Why doesn't God just show himself?
- Thread starter moementum7
- Start date
Jenyar,
I should have made myself clearer in the previous post: A verbalizable philosophy in the sense of having a *finite* *scripture* as a constant and only reference.
Haven't I verbalized my certainties and beliefs? Aren't I going on and on about "actions, not words", "use or lose" etc.?
I do think I understand it! I don't have all that gray matter in my skull and that thumping thing in my chest just for the fun of it, you know.
I just think that I can ever be sure whether I understand it the way you understand it -- that's all.
You don't care whether I am prepared to admit someting to you or not.
Do you care whether I do admit it to you or not?
I should have made myself clearer in the previous post: A verbalizable philosophy in the sense of having a *finite* *scripture* as a constant and only reference.
Haven't I verbalized my certainties and beliefs? Aren't I going on and on about "actions, not words", "use or lose" etc.?
I do think I understand it! I don't have all that gray matter in my skull and that thumping thing in my chest just for the fun of it, you know.
I just think that I can ever be sure whether I understand it the way you understand it -- that's all.
You don't care whether I am prepared to admit someting to you or not.
Do you care whether I do admit it to you or not?
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
TIASSA;
Hi, remember me? I remember you, and enjoyed to response regarding a "regular human being." However, I must admit that Wesmorris has a good point, but I could relate to your way of putting things. Maybe because I have never liked labels and categories for people. My thinking: If I say I am Baptist, then I am saying that I am not this and this and this and so on. I just used Baptist as an example. A boss once, confused by where to put me, smiled broadly and said, "I've got it! You are an introvert with an extrovert exterior. So, folks are going to find a category for us, but I think it is best if I do not find one for myself.
Regards.
Hi, remember me? I remember you, and enjoyed to response regarding a "regular human being." However, I must admit that Wesmorris has a good point, but I could relate to your way of putting things. Maybe because I have never liked labels and categories for people. My thinking: If I say I am Baptist, then I am saying that I am not this and this and this and so on. I just used Baptist as an example. A boss once, confused by where to put me, smiled broadly and said, "I've got it! You are an introvert with an extrovert exterior. So, folks are going to find a category for us, but I think it is best if I do not find one for myself.
Regards.
P. M. Thorne
Registered Senior Member
Also to Tiassa: I could recall who made the comment about God in shoe box, so I had to go back and look. Let me say this, and it goes right along with what I just posted:
Not only do people want to classify us, they also want to classify God. I believe, and I believe this happens because people like things they can understand, and if God's attributes and extensions are not clearly definable, it makes a whole "bunch of people" nervous. Likewise, when they put me or you in a category and label us, it is to define us, making it much easier to judge and/or control,....they hope. This is not intended to be mean. In fact, some are unaware that they do it. Even the ones who call God omnipresent will suggest that one come to church and visit God. Therefore, I have to question what some folks mean when they say that God has shown Himself to them.
That is a rough statement, but one should believe in what she does, and do what she believes in, most especially if one plans to expound to others reassurance of the existance of God. I say, He has shown Himself, does show Himself, will show Himself, and that if we want to be truly aware of this, then we need to come out of our box; otherwise we deceive ourselves. Thanks.
ROSA: "You don't care whether I am prepared to admit someting to you or not.
Do you care whether I do admit it to you or not?"
Good catch, Rosa! I mean this in good humor with against the person who wrote it. It is easy to do on this forum, but nice catch anyway.
Not only do people want to classify us, they also want to classify God. I believe, and I believe this happens because people like things they can understand, and if God's attributes and extensions are not clearly definable, it makes a whole "bunch of people" nervous. Likewise, when they put me or you in a category and label us, it is to define us, making it much easier to judge and/or control,....they hope. This is not intended to be mean. In fact, some are unaware that they do it. Even the ones who call God omnipresent will suggest that one come to church and visit God. Therefore, I have to question what some folks mean when they say that God has shown Himself to them.
That is a rough statement, but one should believe in what she does, and do what she believes in, most especially if one plans to expound to others reassurance of the existance of God. I say, He has shown Himself, does show Himself, will show Himself, and that if we want to be truly aware of this, then we need to come out of our box; otherwise we deceive ourselves. Thanks.
ROSA: "You don't care whether I am prepared to admit someting to you or not.
Do you care whether I do admit it to you or not?"
Good catch, Rosa! I mean this in good humor with against the person who wrote it. It is easy to do on this forum, but nice catch anyway.
Update & Apologia
Turns out it was a meteorite:
• http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001946256_webflash03.html
• http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001946316_webflashreader03.html
I lost the boom in the music, under the sound effects at the beginning of a song. But there ye go. I know I actually heard it, though, because I turned the stereo down and then couldn't figure out if it was part of the song or what.
Turns out it was also a good place to stop. I'll take the note for the future.
Tiassa said:
Turns out it was a meteorite:
• http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001946256_webflash03.html
• http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001946316_webflashreader03.html
I lost the boom in the music, under the sound effects at the beginning of a song. But there ye go. I know I actually heard it, though, because I turned the stereo down and then couldn't figure out if it was part of the song or what.
Turns out it was also a good place to stop. I'll take the note for the future.
(Insert Title Here)
PM Thorne
Most certainly I remember; of all the things I'm capable of forgetting, it seems Sciforums discussions aren't nearly as vulnerable as I would think. And, of course, your kind considerations of the situation are difficult to forget, especially amid that storm.
I actually had been eyeing Wes' post, arguing with myself about whether, in one instance, I was reading what I thought I was reading, and in the other whether or not I would actually disagree or merely draw the circle with a different center and/or radius. Additionally, there's a point I definitely disagree with, but I haven't determined--because of the aforementioned considerations--its significance.
Technically and abstractly--as odd a combination as that may be--what other people do or think in terms of how they label you is entirely their own. My brother once went through a relatively significant shift in the manifestation of his paradigm in politics, largely because of identity confusion in some around him. First my father and then one of his best friends--both in the same tavern on different occasions--openly attributed certain beliefs to him that, while understandable attributions in light of his consistently conservative politic, upset him because they touched wrongly on issues he was sensitive to. So he finally began staking out his political identity for the convenience of those folks, although I admit he also confused a couple of people by disavowing events and conversations that could be taken as reflections of motivating principle. As a minority who went to a prestigious university on scholarships among which some reflected his ethnicity, he says he never said some things he said when our state considered affirmative action on its ballot. The difference of two years--from the election season when he said it all--to the time that he was left sputtering angrily over beer and pizza wondering where the hell people got it .... it was a 180 turnaround in terms of the superficial manifestation. I don't think he shifted his basic paradigm much if at all, but rather reorganized the devices that define the ebb and flow of its actualization.
But he's my brother; I saw through the superficial layer, and instead we argued about how his point of origin and chosen direction could lead him to a given destination. The difference is the identity assignation. For us, as brothers, we see right through those layers--well, in theory. I know what it meant when he was a Republican; others decided what it meant. And having GOP values he disagreed with--e.g. social policy--attributed to his person disturbed him greatly. So he moved to defuse the identity assignation. He only staked a tangible political boundary because those other folks needed it in order to understand him. And that's all it's worth to him. That he was a Republican since youth, almost straight-ticket, did not override his common sense. He voted against Dole in favor of the economy and he remains flabbergasted by the Bush administration. The discord between the identity politic and the alleged foundation are apparent to him, and whether or not anybody agrees that common sense involves voting against Dole or Bush is irrelevant to him; rather, he could not accept the dichotomy between the goals expressed and the route chosen to reach the goal.
For myself? I generally refer to myself as a Sisyphan Camusite. Very simply, I hold Camus' Myth of Sisyphus as a near-Truth. A damn-near-Truth. But that Sisyphus must necessarily be happy is no rational reason to accept injustice. The identity politic is utilitarian, and will be put aside should circumstances require.
If you say you are a Baptist, does that mean that you will choose to follow the Baptist identity politic come hell or high water? Where Baptists and the faith go, so goest thou? Or is there a place where you reel yourself in and say, someone is going a little too far ...?
If a Christian blows up an abortion clinic, other Christians move to disavow; it is written that whatsoever you do not do unto the least, so you do not do unto Him. If a Christian leaves a misguided brother or sister to their delusions, so have they left Christ alone in an hour of need. Thus it is understandable that those Christians who do not find violence appropriate should insist the violence a deviation from the Christian path, and it is understood by many/most that the abortion-bomber identity politic is not legitimately part of what comprises the broader representation of Christians and Christianity.
If a Muslim blows up a (fill in the blank), other Muslims often hesitate to move to condemnation. Of course, as I understand it, Muslims have among the revelations from God through His Prophet that criticizing another Muslim is a very difficult issue. Part of the difference is the orthopraxy of Islam, as compared to the orthodoxy of Christianity. While we in the West are familiar with the dangers of orthodoxy, the danger of orthopraxy is quite simply apparent: When a faith is recognized by common practice instead of common belief, one must always acknowledge the possibility that they can be wrong. Even if a Muslim does not believe the violence is right, it is my understanding that they had better be damn sure to cover all the bases before speaking out because within the vastness of God and the complexities of the Universe there is the ever-present chance that one will be wrong, and today is the day that (fill in the blank) somehow became necessary. The lack of open and definitive condemnation of "terrorism" from more than a scant few Muslim sources is oft-assigned the value that Muslims must therefore support the ugliest of terrorism.
Now, in the Christian/Muslim comparison, it should be obvious who has become subservient to their identity politics: the bombers (and, of course, their agents and leaders). But such a surrender of the intellect comes in many subtle varieties. And you can see it when certain inconsistencies well up in the representation. Although it's quite easy for me to bag on Christian politics in America, I do think the Christian-values debate of the last twenty years, at least, represented at times by teenagers at Dave Roever's camp throwing magazines and books and record albums into a bonfire or on the ballot in Oregon seeking to suspend a person's civil rights based on the gender of someone other than that person, on up to the campaign today to define marriage according to a gender-discriminatory standard, is an occasion of the humanity becoming subservient to the identity politic. The paradox: free speech, but only for "my" kind; free will, but only for "my" kind; free thought, but only for "my" kind. Rather than discovering God's Universe, they take after John Calvin insofar as the man was said to have fashioned God in his own image.
And in the end it compels some people to forsake their compassion, abandon justice, seek vengeance ... in other words, allowing the human to become subservient to the identity politic, in the specific case of religious faith, is to turn one's faith away from God.
If someone is compelled to assign you to a box, it is entirely your choice to remain within that box in order to accommodate them, deliberately and demonstratively violate its boundaries, or even disregard the box entirely and transgress the stereotype on those occasions that you naturally do so and otherwise thumb your nose at the idea of such a narrow label.
At any rate, I won't claim that any of this directly addresses your post (or Wes') despite at least being able to anchor for a moment on the Baptist example.
If your next post, about the shoebox God issue, draws little comment from me it's because there is little to add.
A favorite citation of mine that I drag into various discussions from time to time; if I leave it with no comment, it is because of the diversity of applications, and I won't rope this one in on this occasion:
(And thank you kindly for your insight; if I fail to address what you might consider the point, it's because I haven't a "fightin' thesis" to work toward, and am compelled to travel a wider orbit for the sake of the scenery and how it can frame any given picture.)
PM Thorne
Most certainly I remember; of all the things I'm capable of forgetting, it seems Sciforums discussions aren't nearly as vulnerable as I would think. And, of course, your kind considerations of the situation are difficult to forget, especially amid that storm.
I actually had been eyeing Wes' post, arguing with myself about whether, in one instance, I was reading what I thought I was reading, and in the other whether or not I would actually disagree or merely draw the circle with a different center and/or radius. Additionally, there's a point I definitely disagree with, but I haven't determined--because of the aforementioned considerations--its significance.
Technically and abstractly--as odd a combination as that may be--what other people do or think in terms of how they label you is entirely their own. My brother once went through a relatively significant shift in the manifestation of his paradigm in politics, largely because of identity confusion in some around him. First my father and then one of his best friends--both in the same tavern on different occasions--openly attributed certain beliefs to him that, while understandable attributions in light of his consistently conservative politic, upset him because they touched wrongly on issues he was sensitive to. So he finally began staking out his political identity for the convenience of those folks, although I admit he also confused a couple of people by disavowing events and conversations that could be taken as reflections of motivating principle. As a minority who went to a prestigious university on scholarships among which some reflected his ethnicity, he says he never said some things he said when our state considered affirmative action on its ballot. The difference of two years--from the election season when he said it all--to the time that he was left sputtering angrily over beer and pizza wondering where the hell people got it .... it was a 180 turnaround in terms of the superficial manifestation. I don't think he shifted his basic paradigm much if at all, but rather reorganized the devices that define the ebb and flow of its actualization.
But he's my brother; I saw through the superficial layer, and instead we argued about how his point of origin and chosen direction could lead him to a given destination. The difference is the identity assignation. For us, as brothers, we see right through those layers--well, in theory. I know what it meant when he was a Republican; others decided what it meant. And having GOP values he disagreed with--e.g. social policy--attributed to his person disturbed him greatly. So he moved to defuse the identity assignation. He only staked a tangible political boundary because those other folks needed it in order to understand him. And that's all it's worth to him. That he was a Republican since youth, almost straight-ticket, did not override his common sense. He voted against Dole in favor of the economy and he remains flabbergasted by the Bush administration. The discord between the identity politic and the alleged foundation are apparent to him, and whether or not anybody agrees that common sense involves voting against Dole or Bush is irrelevant to him; rather, he could not accept the dichotomy between the goals expressed and the route chosen to reach the goal.
For myself? I generally refer to myself as a Sisyphan Camusite. Very simply, I hold Camus' Myth of Sisyphus as a near-Truth. A damn-near-Truth. But that Sisyphus must necessarily be happy is no rational reason to accept injustice. The identity politic is utilitarian, and will be put aside should circumstances require.
If you say you are a Baptist, does that mean that you will choose to follow the Baptist identity politic come hell or high water? Where Baptists and the faith go, so goest thou? Or is there a place where you reel yourself in and say, someone is going a little too far ...?
If a Christian blows up an abortion clinic, other Christians move to disavow; it is written that whatsoever you do not do unto the least, so you do not do unto Him. If a Christian leaves a misguided brother or sister to their delusions, so have they left Christ alone in an hour of need. Thus it is understandable that those Christians who do not find violence appropriate should insist the violence a deviation from the Christian path, and it is understood by many/most that the abortion-bomber identity politic is not legitimately part of what comprises the broader representation of Christians and Christianity.
If a Muslim blows up a (fill in the blank), other Muslims often hesitate to move to condemnation. Of course, as I understand it, Muslims have among the revelations from God through His Prophet that criticizing another Muslim is a very difficult issue. Part of the difference is the orthopraxy of Islam, as compared to the orthodoxy of Christianity. While we in the West are familiar with the dangers of orthodoxy, the danger of orthopraxy is quite simply apparent: When a faith is recognized by common practice instead of common belief, one must always acknowledge the possibility that they can be wrong. Even if a Muslim does not believe the violence is right, it is my understanding that they had better be damn sure to cover all the bases before speaking out because within the vastness of God and the complexities of the Universe there is the ever-present chance that one will be wrong, and today is the day that (fill in the blank) somehow became necessary. The lack of open and definitive condemnation of "terrorism" from more than a scant few Muslim sources is oft-assigned the value that Muslims must therefore support the ugliest of terrorism.
Now, in the Christian/Muslim comparison, it should be obvious who has become subservient to their identity politics: the bombers (and, of course, their agents and leaders). But such a surrender of the intellect comes in many subtle varieties. And you can see it when certain inconsistencies well up in the representation. Although it's quite easy for me to bag on Christian politics in America, I do think the Christian-values debate of the last twenty years, at least, represented at times by teenagers at Dave Roever's camp throwing magazines and books and record albums into a bonfire or on the ballot in Oregon seeking to suspend a person's civil rights based on the gender of someone other than that person, on up to the campaign today to define marriage according to a gender-discriminatory standard, is an occasion of the humanity becoming subservient to the identity politic. The paradox: free speech, but only for "my" kind; free will, but only for "my" kind; free thought, but only for "my" kind. Rather than discovering God's Universe, they take after John Calvin insofar as the man was said to have fashioned God in his own image.
And in the end it compels some people to forsake their compassion, abandon justice, seek vengeance ... in other words, allowing the human to become subservient to the identity politic, in the specific case of religious faith, is to turn one's faith away from God.
If someone is compelled to assign you to a box, it is entirely your choice to remain within that box in order to accommodate them, deliberately and demonstratively violate its boundaries, or even disregard the box entirely and transgress the stereotype on those occasions that you naturally do so and otherwise thumb your nose at the idea of such a narrow label.
At any rate, I won't claim that any of this directly addresses your post (or Wes') despite at least being able to anchor for a moment on the Baptist example.
If your next post, about the shoebox God issue, draws little comment from me it's because there is little to add.
A favorite citation of mine that I drag into various discussions from time to time; if I leave it with no comment, it is because of the diversity of applications, and I won't rope this one in on this occasion:
(And thank you kindly for your insight; if I fail to address what you might consider the point, it's because I haven't a "fightin' thesis" to work toward, and am compelled to travel a wider orbit for the sake of the scenery and how it can frame any given picture.)
Last edited:
So just by looking at the harmonius universe you can tell that there is a god for sure, eh? Well the universe isn't all that harmonius. It is filled with cataclysmic events like supernovas and black holes. The gravity of a black hole defies conventional physics. Quantum physics is totally weird too...you can be (theorectically) in two places at the same time or arrive at some place before you even leave. And where is the harmony in violence? Violence in nature as well in humanity? It almost looks like satan created the universe instead of a loving god.
We may be unable to prove that there isn't a god...but at the same time we can't prove that there is a god either. All it comes down to is just a personal opinion. But the ones who say there is a god should come up with a little more evidence than "look around you...can't you see him?". No, I can't see him.
We may be unable to prove that there isn't a god...but at the same time we can't prove that there is a god either. All it comes down to is just a personal opinion. But the ones who say there is a god should come up with a little more evidence than "look around you...can't you see him?". No, I can't see him.
Tiassa said:
Just saw a security cam of the meteor. It was just a quick 2 frames (1 frame/second). 1 frame it was a ball of light reflecting off a car windshield, the next the whole area was lit up like day. I'm pissed I missed it. I was sitting right here. I have thick curtains, though. Damn, the luck. I'm surprised I didn't hear it though. From all accounts, it was pretty loud.
Sorry about bumpin' in OT here, but this is the only thread I've seen that mentions it. I'll try to bring it into topic a bit. Maybe god shows himself when bits of his dandruff (meteors) burn up in the atmosphere.
(Sorry, best I could do. )
That sounds great and all and I believe there is some essence of truth to it, but I can't seem to get past the following questions regarding the quoted sentence:
One's humanity? You mean subjectively defined? I'll buy that, but if one isn't really conscious of it, nor particularly concerned with it, the value of the revelation (regarding what you're saying about one's humanity) perhaps completely diminishes. If you're speaking of "people" rather than a person, the who determines exactly what comprises one's humanity? Isn't the only way through... politics?
im sorry to say that god does not exsist, its pretty obvious, there are just a lot of things that we can blame "god" for creating or doing because its the simpliest thing that we can come up with. Like the basic thing that keeps the believe alive, how did the universe get created, its easy to say that a god created it because we don't have the capability to figure it out ourselfs because we humans are on a fricken planet and barely started discovering the solor systems around us. pretty much religion is some kind of propagana to controling the behavior of mankind saying if you behave badly you'll pay for it when u die. Its just a way to keep peace because peace makes everything so much easier. Say if there wasn't violence and everyone was honest and led decent lives and helped one another we would have a more productive and violent-free society around the world. Some person way back in the day discovered this while he was carving out a spear or a stone wheel and decided to spread this way of thinking trying to organize things so things were fluent and easy going. So maybe this person or ppl should be reconized as the true gods that tried to provide a good model to follow to happiness. But we wouldn't call these ppl gods but only something else. And also the greeks and romans thinking there were gods on Mount Olypious and worshiped them with shines. Just lettin them know that there wasn't ppl on Mount Olypious or even gods in the sea. They had a false way of living, those "gods" never showed themselfs; they just thought that there had to be gods up there that controled part of nature and other good stuff which i don't want to name all the gods and what they were part of.
Hi Tiassa,
Quote Tiassa:
"(And thank you kindly for your insight; if I fail to address what you might consider the point, it's because I haven't a "fightin' thesis" to work toward, and am compelled to travel a wider orbit for the sake of the scenery and how it can frame any given picture.) "
I have one word for you: "awsome"
Eesh.
Quote Tiassa:
"(And thank you kindly for your insight; if I fail to address what you might consider the point, it's because I haven't a "fightin' thesis" to work toward, and am compelled to travel a wider orbit for the sake of the scenery and how it can frame any given picture.) "
I have one word for you: "awsome"
Eesh.
According to the ancient Greeks, the sight of a god would kill any mortal stupid enough to look at him. Kevin Smith repeats the idea in Dogma.
What's the real difference between you writing some truth down, an Isrealite writing some truth down and a Christian writing some truth down? Why call one "scripture" and the other one not, apart from it's theme?RosaMagika said:
Yes, but the Bible says the same thing - "...let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth." (1 John 3:18); the parable of the talents (Matt.25) - and you seem to reject them in that context. A greater context does not make something more finite or less true.
Of course I care - that's what I asked from you. But I don't expect it from you.
Wesmorris said:
The idea of a regular human being in this part of the discussion is directly juxtaposed against identity politics. As I understand the present issue, and also as the basis of my entry to this part of the discussion, I look back to a post of Jenyar's:
Jenyar said:
And also the subsequent questions from PM Thorne and Rosa Magika.
Aside from that, everything is subjective, it seems.
(This is the short form, of course. The anthropological implications of going to McDonald's seemed ... a bit unnecessary.)
Jenyar,
I honestly wouldn't know -- but Adstar has in a previous post made it vehemntly clear that unless I come up with a scripture that says the same as the Bible, I have *no* valid scripture.
If anyone is rejected for something, than it is me for holding my beliefs, but holding them without reference to the Bible.
But just because some of my beliefs may be the same as those in the Bible, this does not mean that I must accept the Bible. Apparently, the Bible is *not the only* context for those beliefs.
Good then. I know people to whom to hope is to wish, to wish is to expect, and to expect is to demand.
PMT,
I'm just saying Hi. Nice to have you here.
I honestly wouldn't know -- but Adstar has in a previous post made it vehemntly clear that unless I come up with a scripture that says the same as the Bible, I have *no* valid scripture.
If anyone is rejected for something, than it is me for holding my beliefs, but holding them without reference to the Bible.
But just because some of my beliefs may be the same as those in the Bible, this does not mean that I must accept the Bible. Apparently, the Bible is *not the only* context for those beliefs.
Good then. I know people to whom to hope is to wish, to wish is to expect, and to expect is to demand.
PMT,
I'm just saying Hi. Nice to have you here.
No, but God might be. Aren't you curious where the correspondence comes from? If the Bible is an application of what you believe, why do you reject God because of it?
Who's familiar with our local band, Tree63?
I want to whisper something in your ear
This train's not stopping but you don't have to fear
One destination; do you know where it ends?
You've bought the ticket but so what...?
This is not sience fiction, baby; here's the deal:
Good fights evil every day, it's for real
You're going somewhere no matter what you believe
I'd check my map if I were you
This train's not stopping but you don't have to fear
One destination; do you know where it ends?
You've bought the ticket but so what...?
This is not sience fiction, baby; here's the deal:
Good fights evil every day, it's for real
You're going somewhere no matter what you believe
I'd check my map if I were you
Last edited:
Can't say I've heard of Tree63. But that science-fiction line ... reminds me of Styx. Dennis and Tommy both used words like "baby" in the strangest places. James tried to avoid it.
But, in the spirit of music: "St. Patrick's"
(Despite titles like Fight for the Rock, Savatage still managed to get sh@t from some Christian groups. I find that rather interesting. Streets seems to answer that, but then again, many of those objectors also had problems with Peter Gabriel, so ... yeah ... this note is entirely unnecessary.)
But, in the spirit of music: "St. Patrick's"
(Despite titles like Fight for the Rock, Savatage still managed to get sh@t from some Christian groups. I find that rather interesting. Streets seems to answer that, but then again, many of those objectors also had problems with Peter Gabriel, so ... yeah ... this note is entirely unnecessary.)