Why does God choose to remain invisible and undetectable?

[madaz]

No Jesus knew everything ahead of time that the world would kill him for his taking his stand for righteousness, and that's what happened...

God Bless!

No, he created man and woman with original sin, then impregnated a woman with himself so he can be born, so he could sacrifice himself to himself, to save us from the sin he originally condemed us.

 

[Kylie]

To really understand a lot of things you do need to experience them.

I can understand how a particle accelerator works, despite never having experienced one.

Using a thing is not required in order to understand the principles that govern the behaviour of a thing.

In fact, I can argue that experiencing something often does not give any understanding of how it works. I look at an LCD screen every day on my phone, yet I would struggle if my daughter asked how it worked. I couldn't explain to her how an MRI scanner works either. I can't explain how the touchpad on my laptop works, and yet these are all things I have had experience with. But my experience gave no understanding.

So since I have understanding of things I haven't experienced, and also I lack understanding of some things I HAVE experienced, I can't accept your claims that experience is required for understanding.

Of course, if you would like to give an example of something that cannot be understood unless you experience it, please feel free.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I can understand how a particle accelerator works, despite never having experienced one.

Using a thing is not required in order to understand the principles that govern the behaviour of a thing.

In fact, I can argue that experiencing something often does not give any understanding of how it works. I look at an LCD screen every day on my phone, yet I would struggle if my daughter asked how it worked. I couldn't explain to her how an MRI scanner works either. I can't explain how the touchpad on my laptop works, and yet these are all things I have had experience with. But my experience gave no understanding.

So since I have understanding of things I haven't experienced, and also I lack understanding of some things I HAVE experienced, I can't accept your claims that experience is required for understanding.

Of course, if you would like to give an example of something that cannot be understood unless you experience it, please feel free.

...how about being a cancer patient, or a rape victim, or a holocaust survivor...or the crucified Son of God.

 

[Kylie]

...how about being a cancer patient, or a rape victim, or a holocaust survivor...or the crucified Son of God.

The first three are subjective experiences. Thus, one person's experiences of it may be very different to another person's experiences of the same thing.

Or are you suggesting that the expereince of having cancer is the same for all people who battle with it?

And the last one is, in my opinion, just a story.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The first three are subjective experiences. Thus, one person's experiences of it may be very different to another person's experiences of the same thing.

Or are you suggesting that the expereince of having cancer is the same for all people who battle with it?

And the last one is, in my opinion, just a story.

Some experiences may indeed be "subjective" as you state, but that doesn't mean they are completely subjective or not at least limited to a range of emotional and experiential possibilities. Do you think it is possible that of the examples I named, that anyone who has had those kinds of experiences felt at any time a sense of joy, happiness. In this sense....yes, I do think that the experience of cancer is at least very similar for all of those who battle it. No one will say that battling cancer is or was "a walk in the park," so the 'subjectivity' is not quite so subjective. Neither would it be for the rape victim or a concentration camp survivor.

 

[Kylie]

Some experiences may indeed be "subjective" as you state, but that doesn't mean they are completely subjective or not at least limited to a range of emotional and experiential possibilities. Do you think it is possible that of the examples I named, that anyone who has had those kinds of experiences felt at any time a sense of joy, happiness. In this sense....yes, I do think that the experience of cancer is at least very similar for all of those who battle it. No one will say that battling cancer is or was "a walk in the park," so the 'subjectivity' is not quite so subjective. Neither would it be for the rape victim or a concentration camp survivor.

Yeah, they are still subjective, because they depend on the emotional state of the person experiencing them.

Feeling a sense of joy, for example, is not always the same. They joy I felt when I got married is different to the joy I felt when I became a mother. By your logic, a bathtub and a lake are the same.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, they are still subjective, because they depend on the emotional state of the person experiencing them.

Feeling a sense of joy, for example, is not always the same. They joy I felt when I got married is different to the joy I felt when I became a mother. By your logic, a bathtub and a lake are the same.

So, do the emotions come 'before' or 'after' the said experience? (And I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone on these forums would agree that cancer, rape, and war survival are all that 'subjective.') What world are you living in, KTS? Is it the same one in which you or I could 'believe' that an abused child's pain is simply subjective, or that such a child might actually enjoy the abuse?

 

[Kylie]

So, do the emotions come 'before' or 'after' the said experience? (And I'm sorry, but I don't think anyone on these forums would agree that cancer, rape, and war survival are all that 'subjective.') What world are you living in, KTS? Is it the same one in which you or I could 'believe' that an abused child's pain is simply subjective, or that such a child might actually enjoy the abuse?

Oh please.

Do you think that I am saying that someone might find rape traumatic and another might find it a rather happy event? Do you think that I am saying that one person might find cancer a terrible battle and another might find it a fun way to spend a few years?

I am saying that while two people might find rape traumatic, the "flavour" of that trauma will be different.

Here's an example. My sister in law miscarried when we were in highschool. As a result, she became distant and withdrawn, depressed. She was close to attempting suicide and she broke up with her boyfriend who was the father.

Now, as part of her recovery, she joined a support group where she met other young women who had gone through miscarriages as well. And there was one woman there who had turned to her partner for support. So even though my sister and this other woman went through the same experience, they handled it in different ways and it affected them in different ways.

So don't tell me it's not subjective, okay? I have seen for myself that the same kind of event can affect different people in VASTLY different ways.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Oh please.

Do you think that I am saying that someone might find rape traumatic and another might find it a rather happy event? Do you think that I am saying that one person might find cancer a terrible battle and another might find it a fun way to spend a few years?

I am saying that while two people might find rape traumatic, the "flavour" of that trauma will be different.

Here's an example. My sister in law miscarried when we were in highschool. As a result, she became distant and withdrawn, depressed. She was close to attempting suicide and she broke up with her boyfriend who was the father.

Now, as part of her recovery, she joined a support group where she met other young women who had gone through miscarriages as well. And there was one woman there who had turned to her partner for support. So even though my sister and this other woman went through the same experience, they handled it in different ways and it affected them in different ways.

So don't tell me it's not subjective, okay? I have seen for myself that the same kind of event can affect different people in VASTLY different ways.

You've always got the 'right' answer, KTS. Don't you? I'm so glad that you can objectively decipher the 'flavors' of people's experiences. I'm sure they'll be grateful to you as well for your astute insight.

 

[Kylie]

You've always got the 'right' answer, KTS. Don't you? I'm so glad that you can objectively decipher the 'flavors' of people's experiences. I'm sure they'll be grateful to you as well for your astute insight.

Once again, I don't think you get how this works.

You claim it is not subjective. I have showed you an example of it being subjective. Therefore your claim is wrong. There only needs to be one counterexample (although there are without doubt many others).

And I'm not trying to decipher them. I'm simply stating that they are different. I don't need to understand HOW they are different, or what qualities are different. All I need to see is that they ARE different.

Don't blame me if you don't get my point until I prove you wrong.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You've always got the 'right' answer, KTS. Don't you? I'm so glad that you can objectively decipher the 'flavors' of people's experiences. I'm sure they'll be grateful to you as well for your astute insight.

I don't think KTS claimed that she could do such a thing. She simply made the point that, for a given trauma, the phenomenological sequelae of it can differ between persons. That's not to say that there aren't commonalities. A detailed phenomenological study would probably reveal particular themes common to most cases of said trauma. But there are also differences, and it's important to acknowledge these because they may have some bearing on recovery.

 

[Kylie]

I don't think KTS claimed that she could do such a thing. She simply made the point that, for a given trauma, the phenomenological sequelae of it can differ between persons. That's not to say that there aren't commonalities. A detailed phenomenological study would probably reveal particular themes common to most cases of said trauma. But there are also differences, and it's important to acknowledge these because they may have some bearing on recovery.

Exactly.

 

[Colter]

No, he created man and woman with original sin, then impregnated a woman with himself so he can be born, so he could sacrifice himself to himself, to save us from the sin he originally condemed us.

I concede the obvious train wreck of the common Christian explanation.

There are different explanations and different interpretations around the same events that could lead one to a more plausible understanding of what happened, of the truth.

* The Sin of Adam and Eve as original and inheritable, and even that they were the first humans, was speculation in contradiction to evidence that the earth was already populated as Cain if fearful of tribes outside the garden in the Land of Nod.....where he found a wife.

* Judaism rejected the original gospel of Jesus taught 3+ years before the cross, so it was adopted and simultaneously, unintentionally altered in the teachings of Paul to the Greco-Roman world.

* The Pagan world was more receptive to a remixed interpretation of the meaning of the cross because they already had an atonement, human sacrifice theology. Christianity was born, but it's a compromise to the original to make it more appealing to the Pagan world.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

I concede the obvious train wreck of the common Christian explanation.

There are different explanations and different interpretations around the same events that could lead one to a more plausible understanding of what happened, of the truth.

* The Sin of Adam and Eve as original and inheritable, and even that they were the first humans, was speculation in contradiction to evidence that the earth was already populated as Cain if fearful of tribes outside the garden in the Land of Nod.....where he found a wife.

* Judaism rejected the original gospel of Jesus taught 3+ years before the cross, so it was adopted and simultaneously, unintentionally altered in the teachings of Paul to the Greco-Roman world.

* The Pagan world was more receptive to a remixed interpretation of the meaning of the cross because they already had an atonement, human sacrifice theology. Christianity was born, but it's a compromise to the original to make it more appealing to the Pagan world.

??????

What is ANY of this?

 

[ananda]

I concede the obvious train wreck of the common Christian explanation.

There are different explanations and different interpretations around the same events that could lead one to a more plausible understanding of what happened, of the truth.

* The Sin of Adam and Eve as original and inheritable, and even that they were the first humans, was speculation in contradiction to evidence that the earth was already populated as Cain if fearful of tribes outside the garden in the Land of Nod.....where he found a wife.

* Judaism rejected the original gospel of Jesus taught 3+ years before the cross, so it was adopted and simultaneously, unintentionally altered in the teachings of Paul to the Greco-Roman world.

* The Pagan world was more receptive to a remixed interpretation of the meaning of the cross because they already had an atonement, human sacrifice theology. Christianity was born, but it's a compromise to the original to make it more appealing to the Pagan world.

IMO Jesus came to bring the people back to the basic message of the importance of moral living, loving God, and loving one another, as contrasted with the complex dogmatic structure built by the establishment over the centuries. Soon after Jesus' time, his simple message was again co-opted by a new establishment (like Paul, the real founder of Christianity) to rebuild a new dogma around a new mythology involving Jesus.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I don't think KTS claimed that she could do such a thing. She simply made the point that, for a given trauma, the phenomenological sequelae of it can differ between persons. That's not to say that there aren't commonalities. A detailed phenomenological study would probably reveal particular themes common to most cases of said trauma. But there are also differences, and it's important to acknowledge these because they may have some bearing on recovery.

Hi Arch,

K, fine. Maybe I am missing something regarding the original thrust of the conversation that I've 'jumped' into. I'm willing to admit that.

 

[bhsmte]

Instead of making a God up in your head, then deciding that, that's what God should be, maybe you should think about what you're saying.

If you understood God then he wouldn't be God at all.

I see many Christians on this board commenting as though they have an understanding of God.

Thing is though, they seem to differ in their own personal understanding, but each one feels they are correct.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Once again, I don't think you get how this works.

You claim it is not subjective. I have showed you an example of it being subjective. Therefore your claim is wrong. There only needs to be one counterexample (although there are without doubt many others).

And I'm not trying to decipher them. I'm simply stating that they are different. I don't need to understand HOW they are different, or what qualities are different. All I need to see is that they ARE different.

Don't blame me if you don't get my point until I prove you wrong.

No, actually, if you read what I stated, I said, "...but that doesn't mean they are completely subjective or not at least limited to a range of emotional and experiential possibilities."

What I stated is different that stating that it is not subjective. But, I'll let all of this go and just say you're right on this.

 

[ChristCameBackFromTheDead]

I see many Christians on this board commenting as though they have an understanding of God.

Thing is though, they seem to differ in their own personal understanding, but each one feels they are correct.

People make God "their" God. Roman Catholics did the same thing, distorted the bible to their viewpoint.

Problem is, if you actually read the bible, it really asks us to do a lot of things we don't want to do.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I see many Christians on this board commenting as though they have an understanding of God.

Thing is though, they seem to differ in their own personal understanding, but each one feels they are correct.

Agreed. Many Christians do this, and they do so in a similar way to which atheists and skeptics also attempt to understand the concept and breadth of the God idea. The latter group also differ in their own personal understanding, and each one feels they are correct....