If God exists, he should stop fucking around...

[boolean]

...and just reveal himself already. It would stop a lot of headaches all around the world.

[bluerum]

1. Yeah - he should kick the squatter in chief's ass over the moon. nt

[tblue]

2. Amen! Hey, Lord!

Come on down!!!

[TechBear_Seattle]

10. Is He the next contestant on the Price is Right?

:hi:

[blue sky at night]

3. do you exist...........

the two questions are the same. intellectual laziness is no excuse for ignorance. oh, but of course, this is just your way of being ha, ha funny!

[onehandle]

4. When a passing black hole strays into the solar system...

...the point will be moot.

[roguevalley]

5. he exists in everything. he exists in your heart. we are him. there.

:) bless you, my son/daughter

[Ron Green]

6. Headaches are part of the deal.

A world in which there are no problems, lives with no pain? No thanks!

[Christa]

60. You must be kidding

so you don't aspire to go to heaven or wherever it is believers go?

[moobu2]

7. If the God

of the old testament, or any God for that matter, actually existed, there wouldn’t be any doubt, everyone would know it and there wouldn’t be thousands of versions etc.

[rug]

8. Do you think we could handle it?

[bryant69]

9. Well we are supposed to live by faith

If he proved his existence than the basis for faith would not exist.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[TechBear_Seattle]

11. And the $64,000 question is: faith in WHAT?

Zeus? Allah? The Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Most modern religions teach that if you do not believe in the right things, you will be tortured for ever and ever. I don't want to be tortured for ever and ever; I'd rather live in bliss for ever and ever, and that requires that I worship the right deity.

I think the OP's question is spot on: if it is so important not to be damned for eternity, then why doesn't whatever Deity will be doing the damning not make an unambiguous appearance? And which of the several deities making such a claim has the power to enforce such a punishment?

[bryant69]

12. Well I don't believe in eternal damnation myself

But I take your point. I suppose the standard answer is that if you seek him, you will find him, but that sort of begs the question (and implies that all those who have sought him and not found him havn't really sought him).

I suppose that I could answer that even seeing God or an undeniable miracle might not change people all that much - consider the ancient Israelites - they were lead out of Egypt and saw several miracles (including the plagues, and the parting of the red sea) and they still went out and made a Golden Calf.

Bryant

[TechBear_Seattle]

13. The doctrine of eternal damnation is at the core of both Christianity and Islam

Whether or not you personally accept that doctrine isn't the point. :hi:

And considering the ancient Israelites... It has been pointed out over and over again that the neurotic recordkeepers of Egypt have absolutely no record of anything resembling the bondage of the Hebrews, nor of the Ten Plagues, nor of the Exodus. We have found records of individuals who had been "obliterated" from history; why can't we find records that involve tens of thousands of people over hundreds of years and deal with huge disasters and massive upset to the national economy? I assert that no such miracles ever took place and the records of the book of Exodus truthfully belong with all other origin myths.

[bryant69]

14. OK

Well I understand where you are coming from as far as those stories go (although I disagree with you) - whether or not you take them allegory or history, they point to what Christians believe about faith. Consider also the example of Judas, who saw miracle after miracle and yet betrayed the Christ. Merely seeing powerful supernatural evidence doesn't change you that much.

As for the first part - my religion does not teach eternal damnation - but obviously if one of those other churches turns out to be true, I'm probably screwed along with anybody else who doesn't buy that particular religion.

Bryant

[trotsky]

15. But your religion does teach original sin, and the need for salvation.

You stated that was why you had to accept the Adam & Eve story as literal.

Why the big deal about original sin, if there is no danger of damnation?

What do we need "salvation" from if there's no damnation?

[bryant69]

18. Well first reread what I said about Original sin

That said I guess i should clarify what I mean by eternal damnation - i was thinking of it in the sense of eternal punishment or eternal torture - Dante's inferno more or less. You get born, you commit a finite amount of sins and in return you get an infinite amount of punishment. That doesn't strike me as just.

On the other hand our sins do seperate us from God, and we will have to pay for our sins. The atonement allows Jesus to carry our sins and allows us to move closer to God. That is what salvation is.

Bryant

[trotsky]

19. "we will have to pay for our sins"

How?

[bryant69]

21. I don't really know

I can imagine it will be painful. But I don't think it will involved red hot pokers.

I do believe you sin against the light and knowledge you have, incidentally - you sin when you do what you know isn't right.

Bryant

[trotsky]

22. Hmm

Original sin means we are born with sin and the propensity to sin, right?

You reject eternal punishment, which is nice, but why should we be punished at all for a flaw that we were supposedly created with?

If Ford makes a car that explodes on impact, is Ford responsible, or the driver of the car responsible?

Can't god just sit the bad person down and using his omnipotence make the person realize what they did was wrong, and feel bad for it? Why does there have to be ANY punishment?

[bryant69]

23. Justice

I will repeat what i have said about original sin - It is not that we are born sinful, but that we are born in a corrpted world. We can choose for ourselves how we want to act and behave, but being surrounded by the world we probably will sin and regularly.

As for your last question - if God sat me down and made me understand and experience the pain and darkness I had brought into the world, well I can't imagine but the experience would be somewhat excruciating.

Bryant

[trotsky]

24. "We can choose for ourselves how we want to act and behave"

Not always that cut-and-dried, is it? Children of abusers tend to become abusers themselves. If it were simply a matter of "choosing" to be an abuser, we shouldn't see such a correlation. Nature vs. nurture - how much of our "sins" come from each, are we punished for both, and is that fair or just?

God letting you experience true remorse I would not put on the same plane as suffering punishment.

[bryant69]

25. I wouldn't know how to judge in that situation

And fortunately I am not forced to - God has to make that call, and presumably he knows how to judge properly.

I think there's a difference between god letting you choose remose for the pain youve caused - which would fall under repentance, or God requirng you to understand what you've done.

Bryant

[trotsky]

26. So...

your ultimate answer to these questions is just "I don't know." You kinda hope there's a reason for it all that will make sense, but you have no response to the OP's question.

[bryant69]

27. That's a pretty distorted response

Par for the course I suppose.

The OPs origional question was "If God is Real why doesn't he show himself." And my answer is because man is supposed to live by faith. You might not like that answer, or might not feel it's sufficeint (seems clear that you don't), but it's not "I Don't Know."

Bryant

[trotsky]

28. Distorted? Please, let's not start that again.

You said those very words in the subject of post #21. How could I be distorting what you said?

[bryant69]

29. Yes I have said I don't know

But not to the Origional Posters question. You see the distinction? That was too a follow up question.

[trotsky]

30. Read your initial response more closely.

Well we are supposed to live by faith

As opposed to what? Knowing the answer.

If he proved his existence than the basis for faith would not exist.

I.e., if we *knew* then faith wouldn't be possible. So the answer is that we (you) don't know.

I'm interpreting your answer, but I don't see how I am distorting it.

[bryant69]

31. I guess if you don't see the difference between what i said

and "I don't know" than there must not be a difference.

When asked "Why doesn't God show himself if he's real." Bryant69 replied with an answer that was essentially "I don't know."

Reduction to the point of distortion.

Bryant

[trotsky]

33. Perhaps you could explain the difference, then?

Clearly you're saying that if your god proved itself (gave us knowledge) then it would defeat the purpose of faith. So you don't know the answer. I'm having a really tough time seeing how this is such a terrible distortion.

[bryant69]

34. Well ok let me explain it to you

The question is this "Why doesn't God, if he exists, prove himself to us."

The answer is "Because we have to have faith; if God appeared we could no longer live by faith."

That's an answer to the question. Now where I think you are getting messed up is that you are adding an additional question in the middle - which is - "How do you know God exists, if he's unwilling to show himself to us?" And the answer to that question would be "I don't know (but I have faith that he does exist, and I have felt evidence of his existence)."

I will say that leaving out that paranthesis and just having me reply "I don't know" is a distortion of my position in the same sense that saying "Atheists believe in the non-existence of God" is a distortion of yours.

Bryant

[trotsky]

35. So your answer is more like "we can't know".

And if you say we can't know, then you're saying no one knows. You don't know.

I see the distinction you're trying to make, but ultimately the distinction is meaningless, isn't it?

[bryant69]

36. OK Trostsky let's do this

You ask me the question you think the OP is asking - restate it and I'll answer it. OK?

I really don't think we are answering the same question.

As for that last bit, no the distinction is not meaningless.

[trotsky]

37. "We can't know" is certainly a *different* answer than "I don't know"

but when you say that no one can know, then you're saying that you ALSO don't know.

Ya know?

[bryant69]

39. Ask me the damn question, already

What is the question that we are trying to answer?

Bryant

[trotsky]

40. I read it as:

"Why doesn't god reveal himself, so we can avoid a lot of problems in the world?"

And I read your answer as "I don't know, because no one can know."

[bryant69]

41. Well you can read my answer anyway you like

But that's of course false. The answer to why God doesn't reveal himself is that "We are supposed to live by faith." That is not the same thing as "I don't know because noone can know." Rather I know very specifically why god doesn't reveal himself. He doesn't reveal himself because we are to live by faith. You might not agree with that answer, and I don't expect you do, but it is not the same as saying I don't know, and to say it is, at this point is a purposeful distortion.

Bryant

[trotsky]

42. Sorry, we just don't see this the same way.

"We are supposed to live by faith" sounds just like "we aren't supposed to know," i.e., "we can't know."

[bryant69]

44. Have you ever taken a comparitive religion class?

You might find it very beneficial (I know I did) trying to understand other religions - and it might help particularly if you studied non-Christian religions - where your emotional investment would be lower. Stretch the old brain muscles in figuring out how people can think differently from you.

But let's try this one more time

"Why doesn't God reveal himself to us?"

Answer - "We are supposed to live by faith"

Translation - "We aren't supposed to know for sure that God exists because we are supposed to live by faith."

Translation - "We can't know for sure that God exists, because we are supposed to live by faith."

Translation - "I can't know for sure that God exists, because we are supposed to live by faith."

Translation - "I don't know for sure that God exists, because we are supposed to live by faith."

But at any point if you cut off the second part of it, it changes the meaning of the sentence. Saying I don't know why God doesn't reveal himself is just bullshit, because I clearly do.

And if you don't see the distinction by now, well, I don't know how I can help you.

Bryant

[trotsky]

45. Actually, yes I have.

And doing so helped me cut through the word tricks you are now using. But rest assured, I really appreciate the insinuations you just hurled at me. Way to go!

[kiahzero]

46. He's talking about second order knowledge, you're talking about first.

Go go epistemology!

[bryant69]

47. Whatever

It seemed like we were making headway for a bit - but your distorting nature just came to the fore once again.

Bryant

[trotsky]

50. Just can't help but drag it down to a personal level, can you?

I apologize profusely for not buying into your theology and seeing your answer for something that it's not. Sheesh.

[bryant69]

51. Actually I've been thinking about it, and I applaud your efficiency

I mean any answer I give you on a religious question you can probably take me back to faith (as faith underlies pretty much everything else, at least in my belief system) - and the minute we get to faith you can say that my answer is the equivielent of "I don't know." So you can happily assume that I, at least, don't really know the answer to any religious question.

Trotskey - "Should people treat each other kindly?"
Bryant69 - (effectively) "I don't know"

Trotskey - "is there an afterlife."
Bryant69 - (effecively) "I don't know"

Trotskey - "Is God Just?"
Bryant69 - (effecively) "I don't know"

Very efficient.

You don't have to buy into someone's theology to respect it. I don't have to become an atheist to understand that it's offensive to say "Atheists believe." You don't have to become a Christian to realize it might be offensive and a distortion to equate the invocation of faith with saying "I don't know."

I prefer to keep it personal - because atheists are an individualistic lot. So while you have certain characteristics, those characteristics aren't the same across the board - not all atheists think and act the same way you do. I certainly wouldn't want to imply that all atheists are distorters.

Bryant

[trotsky]

52. Well, you've summed up your theology well.

You don't know. You take it all on faith, because you take on faith the idea that your god requires you to take it on faith. It's completely circular, and yet you get mad at me, insult me, call me a distorter, and so on. I didn't want to bring this up, but I've actually defended you in PMs to people who thought you were a freeper. I'm still positive you're not, but I'm not going to bother coming to your defense anymore. Fuck it.

[bryant69]

53. I don't believe that last bit for a second

But whatever, you've exposed your agenda pretty completely.

Bryant

[Random_Australian]

56. What the fuck is this train wreck of a conversation doing?

Bryant: When Trotters said "you don't know" because you took it on faith, the "I don't know" means "I have absolutely no evidence to support my position" (Evidence, like physical things we can look at)

Trotters: Bryant thought the "I don't know" meant you were saying "You don't have any idea of whether or not there is a God" which, considering that his faith (faith that there is a God) makes up a good deal of his world-view, he found it offensive.

So, basically you were not understanding each others posts.
That means your conclusions about how nasty each other was bieng to you was flawed.

The end.

[bryant69]

57. I understood Trotskey's point just fine

For the record.

There is no physical evidence - but that doesn't mean that there is no evidence - obviously I do think I have evidence of God - but it's personal to me. Not something I can force on anybody else.

[beam me up scottie]

62. His "agenda" ?

What is it with religious people and that word?

Anyone who disagrees with any of the dogma automatically has an agenda.

Like the homosexual agenda, the feminist agenda and the liberal agenda, the atheist agenda doesn't exist.

[bryant69]

63. I don't believe in the atheist agenda

However I certainly believe that you, Trotsky, and Cosmik Debris have individual agendas. Everybody has an agenda.

I think you need to be careful about confusing yourself with all atheists (Trotsky has this problem too). Whatever I dislike about you, obviously doesn't necessarily apply to all atheists.

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

64. Yes, our agenda is that we're all out to get you.

Keep digging.

[bryant69]

65. Nice of you to admit it

Bryant

[beam me up scottie]

66. Don't mention it. That's just how we fucking liars and cowards are.

[bryant69]

70. So when do you think you will have enough evidence?

Or do you hve enough already and you are just padding the score?

[kiahzero]

17. There is evidence of Hebrew-Egyptian interaction, though

I don't have my notes handy from my Ancient Civilization course, but as I understand the archeological evidence, the current belief is that the people from the North that drove the Egyptians to the south were the precursors to who we now call the Hebrews. There's also evidence that the Egyptian henotheism of Akhenaten played a role in shifting them from the polytheistic view they brought from Sumerian culture to henotheism (and eventually monotheism).

[TechBear_Seattle]

20. Hyksos, yes. Hebrews, no

The Hyksos were a Semitic people who, for a time, ruled the northern part of Egypt. While some scholars do equate the Hyksos with the Hebrews, the archaeology does not support any part of the Bondage, Plagues or Exodus. If the two groups are one and the same, then the main part of the book of Exodus is thoroughly disproven by the evidence.

[kiahzero]

32. I'm sorry, I misunderstood your argument

Yes, the literal events of Exodus are contradicted by the evidence. I thought you were saying that the Hebrews were never in Egypt. I fail at reading comprehension. :(

[TallahasseeGrannie]

38. Actually eternal damnation doesn't

get a lot of play in my denomination. I'm personally hoping it's a nasty rumor.

[TRYPHO]

61. So much to say, so much to laugh at

OK, this seems like as good a posting as any on this thread to jump in on.
If you want to rip the Old Testament to shreds you would enjoy erading 101 Myths of the Bible by Gary Greenberg. It's a very easy read.
Someone was worried about picking the right religion as he felt that picking the wrong one would land him in eternal damnation :-( Well, I can only speak for the two religions that I can claim knowledge of, but in Judaism, the covenant is between God and the Jews, which asks the Jews to act in a manner that shows non-Jews how to behave properly to one another, but certainly IMHO allows gentiles some path the post-life happiness if they behaved correctly too.
As for Christians, it was only in Paul that the assertion of finding God through Jesus as Christ was made. Only Paul (probably a rather late on the scene refudiation for the Gospel of Thomas*) says you can't find God unless you first find Jesus AND that Jesus Himeself is God - Matthew, Mark and Luke simply refer to him with the colloquialism of Son of Man or Son of Adam which meant a certain leadership trait, but was not an affectation of deity status (how they would have laughed, before stoning you).

Anyway, true early Christianity, prior to the Gospel of Paul coming on the scene (and Iraneous and Constantine pushing for a Universal (Catholic) church) you might just have squeezed through with Christianity too. Hmmm...try Beyonf Belief (the secret gospel of Thomas) by Elaine Pagels for some insight there.

Finally, TechBear_Seattle writes:
1. why can't we find records that involve tens of thousands of people over hundreds of years and deal with huge disasters and massive upset to the national economy?
2.I assert that no such miracles ever took place and the records of the book of Exodus truthfully belong with all other origin myths

1 - perhaps they will, perhaps they wont, doesn't mean they did or didn't happen I'm afraid.
2 - miracles as such, perhaps not, but some part of the story probably had foundations in the local verbal generational stories of the time, and probably** has some elements of reality hidden somewhere inside it.

TRYPHO
* - NOT Thomas the doubter, but Thomas (Aramiac for twin, real name Judas as it happens, the one with the Indian connection these days)
** - you pick what you like it makes no odds to me, but there's SOME element of historical truth hidden deep within the allegory and storytelling somewhere.

[Zhade]

48. Surely you mean "it is alleged that the Israelites saw miracles".

An ancient book of myths making the claim that these people saw these things is not evidence that they, you know, happened or anything.

[kiahzero]

49. I think you misunderstood the point of his post

I suppose that I could answer that even seeing God or an undeniable miracle might not change people all that much - consider the ancient Israelites - they were lead out of Egypt and saw several miracles (including the plagues, and the parting of the red sea) and they still went out and made a Golden Calf.

Emphasis added.

I think he was arguing that even if someone did see some sort of divine manifestation, they may just ignore it. Cognitive dissonance and all that.

[Zhade]

54. Well, yes, but he also presupposed that the Israelites saw and did these things.

He didn't say "it is alleged they were led" or even "it is written they were led" - he went right to 'this happened, and this was how they reacted'.

Since there's no evidence outside of assertions whatsoever that anyone, ever, has seen any 'divine manifestations', the point is interesting only in a hypothetical way.

[bryant69]

58. I apologize for expressing my point of view without

underlining the fact that, as a Christian, I'm clearly full of shit.

Bryant

[kiahzero]

16. Most by the number of adherants, maybe

By actual count of religions, there are only two that hold that that I'm aware of - Islam and Christianity. There are plenty that don't: Judaism (which has the added bonus of keeping you out of eternal torment in many interpretations of Islam and Christianity), Hinduism, Baha'i, Shinto, Shikism, Vodun, all of the varieties of Neo-paganism that I'm aware of, as well as the more philosophical "religions": Buddhism, Confucianism, Taoism.

[Odin2005]

55. The "faith" argument is nothing but a copout

If you can't prove something empirically it is meaningless.

[Boojatta]

59. You can't prove Fermat's Last Theorem empirically.

To prove it empirically, you'd have to do an infinite number of calculations. Do you conclude that Fermat's Last Theorem is meaningless?

[charles22]

43. Well Said!!

Concise.

[Zebedeo]

67. Right!! He should become incarnate as a man,

perform numerous miracles, heal the sick, the blind and the lame, show mercy and forgiveness to sinners, rebuke hypocrites, preach about His Kingdom, teach us the way, the truth and the life and then give His life for each and every one of us. Why doesn't He do that?

[beam me up scottie]

68. Yes, why doesn't he?

It would be on all the news channels.

Why Randi would even give him a million dollars.

[Zebedeo]

71. Been there,

done that. There's even a best-selling book about it.

[TheJollyNihilist]

69. Sounds like a Carlin line...

"Just stop fucking around, will ya God?"