DescentBB

Moderator Note: this thread has been split from a noble cause for war by Lothar.

Kilarin wrote:You know my answer.

This is my present perspective, but I haven't really tested it out against anyone else's yet: If God exists and created this universe, then he created a universe where at least a few things can only be relative.

Take position and veloctity for example. Suppose that God thunderously descended from the heavens and somehow communicated the absolute, divine position and velocity to us. OK, so now we finally have that sought after divine position and velocity. But now has anything really changed? Well, not really.

Has our understanding of Physics changed?
Nope, absolutely everything is the same. All of the laws still apply, including those of special and general relativity.

Has our conception of the universe changed?
Nah. There's no reason to favor the divine position for the basis of a coordinate system over any system that we're using right now, especially if the divine one is crappy, like if it is billions of lightyears away or moving quickly with respect to the earth. I guess it might just be neat knowing the divine position, but nothing's really changed other than that in our conception of the universe.

Well, I think that ethics, if they exist, would be the same way. Suppose that God thunderously descended from the heavens and somehow communicated the divine ethics. OK so now we finally have that sought after divine ethical code. Has anything really changed? I don't think so. I don't see any reason why anyone should act differently.

Suppose that one of these divine ethics includes the rule, "Under no circumstances should you lie." Now if somebody who just got a crappy haircut asks me if it looks good, why should I not lie according to the divine good when I could serve what is, perhaps, an even better good by just lying. I guess what this basically addresses is how do we really know if the divine good is good at all when the only standard to measure the divine good is against divine good?

Or let's look at something less noble. Suppose that I just wanted to tell a lie, regardless of ethical considerations, perhaps to better myself or somebody else in some way. Just why should I follow the divine ethics now, especially if I don't want to?

Just like an absolute position doesn't really apply to this universe, I don't see how an absolute ethical system can either. That's why I think that Christians and the like are getting off easy by just assuming that believing in God automatically explains how absolute good and evil exist. If none of my above hurried ramblings make any sense, then I'd at least like to see somebody thoroughly set out how God can account for absolute good and evil, just the same as the Christians and the like ask from anyone else in explaining their ethical theories on this board.

Jeff250 wrote:...Suppose that God thunderously descended from the heavens and somehow communicated the divine ethics. OK so now we finally have that sought after divine ethical code. Has anything really changed? I don't think so. I don't see any reason why anyone should act differently...

heh! I know if god actually came down and laid out his devine code of ethics a whole lot of things would change. Certain forced tolerances for those that believe in other gods would evaporate overnight!
The school system in California that made children dress as muslims for a day to supposedly learn how the other side lives....do you really think any politician would suggest we do that if they knew for sure that muslims were dead wrong and their god was a false idol?!?
You think Jesus gets found on death row pretty often? Just watch Washington DC the morning after we experience a visit from the almighty!!

I'm thinking that a new crusade would be happening before too long if the followers of all the false religions didn't give it up and jump on the Jesus bandwagon!
Remember, God may be able to always do what's right but people are still flawed...
Can you say President Falwell?!?

Yeah, no kidding, but that would be out of fear of some divine punishment. What I was trying to imagine was just a situation where God laid down the law, so to say, and then left us alone again (or for the first time). If you had no reason to fear divine retribution by not following the ethics, I think it would be a different story. Certainly forcing people into following a code of conduct to avoid hell or seek heavenly rewards or whatever isn't so much a demonstration of a functioning ethical system as it is a demonstration of people just trying to save their own hide. So imagine that God laid down the divine law while explicitely stating that there will be no divine repercussions for breaking it. It was more of a heavenly FYI.

if there were no repercussions for breaking it then it wouldn't really be a devine LAW, it'd be more of a \"devine philosophy\". Perhaps like Christianity is today but without the ambiguousness.

Christian Jihad is an interesting concept Will, if you could expand on this idea in a new thread it could be fruitful.

Will Robinson wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:...Suppose that God thunderously descended from the heavens and somehow communicated the divine ethics. OK so now we finally have that sought after divine ethical code. Has anything really changed? I don't think so. I don't see any reason why anyone should act differently...

heh! I know if god actually came down and laid out his devine code of ethics a whole lot of things would change. Certain forced tolerances for those that believe in other gods would evaporate overnight!
The school system in California that made children dress as muslims for a day to supposedly learn how the other side lives....do you really think any politician would suggest we do that if they knew for sure that muslims were dead wrong and their god was a false idol?!?
You think Jesus gets found on death row pretty often? Just watch Washington DC the morning after we experience a visit from the almighty!!

That would depend greatly on what the divine code says we should and shouldn't do.

Jeff250 wrote:Suppose that one of these divine ethics includes the rule, "Under no circumstances should you lie." Now if somebody who just got a crappy haircut asks me if it looks good, why should I not lie according to the divine good when I could serve what is, perhaps, an even better good by just lying. I guess what this basically addresses is how do we really know if the divine good is good at all when the only standard to measure the divine good is against divine good?

1: That theory depends on if the divine ethics say we could lie or not.
2: If everyone lies, then it'll likely balance out as people will accept the truth.
3: Besides, what kind of God would let loads of people go around Earth with crappy haircuts?

NOT Jeff250 wrote:if there were no repercussions for breaking it then it wouldn't really be a devine LAW, it'd be more of a "devine philosophy". Perhaps like Christianity is today but without the ambiguousness.

I can't find where anyone said 'devine law'.

Well my scenario was based on my assumption that after the personal appearance the path to salvation was still the same as we have been told by the church.
If that was the case everyone would turn to the church as the earthly repository of what is true and just. Washington politicians would move to quickly infuse our government with christian law and anyone who sought equal time for their non-christian belief would be considered delusional at best, and in a worst case scenario a danger to our salvation and security. Might have to move the capitol to Salem!

Think about it, if the vast majority witnessed, or at the very least believed with no doubt, that God had come down here in person and laid out some specifics guidlines then followers of any other religion would be looked upon like those who practice witchcraft today!
They might be tolerated as long as they kept their looney beliefs to themselves but there would be no seperation of church and state and their would be no room for any other religion in the shaping of our laws and customs.

And men, being what they are, if god then left them here to resume control and to continue to disseminate his word to the masses would soon enough start to legislate and enforce gods will with a heavy hand.

How could anyone who saw him appear or believed he was here resist the change of our government to a theocracy?
Why in the world would the army of christian america care about the protests of people who are waging war in the name of some false idol?!?
If any foriegn country resisted our policy the men in charge would be debating whether or not God would want us to enforce the policy of his will on the world! And if God didn't tell us what he prefers then his choice would be determined and declared by a man.

Who would that man be? The Pope, The President? Who would be the next president? If God did his one night stand tommorow, by December either Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell would be the front runners for the '08 presidential election! They already have the street cred as Gods candidates and they have the network to keep their names out in front of any other candidates. I guess Bush could be the encumbant running on his established pro christian record and asking for a constitutional convention to allow him to seek a third term wouldn't be outrageous at all! You just know they would have to have that convention pretty quickly to infuse \"Gods will\" into the constitution anyway, why not get Bush re-enstated at the same time?

What about your local town or city, which church would be the top church? Would the sudden influx of new believers be considered as equals? Or would they be the noobs of the church, looked down upon as fairweather christians relegated to the standing room only at the sermons....

I can see a whole new caste system devoloping in america! Which familys were believers before the devine day when God came down here? Who you let your child marry a new christian...a converted christian from a muslim family?

I'll stop now because I think I may work this up into a screen play its getting too easy and interesting! I think I'll call it Descent.

But I think if there is a god I'm grateful that he's kept it on the down low since he did the burning bush thing because 'We can't handle the truth'!

Off topic, but...

I think you give folks too much credit, Will Robinson. The human capacity for self-delusion is limitless, even when people witness something with their own eyes. History testifies to many great philosophers and scientists who were slain or mocked, even though their ideas were self-evident and true. The Bible tells, through its history, that the effects of miracles on people are short-lived: Israel, created during the nine plagues on Egypt, led through the supernatural parting of the Red Sea, and who followed a giant pillar of flame through the desert for forty years... constantly forgot and forsook her God and king. Jesus visibly performed many miracles, and publicly--not the least of which was literally rising from the dead. Those who already followed him took these as signs and strengthened their faith, but those who didn't rationalized them away and mocked.

Or if you don't accept Biblical history, consider Sept. 11th. For a few days and weeks everyone was terrified, and then, with the execption of a few folks who changed, everyone went back to their old ways. How many folks were claiming, in the aftermath, that terrorism wasn't a real threat, that to wage war on it was folly? How many still claim that? You couldn't ask for clearer, more public evidence.

[Edit: You could even consider the history of this forum. Politically speaking, it began dominated by one viewpoint and eventually became dominated by the other. What did people say, that in light of the fact that years of public discourse seemed to sway opinions to one side, that side had won? No, they blamed censorship and the web site and public insanity and universal ignorance, etc. Because that's what people do.]

The evidence for the truth of Christianity is abundant, solid, and accessible. And those who are inclined to believe take it to heart. But those who aren't, well... I really doubt a miracle would change their minds. You've argued online, you know how that works. You can present clear and irrefutible evidence, you can show the folly of arguments, you can ridicule and educate and chide. And still, it's as they say:

One convinced against his will
is of his former opinions still.
Bicker to, and argue fro--
minds thus changed revert, you know.

I've argued with skeptics who have explicitly claimed that no evidence is sufficient for them to believe in God. And with the responses I've gotten from some of them, I don't even think they're kidding. And I suspect that in the case of a very public, very flashy miracle, even people who initially claimed that's all they needed would find that it wasn't sufficient. They'd be scared for a day, and then there would be murmers-about hallucinations, about technology, about aliens, about demons, about \"I don't know what the heck that was, but I refuse to believe in a God who would let my grandmother die and that's that.\" And in five years, people would have all but forgotton. Those who really remembered would almost certainly be those who already believed on that day - or those few who had been honestly ignorant and who changed.

With very few exceptions, people are ideologically resilient. And where they aren't, they're forgetful. Faith--the opposite of forgetfulness--is a religious virtue precisely because it's necessary to believe, not in spite of evidence, but in light of evidence! The natural reaction is to repress and forget, to see only the here and now. I very much doubt any single miracle God did could produce universal belief in him - and definitely not for more than a generation. And I know even if there were universal belief, there wouldn't be universal disipleship: the same people who hate him now would hate him then; the same people who find his demands too steep now would find them too steep then; the same people who prefer alternatives now would prefer alternatives then.

In Christian history, it doesn't seem to matter how uncanny the predictions are, or how flashy the miracles. With the exception of Moses, I think virtually every prophet -- up to and including Jesus himself -- was killed by his own people.

I don't see how an absolute ethical system can [apply].

Depends on where the \"absoluteness\" comes in to the equation.

It sounds like you're envisioning a system under which specific behaviors are commanded absolutely, Old Testament style. IMO that's the wrong model for mature ethics -- it's the sort of first-cut model you give to those who aren't ready to understand this:

Morals, ethics, etc. all come things that are valued. We consider it ethical/moral/good to protect, enhance, or uphold the things that are valued, and unethical/immoral/evil to damage the things that are valued. We teach our kids not to lie because we value truth; we teach our kids not to steal because we value property rights; we teach our kids to forgive because we value mercy. But when they get older, they begin to learn that sometimes values conflict with each other, and they begin to make \"value judgements\". For example, if you were hiding Jews in your attic in Nazi Germany, \"truth\" and \"life\" would be in conflict with each other, so you'd sacrifice truth (being told to the SS) in favor of life (for the people in your attic.) And you would have just done the morally best thing possible -- lying in that circumstance wouldn't be \"the lesser of two evils\" or \"a sin for which you're forgiven\"; it would be the right and righteous thing to do.

In this system, the values themselves aren't absolute. Sometimes they're in conflict; sometimes one trumps another, and sometimes several are compromised for each others' sake. Sometimes it's right to sacrifice one of them for another, despite the fact that you'd end up breaking one or more pieces of the \"divine ethical code\" you envisioned. Mature ethics don't work based on a divine code.

Where the absoluteness comes in is here: what we value, and how much (that is, how values rank in comparison to each other), comes from a single source (ie, God) which is the absolute authority on how we should act in order to best protect, uphold, or enhance those values. (I'm defining \"divine good\" as the only good, with no \"higher good\" to follow; I think it's self-evident.) The only thing a \"divine ethical code\" (whether given to Moses and those who followed after him, or in your theoretical scenario) will do for us is give us some idea as to what things are important and how important they are in relation to each other. So the best thing we can get out of it is a solid understanding of what God really wants us to do. In other words, the \"divine code\" itself is not the highest good, it's just a teaching tool to help demonstrate what the highest good actually is.

This is a tough idea to act on. The concept of acting to protect, enhance, or uphold the things God values is simple. But, because it's neither moral relativism (where you do what you feel like and it's OK for you) nor legalism (where everything is spelled out), it requires careful and mature discernment and judgement. Even if you don't believe in any God, but you believe in a transcendent \"higher good\", the same thing applies -- you need careful and mature discernment and judgement in order to uphold that \"higher good\".

Drakona wrote:In Christian history, it doesn't seem to matter how uncanny the predictions are, or how flashy the miracles. With the exception of Moses, I think virtually every prophet -- up to and including Jesus himself -- was killed by his own people.

I guess since I'm highly skeptical of the existance of god I just assumed any historical proof has been exagerated and wasn't nearly as absolute as would be a real live apeearance of a supreme being as laid out in the hypothetical example I was going on about.

Funny I thought my cynicism and low opinion of the nature of man was almost over the top in my predictions of what would happen post devine appearance and yet your assesment was I gave them too much credit and they would in fact be even more hopeless and flawed than even I could imagine!

It must be discouraging at the least for you, since you don't have doubts about him, and, as you explained, people have really failed to accept the evidence, where I get to hide behind my doubts and skepticism you have nothing to shield you from the truth about mankind! I guess my ignorance (or denial) is bliss and if I am like most men my best hope is that you are wrong!

TigerAssault-- It's not a big deal, but just for the record you attributed a quote to me that Roid actually said.

Lothar wrote:Where the absoluteness comes in is here: what we value, and how much (that is, how values rank in comparison to each other), comes from a single source (ie, God) which is the absolute authority on how we should act in order to best protect, uphold, or enhance those values.

Sure, but I think that the story can be modified to consider this without breaking anything. God thunderously descends from the heavens and explicitly lays out the divine value system, and then leaves. It doesn't really have to be a perfect communication of it either, but certainly clear enough so that we could act according to it if we wanted to in most circumstances. But now why should we? Consider again the ethical desperado who isn't interested in following any absolute ethical system. Why should he value things according to God's value system, especially when he doesn't want to, more especially yet if it goes against his own interests? Or what about the ethical insurrectionist that thinks that, say, friendship should be more important than honesty, when, say, God laid out the opposite relation. Why should he value it God's way and not his own?

I'm thinking back to the absolute position-velocity example when God came down and told us a point of position and velocity zero, the divine position-velocity so to say of the universe. It really wasn't valuable to know it at all beyond the trivia aspect. How valuable is it really to know the divine value system when neither heaven nor hell, nor any sort of divine retribution are at stake?

\"Should we\"? That's a question each of us has to answer for himself. I think it's pretty obvious that we should, but if you're not interested, don't.

Drakona wrote:[Edit: You could even consider the history of this forum. Politically speaking, it began dominated by one viewpoint and eventually became dominated by the other. What did people say, that in light of the fact that years of public discourse seemed to sway opinions to one side, that side had won? No, they blamed censorship and the web site and public insanity and universal ignorance, etc. Because that's what people do.]

The evidence for the truth of Christianity is abundant, solid, and accessible. etc

You're right about this place Drac. It's a christian circle jerk. You just posted a congregational sermon and no-one blinked a distaining eye lol.
thread sux

edit: post split note: reasons for thread sucking no longer apply.

roid wrote:You're right about this place Drac. It's a christian circle jerk. You just posted a congregational sermon and no-one blinked a distaining eye lol.
thread sux

You make no sense. This place has at least as much drive by christian bashing laced into every thread than preaching and Drakonas only post in this thread was pretty clearly commentary on my hypothetical scenario, a commentary on the nature of man not an attempt to deliver a sermon!

You were all damp in panties when I posted something that you considered to be "christian jihad", requesting more but look how you reacted to the post of a christian simply sharing her opinion on how men would react to the appearance of god in a hypothetical scenario!
You are like some kind of anti-religion gestapo!

roid wrote:You're right about this place Drac. It's a christian circle jerk. You just posted a congregational sermon and no-one blinked a distaining eye lol.
thread sux

Will Robinson wrote:You were all damp in panties when I posted something that you considered to be "christian jihad", requesting more but look how you reacted to the post of a christian simply sharing her opinion on how men would react to the appearance of god in a hypothetical scenario!
You are like some kind of anti-religion gestapo!

Did anyone else but me feel that there was no need to reply to Drac's post?

I found it amusing that my post turned into a sermon about God and all I asked was if there were any noble causes to go to war.

Bee

roid wrote:You're right about this place Drac. It's a christian circle jerk. You just posted a congregational sermon and no-one blinked a distaining eye lol.
thread sux

Wow roid... you're usually not a jerk. Usually. What got into you?

She talks about human capacity for self-delusion (using Biblical history, non-Biblical philosophers and scientists, and 9/11 as examples) with a focus on how people aren't convinced even by miracles, and people are willing to entertain her statements (though they were far from a "sermon"; see Will's response.) We call that "respect", something you're normally better at.

If you think someone should dissent from what she said, do it. Don't just whine that it's a massive circle jerk because nobody has disagreed; find something to actually disagree with and argue. Or, if you can't, agree that what she said made sense. Either way, show a little bit of respect.

roid wrote:

Drakona wrote:[Edit: You could even consider the history of this forum. Politically speaking, it began dominated by one viewpoint and eventually became dominated by the other. What did people say, that in light of the fact that years of public discourse seemed to sway opinions to one side, that side had won? No, they blamed censorship and the web site and public insanity and universal ignorance, etc. Because that's what people do.]

The evidence for the truth of Christianity is abundant, solid, and accessible. etc

You're right about this place Drac. It's a christian circle jerk. You just posted a congregational sermon and no-one blinked a distaining eye lol.
thread sux

If you think that was a sermon, you better head for the hills. That was philosophy--albeit from a strongly Christian perspective, under the assumption that the Bible is true. Still philosophy, though.

When I preach, I promise you'll know it.

Will Robinson wrote: I guess since I'm highly skeptical of the existance of god I just assumed any historical proof has been exagerated and wasn't nearly as absolute as would be a real live apeearance of a supreme being as laid out in the hypothetical example I was going on about.

Yeah. I realize that. I know the evidence I gave of how people react to miracles is only valid for me. To be fair, I'm not aware of any documentation of how people react to public miracles that that would be valid for you.

Sept. 11th is the closest secular illustration I could think of. If I did some digging, I'm pretty sure I could find some historical scientific examples, too, but I'm lazy. I do think the general point about human nature stands, even if it is much weaker in a secular context.

It must be discouraging at the least for you, since you don't have doubts about him, and, as you explained, people have really failed to accept the evidence . . .

It isn't really discouraging, because I understand. I have the same human flaw. That doesn't make it any less wrong, mind you.

Lothar wrote:"Should we"? That's a question each of us has to answer for himself.

That sounds like ethical relativism to me.

Jeff250 wrote:

Lothar wrote:"Should we"? That's a question each of us has to answer for himself.

That sounds like ethical relativism to me.

Could be. Putting that label on it doesn't make it incorrect, though.

Like I said, I think it's self-evident that, if God gives us direct information on how to act, we should follow it. But I don't think there's any way to convince someone who prefers to think otherwise. If God comes down and tells someone to their face "you should do X, Y, and Z" and they decide they'd rather do otherwise... their choice. I can't convince them otherwise.

Lothar wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:

Lothar wrote:"Should we"? That's a question each of us has to answer for himself.

That sounds like ethical relativism to me.

Could be. Putting that label on it doesn't make it incorrect, though.

Like I said, I think it's self-evident that, if God gives us direct information on how to act, we should follow it. But I don't think there's any way to convince someone who prefers to think otherwise. If God comes down and tells someone to their face "you should do X, Y, and Z" and they decide they'd rather do otherwise... their choice. I can't convince them otherwise.

No "you" can't. But "If God comes down and tells someone to their face "you should do X, Y, and Z"... then I believe most people would because now there would be no doubt about who is in charge.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:

Lothar wrote:

Jeff250 wrote:

Lothar wrote:"Should we"? That's a question each of us has to answer for himself.

That sounds like ethical relativism to me.

Could be. Putting that label on it doesn't make it incorrect, though.

Like I said, I think it's self-evident that, if God gives us direct information on how to act, we should follow it. But I don't think there's any way to convince someone who prefers to think otherwise. If God comes down and tells someone to their face "you should do X, Y, and Z" and they decide they'd rather do otherwise... their choice. I can't convince them otherwise.

No "you" can't. But "If God comes down and tells someone to their face "you should do X, Y, and Z"... then I believe most people would because now there would be no doubt about who is in charge.

Bee

I think you misunderstand what was being asked.

Jeff was asking, hypothetically, if God actually *did* speak right to you and say "do X, Y, and Z"... what makes God so special that you should do what He says? Couldn't you just ignore Him? And I was saying, in essence, yes, you could -- I think it'd be stupid, but you could.

----

But, as for your assertion that "most people would", I disagree. People would still come up with reasons not to (which is what Drakona's post was about; take the time to read it.) People are like that. People find reasons to believe the WTC towers were destroyed by a conspiracy between the government and the Jews. People find reasons to believe all sorts of things that are stupid. Even if they're convinced in the immediate aftermath of extraordinary circumstances, people find a way to forget.

It's not so much a matter of could in the well-if-you-have-free-will-you-could-just-do-anything-after-all-regardless-of-any-ethics sense, but more a matter of should. Is there any reason why one should embrace God's value system instead of another or even perhaps one's own? I mean, what if God's value system was completely counter-intuitive and valued a weekly human sacrifice every Sunday morning above all else. Would embracing God's value system be self-evident to you then?

I went back and read Drakonas post and yours and I want to pick out that question again even though the OP was not about God.

If God descended from the heavens, made a miracle, and expected people to do X,Y,and Z, then your right. Some, like me, would blow him off even if he threatened to strike us down.

But, if God answered questions like why he lets rapists murder 9 year old girls, why the world suxs, and a whole bunch of other whys, and everyone is happy with the explanations then I would say most, including atheists like me, would be convinced.

Yes, people have conspiracy theorys, and forget all sorts of things but you can't compare those with why people would blow off someone who's last theoretical miracle was over 2000 years ago. Its not the same thing.

Bee

Bet51987 wrote:Yes, people have conspiracy theorys, and forget all sorts of things but you can't compare those with why people would blow off someone who's last theoretical miracle was over 2000 years ago. Its not the same thing.

Depending upon how you view reality, one could say that His last miracle occured this morning when you woke up, and will hopefully re-occur tomorrow. It would seem that a major block to faith for many is that they take reality for granted.

Lothar wrote:

roid wrote:You're right about this place Drac. It's a christian circle jerk. You just posted a congregational sermon and no-one blinked a distaining eye lol.
thread sux

Wow roid... you're usually not a jerk. Usually. What got into you?

She talks about human capacity for self-delusion (using Biblical history, non-Biblical philosophers and scientists, and 9/11 as examples) with a focus on how people aren't convinced even by miracles, and people are willing to entertain her statements (though they were far from a "sermon"; see Will's response.) We call that "respect", something you're normally better at.

If you think someone should dissent from what she said, do it. Don't just whine that it's a massive circle jerk because nobody has disagreed; find something to actually disagree with and argue. Or, if you can't, agree that what she said made sense. Either way, show a little bit of respect.

meh maybe. Opinions are more stable, but allas the reins of Tact & Motivation flail wildly in the breeze .

Jeff250 wrote:Is there any reason why one should embrace God's value system instead of another or even perhaps one's own?

If God shared His system and you decided you didn't like it, nothing I can say could convince you otherwise.

I think God is in position to have the best value system, and I think (based on my understanding of the real God) that God's value system is going to necessarily, logically be best. But of course it's hypothetically possible to have some other God that had a wacky not-best value system. So, if you're looking for logical necessity... no, it's not logically necessary that we SHOULD follow the value system espoused by an unnamed God; it's hypothetically possible that there could be a God with a completely warped value system. I think it's self-evident, based on my interactions with the actual God, that His value system is the best, but YMMV.

-----

if God answered questions like why he lets rapists murder 9 year old girls, why the world suxs, and a whole bunch of other whys, and everyone is happy with the explanations then I would say most, including atheists like me, would be convinced.

Here, I disagree. I still think an awful lot of people would come up with reasons to ignore or blow off God. I do all the time. (Yes, you heard that right.) It's human nature -- it's who we are. We forget; we get selfish or stupid or whatever, and we intentionally ignore things we know are true. Not just about God, but about everything -- how many people do you know who end up hurting someone they love by doing something stupid when they knew better? Somehow, we convince ourselves that we should do X when we actually know we should be doing Y instead. Our capacity to do such things is phenomenal.

you can't compare those with why people would blow off someone who's last theoretical miracle was over 2000 years ago.

In this case, we're comparing hypotheticals with present-day, obvious, clear-cut miracles. I think people *still* would find excuses.

If you want to drop out of the hypothetical into the real... I certainly don't blame people who have no experience of God for not believing in Him. If all you know of are stories of miracles 2000 years ago, you have no reason to believe. I've been a witness to a few modern-day miracles and some direct instructions from God, so I have reason, but you're not me.

Lothar wrote:I've been a witness to a few modern-day miracles and some direct instructions from God, so I have reason, but you're not me.

No, I'm not. Maybe you can tell me of some modern day miracles you have witnessed... that you believe could only have come from the God you believe in.

I won't ask about the direct instructions you recieved from God.

Bettina

That's just stupid Lothar, you haven't received any instructions from a mystical being. Get over yourself, you're NOT that important in life. You're another bean counter, the same as the rest of us here, if any of us were that important, well we wouldn't be here on this board.

Do you and Drakona sit around and pray to a shrine or something? Get a dose of reality one day...

Zuruck, as has been said before, you disqualify yourself with every post you make. Seriously, \"pray to a shrine\"? WTF? I know you're smarter than that, so I can only assume you're intentionally acting stupid so that you don't have to defend anything you say or risk having any of your beliefs directly challenged. (See rational discourse and persuasability for a healthier way to enter dialogue.)

you're NOT that important

I'm not talking about the sort of God that sits back and deals with \"important\" people; I'm talking about the sort of God that \"chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him.\" (link). If you're going to argue against me, argue against the God I'm actually talking about, not some hypothetical God who only deals with \"important\" people.

I won't ask about the direct instructions you recieved from God.

I may some day tell about it anyway. I think it's a far better and more compelling story than anything else I could tell you. I've found people can easily brush off just about any miracle they didn't witness themselves as \"you saw it wrong\" or \"you're lying\", but changes of heart are much harder to deal with.

This thread looks derailed to me.. What has all that religious blabla have to do w/ \"what you would consider to be a noble cause to go to war\" ?

yep... been planning to split it. Just haven't taken the time to do so. Guess it's time...

Lothar wrote:yep... been planning to split it. Just haven't taken the time to do so. Guess it's time...

I didn't mind since I gave up on the noble thread anyway, but I would still like an answer to the first part of my previous post.

Bettina

This is a flawed hypothetical situation. If God descended from the heavens to proclaim whatever - that is the end of God as a religion, and the end of faith as a part of religion.

Suddenly God become science, and we would expend a great deal of energy and time to discover the principle sinvolved in Godhood. You can bet we'd be striving for it pretty damn hard too.

In fact, religion would be dead, and in it's place some very messed up stuff would rear its ugly head. I predict global warfare within weeks, at most, months, and possibly the end of the human race.

No - God best not stick his face where it is not welcome, and it most definitely is not welcome on Earth.

Mobius wrote:This is a flawed hypothetical situation. If God descended from the heavens to proclaim whatever - that is the end of God as a religion, and the end of faith as a part of religion.

Suddenly God become science, and we would expend a great deal of energy and time to discover the principle sinvolved in Godhood. You can bet we'd be striving for it pretty damn hard too.

In fact, religion would be dead, and in it's place some very messed up stuff would rear its ugly head. I predict global warfare within weeks, at most, months, and possibly the end of the human race.

No - God best not stick his face where it is not welcome, and it most definitely is not welcome on Earth.

You nailed it on the reaction. Unless Drakona is right, that people would find a away to deny it regardless of the weight of the evidence, we would quickly see followers of other religions get really agitated. If muslims are ready to murder just because someone draws a funny picture of Muhammed imagine if western cultures, scientists, governments etc. around the planet all started talking about the christian god as the real thing! All started making adjustments to laws etc.

Of course I'm assuming he doesn't come down here and identify himself as Allah, otherwise...well actually, pretty much the same thing just a slightly different style of resistance

If God should appear on earth he would be greeted in precisely the same way that Dostoesvsky's Grand Inquisitor met the visiting Christ; he would be told his presence is an undesired interference and then be banished for all time.

So when you guys say God comes down you're talking about the Christian God...not the ones the the other \"real\" religions pray to right?

On a side note, when is god slated to come down and save all of mankind? Didn't the bible say 2000 years?

In the hypothetical \"what if God _______\", I'm talking about ANY God. When I'm speaking of my own experience, I'm talking about the Christian God.

The Bible doesn't give a date for God's return.

what if allah came down, proved his existance and said your god didnt' exist...would you follow him?

From what I know of Allah, I don't believe he'd deserve following. But if Allah came down and it was clear I had wrong ideas about Allah, sure.