Why doesn't God just show himself?

I found a claimed Bible contradiction on www.cryptoclast.org. I have provided one excerpt from the New Testament followed by three contradictory excerpts from the Old Testament:

"No one has ever seen God, but God the One and Only, who is at the Father's side, has made him known."

- John 1:18

Contradictions

"And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

- Genesis 32:30

"And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back parts: but my face shall not be seen."

- Exodus 33:21-23

"And the LORD appeared unto him in the plains of Mamre: and he sat in the tent door in the heat of the day."

- Genesis 18:1

Is this really a contradiction or am I reading these passages wrong? :bugeye:
 
does anyone think that if god were to just flat out proove his existence it would defeat the purpose of giving us the choice to folow him or not, because i know that if i saw a person change the ocean into blood i would belive whether or not i belived prior to the event. would that realy make me a genuine beliver ?
 
That´s true, I think it would make anyone feel that he has to believe in god.
Otherwise you would deny the existance of something pretty obvious.
There is just no way anyone could not believe in god after he makes such
a grand display of his powers.
That would mean that a god would take our freedom of choice away.
 
Jenyar,


You might consider it unfortunate that God does not punish sin immediately
Click to expand...

The effects of sin are usually slow. So slow, that we don't even perceive them in the course of one day. This is the whole problem.

If we take that fat man from the example from the other thread: Damage was happening to him on a daily basis, but so slow that he did not perceive it. Until it was "suddenly" too late that one day when he died of heart failure.

Punishment is taking place, we just refuse to see it. That fat man was punished for his over-eating by not being able to play soccer. He was punished for his over-eating by having to spend a lot of time resting, instead of working in his garden. And so on. There were less and less things he could do because he was so fat.
Not being able to do those things is the punishment.

You needn't look further than your own nose to see punishment of sins happening.

You needn't invoke "eternal life" or "eternal death" to explain punishment and reward.
They are happening, right here, right now. All you need to do is open your eyes and your ears.

Reward and punishment are *too close*, *too immediate* to some people, this is why they push them away into some afterlife.
 
greywolf said:
does anyone think that if god were to just flat out proove his existence it would defeat the purpose of giving us the choice to folow him or not, because i know that if i saw a person change the ocean into blood i would belive whether or not i belived prior to the event. would that realy make me a genuine beliver ?
Click to expand...

You would be a *scientific* believer, not a *religious* believer.

I propose a continuum of beliefs:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>continuum>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

completely based ..................................................................not based on
on observation ......................................................................observation
of reality ................................................................................of reality


the belief >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>scientific belief>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>religious belief
that we
are not
conscioulsy
aware of,
total sureness,
instinct


Instincts and religious beliefs are the boundary points of the continuum. Somewhere between them are scientific beliefs.

Some religious beliefs are using scientific methods -- such religious beliefs move more to the left of the continuum.

Some scientific beliefs are giuded by religious motives -- such scientific beliefs move more to the right of the contiuum.

Some instincts we rationalize -- such instincts move more to the right of the continuum.

Some scientific beliefs we make instinct-like -- such scientific beliefs move more to the left of the continuum.

Some religious beliefs become so intrinsic, that they move to the extreme left of the continuum (after passing a stage where they were regarded as a scientific belief).
 
Oh, good grief! Good point in your post to Jenyar though. Like you care what I think, huh.

Later, maybe..........pmt
 
RosaMagika said:
Punishment is taking place, we just refuse to see it. That fat man was punished for his over-eating by not being able to play soccer. He was punished for his over-eating by having to spend a lot of time resting, instead of working in his garden. And so on. There were less and less things he could do because he was so fat.
Not being able to do those things is the punishment.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between punishment and consequences. They only come together at death, in which case everyone reaps the consequence of ahving lived. Why should all life be "punished" with death?

You needn't look further than your own nose to see punishment of sins happening.

You needn't invoke "eternal life" or "eternal death" to explain punishment and reward.
They are happening, right here, right now. All you need to do is open your eyes and your ears.

Reward and punishment are *too close*, *too immediate* to some people, this is why they push them away into some afterlife.
Click to expand...
1 John 5 16If anyone sees his brother commit a sin that does not lead to death, he should pray and God will give him life. I refer to those whose sin does not lead to death. There is a sin that leads to death. I am not saying that he should pray about that. All wrongdoing is sin, and there is sin that does not lead to death.
We know that anyone born of God does not continue to sin; the one who was born of God keeps him safe, and the evil one cannot harm him. We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one.​
Sin does not eventually have to lead to death, but unchecked it will. What we have right in front of our noses is the cure. It won't help to stare yourself blind at the consequences of sin - whether it comes in the form of Christians, Muslims, atheists or just regular human beings.
 
Just curious. What is a "regular human being?"
Click to expand...

I won't claim to speak for Jenyar, but a "regular human being," insofar as I can tell, is a human being that is a human being first, and an identity second. Some people don't want to be "Christian" or "Witch" or "atheist" or "American" or "Western" or "capitalist" or "communist." They just want to be "human."

I am told, however, that this is often experienced late in life, in the twilight years, when one is alleged to reflect on their triumphs and failures.

For instance ... for some reason I can't throw a frisbee. Well, not exactly. I can make a frisbee do all sorts of interesting things, and some of it even intentional. But throwing to a friend? No. The last thing I can do is make a frisbee go where I want it to. I apply sort of a Seymour Glass philosophy these days, and don't worry about where it's going. It ends up where I would otherwise want it more often than not, so . . . yeah.

But some days these are the things that are important to people--little things. Because in them we come closest to ourselves and understand the things that we might someday come to regret or wish to resurrect.

Some days I don't want to be a leftist. Most days I try not to be a Democrat. I despise being a second son. I've found that as I shed more and more identity politics, people become more and more irritated with me. It seems the last thing any human being is supposed to be is a "regular human being."

Regular human beings are what we get when we hang up our hangups and get on with the living. Regular human beings are what we are when trying to suppress the gut-laugh that comes while trying to read McKuen. The greatest triumph of regular human beings was to tear away from the savage world enough time to sit on a rock and think about things.

Regular human beings are what we all strive to be whether we recognize that aspect in ourselves or not.
 
Hmmmm. Does the scientific existence of god take our free choice away? Not really. Satan knew god existed and still had free choice. He chose against god. It doesn't matter if god himself comes down and tells us he exists or just your church preacher tells you. They both talk in terms that a god REALLY exists. The bible is supposed to be proof positive of god's existence. And supposedly we would be fools not to believe in it. So why does god want us to have free choice when he constantly is telling us, thru the bible, that he exists? That a hell exists if we don't believe in him and a heaven exists if we do believe in him. Where is the free choice in that? Unless god wants us to have a little bit of doubt. A little skepticism. That would give us a choice. But then who's fault is it if god is not forthright enuff that allows us to have a valid skepticism of his existence? Can we be blamed for choosing not to believe in him if he wants it that way?
 
Hi, I'm new to the forums. Please bear in mind that english is not my first language, so excuse me if anything is lost in translation. So, about god showing himself.....

1.- First of all, let me say that affirming that god doesn't exist is utterly unscientific. The fact that we do not understand a certain phenomenom is no reason to disregard it. Actually, it's more of a reason to study it deeper. If asked, I can elaborate.

2.- God shows himself as we speak. Just because we take the perfect balance of this universe for granted, we shouldn't say it was a work of chance. If you don't believe in god, just take a deeper look at everything that surrounds you. Everything works in perfect harmony, and it does so by itself. If that isn't proof of the existance of god, I don't know what is.
 
If that isn't proof of the existance of god, I don't know what is.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the menagerie. We do hope you enjoy your stay, CottonMouth.

I think that last point of yours hangs largely on how one defines "god" or "God."

At some point--Anselm tripped over it and apparently didn't notice--the idea of "God" simply becomes the idea of "ultimate reality." By that measure, I can't argue with a word of your post.

The problem is all these microcosmic religions; holy texts have a tendency of trying to compress all there is into something relatively tiny. When God fits in a nightstand ... well, there's bound to be some problems in understanding the simplicity of the ultimate reality.

These gods--IHVH, Allah, &c.--I call "shoebox gods," meaning they're small enough to fit into a shoebox.

And they can be firmly excluded from science as untestable. Which is why there's so few projects being funded right now with the intent of scientifically disproving the existence of God. Seriously, the odds-and-ends grad student or tired professor writing a paper about it ... hey, at least they're not in jail, but nobody pretends they're doing anything important. As for the rest? Internet whackos eternally damned to a place like Sciforums or, worse yet, self-aggrandizing homepages.
 
The greatest triumph of regular human beings was to tear away from the savage world enough time to sit on a rock and think about things.
Click to expand...

And perhaps one of the greatest fallacies gained from sitting on a rock and thinking about things is that regardless of where your mind or ass happens to be, the universe is still savage. Supernovas happen.

Oh and to me a "regular human being" is a fallacy, as "regular" is based on statistics or a generality and thus doesn't apply to a specific human being.

I'd say that you're using "regular" as "only", or "label-free". Woud you agree that a typical human (percentage-wise) adopts a whole slew of labels to help carve his identity from the throng of his environment? I agree with you that a fixation on the label, rather than the exploration of the issues, gets you nowhere.

I don't think that the ability to stay emotionally detached from labels or reject them alltogether makes you a "regular human being". It makes you a statistical anomoly. Perhaps it makes you strong, rational, or maybe even "grounded". It might be somewhat annoying as well, depending on who you are, as it will probably confuse the people who are trying to assess your position (to see if you threaten what they value, this is a very practical consideration). If you reject labels that they take as applicable, you're speaking two different languages. If they reject your rejection of labels for whatever reason (perhaps they distrust your language), you're at an impasse and perhaps thrust back into the savage world. *shrug*
 
humans are like lighting

Stop looking at the ying and yang for a second and try to see that they are both part the same circle. Look at things from a bigger perspective than whats in front of your nose once in a while.
 
Jenyar,

Well, if Tiassa is right on the money and you couldn't have explained it better yourself:
So I am trying to be this regular human being, without any particular verbalizable philosophy.

So you can't put anything against me, when you see that my beliefs are not in accordance with yours.

You can only put against me that I was brought up with a deranged idea of having to please and try to make others think well of me -- at all costs.

I guess that if I wouldn't try so hard to not be offensive, I'd be a lot less offensive.
Huh.

I'm just trying to be a regular human being -- and a necessary part of that is NOT having a particular verbalizable philosophy.
 
RosaMagika said:
I'm just trying to be a regular human being -- and a necessary part of that is NOT having a particular verbalizable philosophy
Click to expand...
I'm tempted to point out that you have just verbalized your philosophy ;) Besides, you have no problems verbalizing your doubts and objections - what's wrong with verbalizing your certainties and beliefs? Isn't that a little selective?

I'm not putting anything against you. Neither do I want your beliefs to be according to mine. Faith in God is not something you can verbalize without the risk of losing some of its vibrance, but it is something I can share, and I still think it's something you understand. I don't care what you're prepared to admit to me or not, but at least permit me to tell you that you can admit it to God.

I don't care so much that others think well of me - I'd rather be honest about myself and my faith at all costs, let people get to know me as I know myself - then they can decide for themselves whether they like me or not.
 
I'm just trying to be a regular human being -- and a necessary part of that is NOT having a particular verbalizable philosophy.
Click to expand...

Philosophies are part of being human. However, the identity politic must necessarily be subservient to one's humanity, and not vice-versa. That's the key.

Think of a simple difference often manifested when Christianity gets political:

• Does one acknowledge the idea of right and wrong and thus seek to know right, or does one declare a certain set of principles right and go forth from there?

(Although incomplete, I'm going to end right there. A strange phenomenon has just stolen my attention--a localized flash of light in my backyard. It's a clear night, there's no sound of airplanes, helicopters, or such ... there's no concussion, no nothing. The only thing I've ever seen that comes close to it is if a meteorite passes overhead at low altitude, and ... well ... it's possible. But my train of thought is long gone from the station.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top