Direct Knowledge of God

Originally posted by rwingett
Where 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 don't care if a politician is religious (most are), as long as they ar ...[text shortened]... ay. Jackson did the right thing. If only all politicians could emulate him in that regard.

Most politicians may claim to be religious, but that of course does not mean they are; they all know the political leverage to be advantaged from holding certain religious positions. and therein lies the root of both the issue of church in the state, and my assertion of your naivity (with respect) in this matter. People are not what they claim to be, they are only what they are in deed. So talk to the politiians if you want to remove religon from the state as they are the idiots who bring it in.


PS: you too may believe whatever tomfoolery you choose my friend and i will fight to defend you in it.

Originally posted by divegeester
Most politicians may claim to be religious, but that of course does not mean they are; they all know the political leverage to be advantaged from holding certain religious positions. and therein lies the root of both the issue of church in the state, and my assertion of your naivity (with respect) in this matter. People are not what they claim to be, ...[text shortened]... u too may believe whatever tomfoolery you choose my friend and i will fight to defend you in it.

It is not up to me to judge who is religious and who is not. If they claim to be, then I see no reason why I shouldn't take them at their word. I do not presume to be the arbiter of what constitutes "real" Christianity. But if they do drag their religion into politics its only because it has gotten them a certain number of votes from like minded citizens. If people didn't vote for that nonsense then they wouldn't do it. With the religious right being completely discredited, maybe it will happen less frequently now.

Well, so far, as I suspected, nobody has said that he has learned about god directly from god. From this I impute that all responding theists learned about god from (fallible) human beings.

The earth and all it's creations are the direct knowledge of God's wisdom and power.

Originally posted by galveston75
The earth and all it's creations are the direct knowledge of God's wisdom and power.

That claim is easily disputed.

Originally posted by galveston75
The earth and all it's creations are the direct knowledge of God's wisdom and power.

you have merely asserted a proposition you cannot support with facts.

you have misused language in order to construct your proposition. knowing that something is the case implies that what is known is true.

we cannot sensibly say that someone knows something that is not the case.

We cannot know that something is the case unless we are able to show that it is also true.

Originally posted by Scriabin
that you cite a manmade book, words and nothing more, tells me volumes, as it were, about how detached from reality you are.

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.

In the book of Genesis in the flood of Noah, the ark came to rest on dry land on the same day of the year that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

Now Genesis was written centries before. And the New Testament apostle Peter says that the flood and the ark of Noah were a typology of salvation in Christ.

Was this a coincidence that the ark came through the flood with its rescued 8 humans and rested on dry land on the day Christ resurrected?

Many things like this and many prophecies convince me that these 66 books covering 1600 years and authored by 40 diverse people, is a product of God.

The unity and scheme of the Scripures could not be arranged by 40 people over that long a period of time.

How did Christ arrange to have Himself born in Bethlehem according to Micah's prophecy ? Did a baby in the womb of a woman somehow manuevor her to be in that city to be born?

How also could He grow up to act like the one whom Micah prophecied - "Whose going forth are from ancient times; From days the of eternity" (See Micah 5:2)


So Jesus, to seem to be the fulfillment of the prophecy, would have had to arrange to have Himself born in Bethlehem (Micah 5:2) as the priests and scribes of that time were expecting (Matthew 2:1-6). And the toddler had to be sure to grow up to act like the eternal Person whose origin is eternity.

Of course if God is behind the scenes then it is possible.

Manmade book? Typical charge of the person who is careful not to study it.

Originally posted by Scriabin
that you cite a manmade book, words and nothing more, tells me volumes, as it were, about how detached from reality you are.

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.

manmade book? words, nothing more, my goodness, what is the basis of this piece of sensationalistic journalism? it may not be knowable to you, but that does not mean it is unknowable, nor a reality to others, Scriabin!

i remember a lecturer at the School of Art, (Glasgow), he held a similar view, ' he would state that there were no correct answers, only correct questions, (you know the type of thing, reeks of eastern philosophy if you ask me) I though at the time, utter tosh, for if there are no correct answers, or if the answers are unknowable, then why are we searching for solutions? pants i thought, but being a sensitive sort of chappie i did not want to upset him! you know what is interesting about art classes, every single person on the planet has a particular way of expressing themselves artistically, thus certain artists are instantly recognizable, so it is with human beings, they are like snowflakes, sharing similar characteristics, but at the same time being utterly unique, therefore i will not have you calling others sick, because God to them is a reality, why should you determine to chastise them for this, its dogmatic my friend and unworthy of a gentleman!

Why? because scientific research is limited restricted to what humans can actually observe or study. Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork. Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific.

does this mean that God is unknowable? hardly, for the scriptures themselves state!

For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the worlds creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, Romans 1:20

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
[bWhy? because scientific research is limited restricted to what humans can actually observe or study. Otherwise it is mere theory or guesswork. Since “God is a Spirit,” he simply cannot be subjected to direct scientific scrutiny. It is arrogant, therefore, to dismiss faith in God as unscientific.[/b]

Quite the contrary. As god is outside the scope of scientific inquiry, faith in god is, by definition, unscientific. But it does not necessarily follow that faith in god is therefore unwarranted. It may or may not be, but either way it is still unscientific.

Originally posted by rwingett
Quite the contrary. As god is outside the scope of scientific inquiry, faith in god is, by definition, unscientific. But it does not necessarily follow that faith in god is therefore unwarranted. It may or may not be, but either way it is still unscientific.

mmm, ill need to think about this, for the verse would seem to indicate that by observation of the natural world, we can perceive certain 'divine attributes or qualities', is this unscientific , or not, I dont know🙂

Originally posted by jaywill
In the book of Genesis in the flood of Noah, the ark came to rest on dry land on the same day of the year that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.

Now Genesis was written centries before. And the New Testament apostle Peter says that the flood and the ark of Noah were a typology of salvation in Christ.

Was this a coincidence that the ark came through th ...[text shortened]... e.

Manmade book? Typical charge of the person who is careful [b]not to study it.[/b]

for crying out loud -- do you even hear yourself?

this nonsense about prophecy is just about the last straw -- you are insane if you actually represent this as reality.

the version of the book you refer to has been systematically revised, translated again and again, and by people who have the same interest as you do, to prove it valid and thus use it to justify their all-too Earthly claim to power over others.

this is all nonsense -- but go ahead and believe what you want. I am ever more in awe of people like Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and their fellows, for their clear headed vision of the world as it actually exists remains far far more valid than the pure mythology and blithering fantasy of your bible.

you are like a rat in a circular maze -- running constantly within a circular argument, trapped in a tautology, and confined in the straight jacket of blind belief in an impossible collection of carefully prepared propaganda meant to insure the power of those who edited, translated, and then hired endless pedants to attest to the veracity of a purely fictional work.

you are like one who cannot distinguish between the world of adults and the world according to Mother Goose --

to each his own -- be as crazy as you want to be, for all the good it does

that you even entertain the idea that what is described in your version of this bible, including the fantastic claim that a man, dead for 3 days, rose and then was taken up like Elihah into "heaven" appears to me as solid evidence of mental incapacity and illness.

I wouldn't trust you to testify on the stand as to what you had for breakfast.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
manmade book? words, nothing more, my goodness, what is the basis of this piece of sensationalistic journalism? it may not be knowable to you, but that does not mean it is unknowable, nor a reality to others, Scriabin!

i remember a lecturer at the School of Art, (Glasgow), he held a similar view, ' he would state that there were no correct answ ...[text shortened]... because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, Romans 1:20

robbie, you old fool, reality is that which is the case.

That is not to say "a reality to others." That is nonsense. We do not use the word that way.

that which is the case is not a subjective matter -- anything that can be subjectively determined is not within the scope of the words I used.

Therefore, you are talking about something else -- not reality.

You shouldn't be searching for solutions to questions about that which is the case where we do not have access to the data to answer the questions. You should be searching for the data. If you are not educated or qualified to search for the data, you should reserve your judgment, and express no conclusion about the matter.

Perhaps one day enough data will be collected, measurement will be possible, observation will improve, and answers to questions now beyond our reach will no longer be so.

In the meantime, I ask again, why do you search for answers or assume facts not supported by evidence about that which you cannot possibly know?

Why not focus on that which we do know, what we can know, and focus on what we can do, rather than wasting time and money on fantasy and nonsense.

If you named Jesus Hercules and God was called Zeus, you would be just as close to the truth as were the ancients who used these names in the same roles you seem devoted to.

Stupidity and dogmatic religious belief, .. but I repeat myself.

Pls remember, a gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
manmade book? words, nothing more, my goodness, what is the basis of this piece of sensationalistic journalism? it may not be knowable to you, but that does not mean it is unknowable, nor a reality to others, Scriabin!

i remember a lecturer at the School of Art, (Glasgow), he held a similar view, ' he would state that there were no correct answ ...[text shortened]... because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, Romans 1:20

<<does this mean that God is unknowable? hardly, for the scriptures themselves state! >>

what is so hard here? You seem almost sane -- you can play chess.

So you know that several moves follow from one move. If this, then that .. and so on.

Yet you cite to me the idea that the "scriptures themselves" are probative of anything whatever?

they are probative only as to the fact the words on the pages are words on the pages.

They are not probative of that which they purport to relate.

As evidence for any fact represented by the texts, they are inadmissible and impeachable as unsupportable hearsay.

The Lord of the Rings is as authoritative a history as the Bible and in the same basic genre -- allegorical fantasy.

You insult your own and my intelligence with this kind of silliness.

Originally posted by 667joe
Well, so far, as I suspected, nobody has said that he has learned about god directly from god. From this I impute that all responding theists learned about god from (fallible) human beings.

That's because your question is loaded.

Originally posted by Scriabin
robbie, you old fool

Your contemptuousness and arrogance stifle any insight you may have