Why doesn't God just show himself?

Rosa wrote: "I don't feel put down by what Wes says.."

Okay.

As for your other statements, if that is the way you truly feel, it is admirable.
^^^^^^
SouthStar; You are going to have to help me out; what methodology? I am thinking I should know what you mean, but rather than guess, thought I had best double check.
..
I wish the sun would shine. Rain, rain, rain. Not complaining, just wishing! :)
 
P. M. Thorne said:
Rosa wrote: "I don't feel put down by what Wes says.."

Okay.

As for your other statements, if that is the way you truly feel, it is admirable.
^^^^^^
SouthStar; You are going to have to help me out; what methodology? I am thinking I should know what you mean, but rather than guess, thought I had best double check.
..
I wish the sun would shine. Rain, rain, rain. Not complaining, just wishing! :)

I meant doing more than "spewing Bible verses" to get people to understand.


I have also noticed that although the forum should be about "religion", it has become a haven for propaganda and people who claim *logic* disproves God.

Entering a *discussion*, which they from the beginning had ABSOLUTELY no intention of admitting they might be wrong, they persist to use so-called *logic*, insults, all kinds of put downs, cursing to intimidate.

I am sure you have met Medicine Woman and therefore know what I am talking about..

"Being sincere and speaking from your heart", in conclusion, doesn't seem to help CHANGE anyone since they all presume their beliefs are void of error.


**Pardon the blabber, I visit the forum late at night.. :p
 
SouthStar,


I never said nor implied that what *we*/*I* know about God "is all there is to know"..

You may not have indeed. But for the sake of communication here, it is good to add such disclaimers.
With an attitude like yours, you give the impression of a fundamentalist, a zealot. Do you want to be seen as such?
 
RosaMagika said:
SouthStar,




You may not have indeed. But for the sake of communication here, it is good to add such disclaimers.
With an attitude like yours, you give the impression of a fundamentalist, a zealot. Do you want to be seen as such?

you give the impression of a fundamentalist, a zealot


In contrast to? being complacent? being "normal" or average?

Spessfy please :)


**Somethings I take to be too obvious to note in my arguments. Sry.
 
SouthStar said:
"Being sincere and speaking from your heart", in conclusion, doesn't seem to help CHANGE anyone since they all presume their beliefs are void of error.

If this is your attitude, then don't be surprised if things don't change.


Also, by saying this

Entering a *discussion*, which they from the beginning had ABSOLUTELY no intention of admitting they might be wrong, they persist to use so-called *logic*, insults, all kinds of put downs, cursing to intimidate.

and this

**Pardon the blabber, I visit the forum late at night..:p

in the same post, you are disqualifying yourself.
If you really want to change people and help them, then don't spit on their plate, and don't spit on your own plate either.
 
SouthStar said:
Have mercy!

Are you Christian, per chance?

No, I don't consider myself to be a Christian.


In contrast to? being complacent? being "normal" or average?

Spessfy please

I don't think that "zealot/fundamentalist" or "complacent/normal/average" are the only two options to be.
I know both non-religious people and religious people who are neither "zealot/fundamentalist" nor "complacent/normal/average" -- they're just good to be with.
 
I was only saying some people don't deal well with differing viewpoints.


From what I have observed, it is true that a lot of unproductive discussion goes on in the forum. I wouldn't consider it "spitting on anyone's plate".

As for spitting on me own plate, I sometimes type the same sentence twice or something like that unknowingly so just putting a disclaimer like you adviced..


@wesmorris

That doesn't make this forum very productive either.. :p
 
Part of what's messed up and puts us in conflict is that people will quote the bible or god as some moral authority or a source that validates their opinion somehow.

I'm sure to them it probably does, but to me: NOT. Your argument is your authority. Your words, your reason, your ability to make good sense.

I do believe there is some animosity associated with those scenarios, since our ideas on what constitutes "sense" completely differs.
 
I suppose that's what P.M. Thorne was trying to get across to me.


The problem I see is I see most people trying to impress their "superior" viewpoints. Of course I'm not at all guilty of this.. ;)

But of course you contradict yourself by saying "Your argument is your authority. Your words, your reason, your ability to make good sense." and then saying "logic can't prove or disprove god, hence the problem."

If your argument is your authority, but logic can't prove/disprove God then arguments in this forum are doomed to keep hitting a brick wall where virtually no agreement ensues.
 
§outh§tar said:
But of course you contradict yourself

Don't you think that's a little condescending? I do.

by saying "Your argument is your authority. Your words, your reason, your ability to make good sense." and then saying "logic can't prove or disprove god, hence the problem."

Then perhaps you can now understand the reason I take the position "god is unknowable". Then again I wonder if you can.

If your argument is your authority, but logic can't prove/disprove God then arguments in this forum are doomed to keep hitting a brick wall where virtually no agreement ensues.

If your argument is your authority you concede when it cannot bear the weight of honest scrutiny. The brick wall at god is that it is an invalid question. That doesn't mean it's the end of the road, it means you need a new way of thinking of things.
 
Last edited:
wesmorris said:
Don't you think that's a little condescending? I do.

I'm sorry. A while after I wrote this I regretted my word choice..


Then perhaps you can now understand the reason I take the position "god is unknowable". Then again I wonder if you can.



If your argument is your authority you concede when it cannot bear the weight of honest scrutiny. The brick wall at god is that it is an invalid question. That doesn't mean it's the end of the road, it means you need a new way of thinking of things.

In this forum, where religion is discussed, it would therefore be arrogant to determine one's "argument" as final authority. Perhaps what is necessary is to discard this method since it does not fit well at all with "matters of God".. but then I suppose it's all really subjective which promises arguments like this will keep getting nowhere in terms of being productive.
 
SouthStar said:
but then I suppose it's all really subjective which promises arguments like this will keep getting nowhere in terms of being productive.

It all depends on why you enter an argument.

Because you want to make others think the way you do?
Because you want to improve your own knowledge?
...
 
§outh§tar said:
I'm sorry. A while after I wrote this I regretted my word choice..

Fair enough.

In this forum, where religion is discussed, it would therefore be arrogant to determine one's "argument" as final authority.

LOL. You remember that part about having different ideas of 'what makes sense'? Yeah that's this stuff right here. Arrogance has nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned. From my perspective, the validity and compellingness of your argument is the extent of your authority whether you can accept that fact or not. I don't see how you can sensibly construe it any other way. To me the imperative question is "is it reasonable?".

Perhaps what is necessary is to discard this method since it does not fit well at all with "matters of God"..

LOL. But you see, this method is what jives with reality. It's funny to hear the religious "abandon reason, because it' can't lead you to god" rather than "abandon god because reason renders it inaccessable". Reason is imperative to my survival. God is not. If god is, it gave me the tool of reason to survive, knowing that reason renders the concept of god innaccessable. As such, perhaps it wanted me to make it on my OWN without leaning on it like a little bitch.

but then I suppose it's all really subjective which promises arguments like this will keep getting nowhere in terms of being productive.

That is a defeatest argument. If I can't learn from you, I learn from my exploration while trying to debate you.
 
SouthStar: Thank you for explaining what you meant. Sorry it took a while to get back to you. As for my methods, I do okay. I try to listen, because folks like to have an opportunity to say what they think, and I let them. It is more fun to share than to dictate. Yet, for this forum, I am not at all convinced that discussions/arguments do all that much. I really try not to argue about beliefs, but I see a lot of people being misunderstood, including myself, and so much time being spent discussing the discussion. Then, of course, there are those who feel it is their job to explain things to everyone. Truthfully, I prefer one on one's.

Not sure that I did a good job of answering your question, but I wish you the best. If you are a sincere and a willing vessal, you are well on your way. :) pmt
 
wesmorris said:
Fair enough.



LOL. You remember that part about having different ideas of 'what makes sense'? Yeah that's this stuff right here. Arrogance has nothing to do with it as far as I'm concerned. From my perspective, the validity and compellingness of your argument is the extent of your authority whether you can accept that fact or not. I don't see how you can sensibly construe it any other way. To me the imperative question is "is it reasonable?".

Well, is the Bible 'reasonable'?

LOL. But you see, this method is what jives with reality. It's funny to hear the religious "abandon reason, because it' can't lead you to god" rather than "abandon god because reason renders it inaccessable". Reason is imperative to my survival. God is not. If god is, it gave me the tool of reason to survive, knowing that reason renders the concept of god innaccessable. As such, perhaps it wanted me to make it on my OWN without leaning on it like a little bitch.

Reason was given to mankind, to separate us from the animals for the purpose of being good stewards. As for" reason and God", different people have found different 'results' and if this is an indication of the absence of "free will" or not we will have to see..


That is a defeatest argument. If I can't learn from you, I learn from my exploration while trying to debate you.

All I'm saying is after a while what enjoyment is there in arguing with a wall? Set assumptions do indicate arrogance in the sense that one belives his/her opinions to be superior or more 'valid'.

See P.M. Thorne's post above mine, he's more articulate than I am :D
 
P. M. Thorne said:
SouthStar: Thank you for explaining what you meant. Sorry it took a while to get back to you. As for my methods, I do okay. I try to listen, because folks like to have an opportunity to say what they think, and I let them. It is more fun to share than to dictate. Yet, for this forum, I am not at all convinced that discussions/arguments do all that much. I really try not to argue about beliefs, but I see a lot of people being misunderstood, including myself, and so much time being spent discussing the discussion. Then, of course, there are those who feel it is their job to explain things to everyone. Truthfully, I prefer one on one's.

Not sure that I did a good job of answering your question, but I wish you the best. If you are a sincere and a willing vessal, you are well on your way. :) pmt

I see where you're coming from and that is the point I was trying to make. I don't see a lot of fruitfulness especially when discussions like these deviate so far from the original topic. Sometimes I even see arguments that have nothing to do with religion but I suppose patience will have it's good work. Good day :)
 
Back
Top