02 May 09
Originally posted by 667joeI'm sure there are many people who will claim to have a direct, first hand knowledge of god. But I think they have misinterpreted the data.
I would like to know if any one out there has direct first hand knowledge of god, or if god was learned about indirectly from other humans.
02 May 09
1 edit
Originally posted by 667joeI have some direct knowledge of God. My daily life would not be proper without it.
I would like to know if any one out there has direct first hand knowledge of god, or if god was learned about indirectly from other humans.
Direct knowledge of God is important to a normal human life. It should not be an enigma. And the total and persistent absence of some direct contact with God should be a cause for concern.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
02 May 09
Originally posted by 667joeLet's go with this a moment...my view of the Christian God is that God has a free will contract, if you will, with all. That is to say, free will is the basic principle of the relationship with God. If God exists, then, it works much better with the free will contract if God provides 'proof' only on a one-to-one basis, and based on that 'proof' one then operates on faith.
Can you show me your direct knowledge of God. Did he contact you! I am an atheist and if I could get reproducible proof I would certainly change my view.
So if I have a relationship with God, not only do I not need to know about whatever your 'proof' is, quite honestly it's none of my business. If God provides a reassurance to me then that is all I need, and I am not the least bit concerned about whether that is 'proof' for you or not.
BTW, God did contact me, and God is not a 'he'. So there.
02 May 09
Originally posted by BadwaterWe may be said to have free will within a secular society. The demonstrated existence of the state, who will punish us for certain actions, does not detract from that free will. We are still free to behave morally or immorally. I see no reason why having god reveal himself to all would detract from our supposed free will.
Let's go with this a moment...my view of the Christian God is that God has a free will contract, if you will, with all. That is to say, free will is the basic principle of the relationship with God. If God exists, then, it works much better with the free will contract if God provides 'proof' only on a one-to-one basis, and based on that 'proof' one then ope ...[text shortened]... 'proof' for you or not.
BTW, God did contact me, and God is not a 'he'. So there.
For you to believe in your god requires no proof. You may believe whatever you wish. But for you to expect other people to believe in your god, you must be able to provide some proof. Your assertion that god talks to you will not suffice. If you intend to worship your god in isolation then all is well and fine. But if you intend your worship to take on a social character, with certain ramifications for all, then I'm afraid proof becomes very relevant and necessary.
- Joined
- 07 Jan 08
- Moves
- 34575
02 May 09
Originally posted by rwingettI honestly do not care if any one else believe the same things spiritually that I do. It's abundantly clear to me that billions and billions don't. I don't impose anything on them, I don't expect or force them to believe as I do, and I don't care about their need for proof.
... But for you to expect other people to believe in your god, you must be able to provide some proof....
If you require proof to believe in something or not believe, great. It doesn't concern me, that's totally on you.
02 May 09
Originally posted by jaywillgibberish
I have some direct knowledge of God. My daily life would not be proper without it.
Direct knowledge of God is important to a normal human life. It should not be an enigma. And the total and persistent absence of some direct contact with God should be a cause for concern.
03 May 09
Originally posted by BadwaterIf you fully support the separation of church and state then you are correct, our beliefs have no impact on one another. If, however, your support for the separation of church and state is lacking, then your beliefs do potentially affect me.
I honestly do not care if any one else believe the same things spiritually that I do. It's abundantly clear to me that billions and billions don't. I don't impose anything on them, I don't expect or force them to believe as I do, and I don't care about their need for proof.
If you require proof to believe in something or not believe, great. It doesn't concern me, that's totally on you.
03 May 09
Originally posted by rwingettI respect for your views and enjoy your posts, but I think your view on this point is naive and a little blinkered by your distaste for religion rwingett.
If you fully support the separation of church and state then you are correct, our beliefs have no impact on one another. If, however, your support for the separation of church and state is lacking, then your beliefs do potentially affect me.
You are a socialist I believe? You are an active socialist? What you believe and do in that arena affects me. However I respect and defend your right to believe in that political viewpoint and to be proactive in recruiting others to your cause if you choose to do so. This is the right of us all.
The fact that you take an opposing view to someone’s religious belief and its impact on society through politics is something you would need to oppose in the democratic arena along with the rest of the social and political issues.
Long live freedom of ALL thought and ALL belief.
03 May 09
Originally posted by divegeesterMy political views should rightfully be expressed within the political arena. After all, where else would I express them? Your religious views should rightfully be expressed within the confines of your church and not in the political arena. You're free to entertain any and all thoughts and beliefs you wish as long as they are expressed within the appropriate arena. The entanglement of politics and religion makes for both bad politics and bad religion.
I respect for your views and enjoy your posts, but I think your view on this point is naive and a little blinkered by your distaste for religion rwingett.
You are a socialist I believe? You are an active socialist? What you believe and do in that arena affects me. However I respect and defend your right to believe in that political viewpoint a ...[text shortened]... the rest of the social and political issues.
Long live freedom of ALL thought and ALL belief.
03 May 09
Originally posted by rwingettI agree completely. However the reality is that it is politicians who bring religion into politics and religious leaders that bring politics into religion. The route to removing religion from politics is via the politicians not by attacking the principle of freedom to be religious or religious people.
My political views should rightfully be expressed within the political arena. After all, where else would I express them? Your religious views should rightfully be expressed within the confines of your church and not in the political arena. You're free to entertain any and all thoughts and beliefs you wish as long as they are expressed within the appropriat ...[text shortened]... arena. The entanglement of politics and religion makes for both bad politics and bad religion.
Look at all the world leader fawning under the need to express some belief in god and use it as leverage to gain political footing. it's pathetic but that is not the fault of religion, to say so is like saying we should have no babies because politicians use them to look good.
I agree with your goal to remove religion from politics. I just believe the fault is not with religion and that the social complexities in a democratic society will never provide for it's exclusion. The alternative is what....a fascist state...?
03 May 09
Originally posted by divegeesterWhere have I attacked your freedom to be religious? Contrary to what you seem to think, I have endorsed it. Believe whatever tomfoolery you desire. As long as you don't entangle it with the state, then to paraphrase Thomas Jefferson, "it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
I agree completely. However the reality is that it is politicians who bring religion into politics and religious leaders that bring politics into religion. The route to removing religion from politics is via the politicians not by attacking the principle of freedom to be religious or religious people.
Look at all the world leader fawning under the n ...[text shortened]... ociety will never provide for it's exclusion. The alternative is what....a fascist state...?
I don't care if a politician is religious (most are), as long as they are capable of setting aside their personal religious beliefs in the execution of their duties. I will give you one notable example. During the administration of Andrew Jackson a deadly typhoid epidemic was sweeping through the nation. John C. Calhoun proposed a national day of prayer to seek 'divine help' against the epidemic. Even though he was himself a deeply religious man, Jackson threatened to veto the measure as it represented a dangerous mixture of church and state. The motion was eventually dropped and it faded away. Jackson did the right thing. If only all politicians could emulate him in that regard.
03 May 09
Originally posted by jaywillthat you cite a manmade book, words and nothing more, tells me volumes, as it were, about how detached from reality you are.
1 Cor. 2:14
again, believe what you want, but if you really think that which is written by the hand of a human being is evidence of a fact regarding that which cannot be known or is unknowable, you are one sick puppy.