

go figure.

 

[Rav]

and then signal would want to talk about logic of all things.

and become offended at accusations of insincerity.

go figure.

Signal used to irritate me and as such we've had our fair share of run-ins. But after several engagements (including a couple of PMs) I've come to understand that he's not trying to be irritating. It's just that he's stuck (for what seems like it might be an eternity sometimes) between wanting to find truth and trying to avoid being shipwrecked with regard to it. In other words, he's attempting to tackle the most fundamental religious question of all: which one represents the truth (if any) and how can one be certain of that.

Most religious people have moved past this dilemma simply by embracing one particular religion (or belief system) and discovering that it produces results.
But as all of us should know (either from personal experience or interacting with others), "results" are possible no matter what religion we're talking about. This means that not only can one not trust the testimony of others, one can not even necessarily trust one's own experiences, since we humans are all too ready to embrace the first thing that comes our way as long as it "feels" right. But all you need to do is look at how much tragedy is born of people doing what "felt" right to them to realize that it's an absurd and decidedly unenlightened way to try to divine some kind of ultimate truth and purpose.

The way I see it, Signal is like the embodiment of agnosticism itself. He engages theists and atheists alike with equal degrees of tenacity, and has frequently demonstrated a willingness to tentatively position himself on either side of the fence when it comes creating and participating in discussion. His threads while sometimes invoking a desire to scratch one's head (or possibly even bash it against the wall) almost invariably give birth to interesting discussion. He's one of the people who keep this subforum moving, and I'm much more likely to read his posts than I am those of many other people who post in here.

Conversely, let's look at you Lori. As far as I can see, the only thing you've been bringing to this forum for quite a while now is fantastic claims (that God speaks to you directly, that there's an entire book in the Bible that's about you, that you've been anointed by God to "birth a kingdom" on earth [whatever the fuck that means]) , a lot of hostility, and the message (which you never seem to get tired of preaching) that the entire world is fundamentally and eternally fucked and that you can't wait for it to end. You're free to believe whatever you want to believe of course, but right now I can't think of another person that ruins this forum more than you do (nor can I think of another person who is less effective at witnessing than you, due to the above).

 

[Lori_7]

Signal used to irritate me and as such we've had our fair share of run-ins. But after several engagements (including a couple of PMs) I've come to understand that he's not trying to be irritating. It's just that he's stuck (for what seems like it might be an eternity sometimes) between wanting to find truth and trying to avoid being shipwrecked with regard to it. In other words, he's attempting to tackle the most fundamental religious question of all: which one represents the truth (if any) and how can one be certain of that.

Most religious people have moved past this dilemma simply by embracing one particular religion (or belief system) and discovering that it produces results.
But as all of us should know (either from personal experience or interacting with others), "results" are possible no matter what religion we're talking about. This means that not only can one not trust the testimony of others, one can not even necessarily trust one's own experiences, since we humans are all too ready to embrace the first thing that comes our way as long as it "feels" right. But all you need to do is look at how much tragedy is born of people doing what "felt" right to them to realize that it's an absurd and decidedly unenlightened way to try to divine some kind of ultimate truth and purpose.

The way I see it, Signal is like the embodiment of agnosticism itself. He engages theists and atheists alike with equal degrees of tenacity, and has frequently demonstrated a willingness to tentatively position himself on either side of the fence when it comes creating and participating in discussion. His threads while sometimes invoking a desire to scratch one's head (or possibly even bash it against the wall) almost invariably give birth to interesting discussion. He's one of the people who keep this subforum moving, and I'm much more likely to read his posts than I am those of many other people who post in here.

Conversely, let's look at you Lori. As far as I can see, the only thing you've been bringing to this forum for quite a while now is fantastic claims (that God speaks to you directly, that there's an entire book in the Bible that's about you, that you've been anointed by God to "birth a kingdom" on earth [whatever the fuck that means]) , a lot of hostility, and the message (which you never seem to get tired of preaching) that the entire world is fundamentally and eternally fucked and that you can't wait for it to end. You're free to believe whatever you want to believe of course, but right now I can't think of another person that ruins this forum more than you do (nor can I think of another person who is less effective at witnessing than you, due to the above).

wow; you've actually listened to what i've said.

but to be fair, i don't think my claims are that fantastic. my claims are actually in line with exactly what it says in the bible...what the whole book is about; personal revelation from god via the spirit. imo, christianity can't be as widespread and as accepted as it is, and my claims be called fantastic at the same time.

also, the bible's a big book. amongst all of the characters and all of the scripture, i would say that relatively 2nd john, rev ch 12, and the blurp about the tree of life at the very end is a drop in the bucket compared to the meaning to be found in it entirely. i also don't think that my identification with those particular scriptures is the only interpretation or meaning to be found in them. i think the bible is a tool more than a book, to be used by the holy spirit, and that it's layered with a variety of meanings, all of which are true, depending on what it's being used for.

i'm not surprised that you don't appreciate my contribution here, but as far as my witnessing is concerned, i'm not here to intellectually masturbate. i'm here to tell people the truth. :shrug:

 

[Enmos]

i'm here to tell people the truth. :shrug:

About?
You?
You don't seem to know a whole lot about God for someone that claims to know him personally.

 

[chimpkin]

Rav said:
(Of Signal)
His threads while sometimes invoking a desire to scratch one's head (or possibly even bash it against the wall) almost invariably give birth to interesting discussion.

S/he can make you think...but we've managed to hurt each other's feelings enough.
No mas habla.
Kind of makes some of the threads a bit disjointed.