Fire

[Catherineanne]

How would you know God withdrew his presence?

You are quite right. He doesn't really.

When the sun goes behind a cloud we say, 'the sun has gone in.' In actuality, it is still there, but occluded.

We can tell the difference between standing in full sun, and standing in shade.

Same with God.

 

[Catherineanne]

What statement are you trying to make with this?

If someone were to take a Bible and put it into a fire as an act of anger or disrespect, it would be an act of the greatest moral repugnance, for which intent that person would be judged by God, but it would not constitute desecration of Scripture.

That which is holy cannot be desecrated. And most especially not with fire; fire cannot desecrate. In relation to Judeo:Christian theology, fire constitutes an offering to God.

In Christian terms (although I think Jews and Moslems think differently) if man were capable of undoing by any act that which God has done, then man would be more powerful than God. If God makes something sacred, then that sacredness cannot be reversed or undone by any behaviour whatsoever. As an example, take Christian baptism. This is a sacrament, ordained by God, for which God is himself the agent. Christian baptism cannot be undone. We can decide we no longer believe, and we can even renounce our faith, but we cannot undo that which God has already done. There isn't even a word for someone who used to be baptised, but is so no longer.

 

[ttfn]

We can tell the difference between standing in full sun, and standing in shade.

Same with God.

It most definitely is not the same with God, you can see the sun and you can see the shade but you can not see God.
Unless of course you are talking about 'feeling' the sun and 'feeling' the shade and 'feeling' God?
That sounds more like it...it's all about 'feelings'.

 

[Catherineanne]

It most definitely is not the same with God, you can see the sun and you can see the shade but you can not see God.
Unless of course you are talking about 'feeling' the sun and 'feeling' the shade and 'feeling' God?
That sounds more like it...it's all about 'feelings'.

In the sense that all that we experience is experienced through the senses, and that feeling is one of those senses, then yes. In the sense that faith is only about an emotional response, then no. Very often faith has to act contrary to feeling. That is why it is called faith.

I think those who follow atheist beliefs would do well to understand that they will never be able to speak the same language as believers, and neither will we be able to speak theirs. It is like you trying to describe to me just how wonderful your mother is, when to me she is just some random woman in a crowd; I have no animosity towards her, but she is just another person.

Other than that, if anyone is really interested in this issue, then feel free to take a look at what the Blessed Isaac has to say about the presence or absence of God.

Experience of abandonment - St Isaac of Nineveh and Syrian Mysticism / - Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev

 

[ttfn]

In the sense that all that we experience is experienced through the senses, and that feeling is one of those senses, then yes. In the sense that faith is only about an emotional response, then no. Very often faith has to act contrary to feeling. That is why it is called faith.

Other than the 'hunch' you have that there is a God what other senses do use to know your God is there?
Faith is needed because there is no way of detecting a God.

 

[ttfn]

In I think those who follow atheist beliefs would do well to understand that they will never be able to speak the same language as believers.

There are quite a few on these forums who were once believers (I'm not one of them) but are now atheists who did speak the same language as believers and fully understand how believers think and feel.
Silly me, they of course were never true true believers (fully indoctrinated) were they? had they been they would still be believers today.

 

[Greg1234]

Other than the 'hunch' you have that there is a God what other senses do use to know your God is there?
Faith is needed because there is no way of detecting a God.

Yes there is. But man was created, Start there.

 

[SithDoughnut]

I think those who follow atheist beliefs would do well to understand that they will never be able to speak the same language as believers, and neither will we be able to speak theirs. It is like you trying to describe to me just how wonderful your mother is, when to me she is just some random woman in a crowd; I have no animosity towards her, but she is just another person.

If you once spoke French, and you've stopped using it, you still can speak French. Sure, it gets a bit rusty and you might have to look a few things up but it's still there. You don't magically lose the ability you had, and the French cannot logically claim that you never actually knew it, because they knew you did at the time.

For other people who have never learned how to speak French, they can still get an idea of French speakers work and how the language works. Perhaps they can learn to read French, even though they've never spoken it. French isn't some kind of club that only French speakers can understand. Same applies to religion.

Did that make sense?

 

[SithDoughnut]

Yes there is. But man was created, Start there.

Start from a unfounded premise? Why?

 

[Greg1234]

Start from a unfounded premise? Why?

If you are still at the point where you cannot see that the human body is designed. You will remain there. You ask for solid food, when you need milk.

 

[SithDoughnut]

If you are still at the point where you cannot see that the human body is designed. You will remain there. You ask for solid food, when you need milk.

OK, I'll start from your premise.

1) The human body was designed.

2) A design requires a designer.

3) Therefore there is a designer.

And that's where it ends. I still haven't reached God yet. There's no logical conclusion or evidence that shows that the designer has to be the Christian God, or even a god at all. Maybe it was aliens.

Of course, this doesn't work at all, because blind insistence does not make something true. I bet you can't see the unicorns that float around everyone's heads right? Well they exist, you just can see that they do. They're obvious; they're unicorns. Kind of hard to miss. What's that? You still can't see them? Well, look harder. Therefore, flying unicorns exist. Because they told me so.

If some elements of religion were not as founded in our culture as they are, followers would end up in psychiatric wards.

 

[Greg1234]

OK, I'll start from your premise.

1) The human body was designed.

2) A design requires a designer.

3) Therefore there is a designer.

And that's where it ends. I still haven't reached God yet. There's no logical conclusion or evidence that shows that the designer has to be the Christian God, or even a god at all. Maybe it was aliens.

Of course, this doesn't work at all, because blind insistence does not make something true. I bet you can't see the unicorns that float around everyone's heads right? Well they exist, you just can see that they do. They're obvious; they're unicorns. Kind of hard to miss. What's that? You still can't see them? Well, look harder. Therefore, flying unicorns exist. Because they told me so.

If some elements of religion were not as founded in our culture as they are, followers would end up in psychiatric wards.

Random mutations cannot turn bacteria into unicorns. Again, the human body is designed. Start there. I never said it ends there. I said start there.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Random mutations cannot turn bacteria into unicorns.

Why?

Again, the human body is designed. Start there. I never said it ends there. I said start there.

I showed you where it ends.

 

[Greg1234]

Why?

The same reason it cannot build a 747

I showed you where it ends.

You haven't even begun

 

[SithDoughnut]

The same reason it cannot build a 747

Which is?

You haven't even begun

Well, I need some help then. Where do I go from #3? How do I work out what the designer is?

 

[Greg1234]

Which is?

You'll figure it out.

Well, I need some help then. Where do I go from #3? How do I work out what the designer is?

It doesnt work that way. You will start at the beginning.

 

[SithDoughnut]

You'll figure it out.

So you don't have an answer. That makes sense. If you start from a nonsensical position, you'll quickly get stuck. A demonstration of this idea is below.

It doesnt work that way. You will start at the beginning.

1) The human body was designed.

2) Design requires a designer.

3) A designer exists.

Same problem. This is the conclusion. This is the end. Unless you want me to defy the laws of logic and make a massive unfounded guess, it stops here, whether you want it to or not. The nonsensical starting position leads to me being stuck.

 

[oi_antz]

So you don't have an answer. That makes sense. If you start from a nonsensical position, you'll quickly get stuck. A demonstration of this idea is below.

1) The human body was designed.

2) Design requires a designer.

3) A designer exists.

Same problem. This is the conclusion. This is the end. Unless you want me to defy the laws of logic and make a massive unfounded guess, it stops here, whether you want it to or not. The nonsensical starting position leads to me being stuck.

Sith, let me present you with a question. If God were real and you were in the position of not knowing it, would you really be interested in discovering that he is real or would you rather not know it? I ask this because the one thing Christians love about God is that He is always there to lend his ear to us, do you wish God (the real God, the designer and not whatever "Christian God" you have in mind) would speak to you at will, this is the promise that is given by Christianity, and it has successfully served that purpose for 2,000 years. When you are ready to commit to knowing God forever, you have that opportunity and all Christians will support you in this. However your attitude is not reflecting this, and I want to ask you why it is that you appear to be so keen to refute all these kind people sharing their testimony about the truth of God, is it just for fun?

 

[b&wpac4]

And one final point. The ancient Israelites thought that the sacred could be contaminated by the impure, and so sought to retain ritual purity for their lives. Christianity teaches the exact opposite; when the sacred comes into contact with the profane, the profane is sanctified. In our faith, Christ clearly demonstrates that anything which is truly sacred cannot be defiled. If it could, that would make sin more powerful than God, which is nonsense.

Islam appears to return to the Israelite attitude to holiness; it is a retrograde step from what Christ himself teaches us, in other words. In Islam, as in Judaism, sin has the power to undo what God himself does. In our faith, nothing has this much power. You can take a Holy Bible, and do what you like with it; it remains Holy. That which God has done, man cannot undo.

There is no concept in Judaism that sin is more powerful than God at any level of understanding. I do not understand your line of argument, as it is clear that the Law was given by God. God seemed to care about keeping things holy. If you are saying that God changed His mind, or God changed at all then I suggest you check your theology.

When you sin, do you not need to repent? If you remained holy and pure regardless of sin, why repent?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Closed while I clean this thread of random off-topic stuff.