Why communicate with a book ?
20 Jun '05 20:49Since there are all kinds of interpretations on what the Bible has to say it seems to me that it was a poor way to give us the "Truth". What do you bunch of Heathens think.
20 Jun '05 22:52Originally posted by ColettiDVD? Television? Telephone? A personal chat with every human being (your God is omniscient)? After all, he didn't write the book anyway; he communicated directly with people and then they wrote things down. If He could do that 2000+ years ago, why not now? What's the line is "Jesus Christ Superstar":
What is the alternative?
20 Jun '05 23:02Originally posted by no1marauderWould it make any difference? I heard an atheist in a debate say he'd believe in God if God made the podium in front of him levitate. But would he? Would he believe it was not an optical illusion, or some magic trick? If I saw something or someone flying around the room, I'd assume it was a magic trick.
DVD? Television? Telephone? A personal chat with every human being (your God is omniscient)? After all, he didn't write the book anyway; he communicated directly with people and then they wrote things down. If He could do that 2000+ years ago, why not now? What's the line is "Jesus Christ Superstar":
If He'd have come today he would have been a sensation,
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication
20 Jun '05 23:20Originally posted by buckkyI like books. I can listen to people long dead, giving their own thoughts in their own words. This must be one of the pillars of civilised life. I spent last wednesday evening away from home and spent some time looking over a verdant view reading the bible, and read several chapters relating to the history of Jacob. The words, as translated into english 400 yrs ago were shere pleasure. So, yes indeed, I like books.
Since there are all kinds of interpretations on what the Bible has to say it seems to me that it was a poor way to give us the "Truth". What do you bunch of Heathens think.
20 Jun '05 23:35Originally posted by ColettiDirect personal experience would be more persuasive than some ancient texts. If God was really interested in saving everybody as some of the fundies here claim (I know you don't) then he should logically try the most persuasive method at any point in time. I can't say what my ultimate reaction would be if God spoke to me; I might initially think I was going nuts, but it would at least increase the likelihood that a God exists. The question was: Why a book? Your answering question was: What's the alternative? You will concede that the things I gave ARE alternatives, correct?
Would it make any difference? I heard an atheist in a debate say he'd believe in God if God made the podium in front of him levitate. But would he? Would he believe it was not an optical illusion, or some magic trick? If I saw something or someone flying around the room, I'd assume it was a magic trick.
What if God spoke to him directly? Would he t ...[text shortened]... to him out loud? I wouldn't. Even if I heard the voice - I'd be looking for hidden speakers.
21 Jun '05 01:47Originally posted by no1marauderI swear if these people didn't brainwash their kids, xtians would have died out 1500 years ago.
Direct personal experience would be more persuasive than some ancient texts. If God was really interested in saving everybody as some of the fundies here claim (I know you don't) then he should logically try the most persuasive method at any point in time. I can't say what my ultimate reaction would be if God spoke to me; I might initially thi ...[text shortened]... was: What's the alternative? You will concede that the things I gave ARE alternatives, correct?
21 Jun '05 11:17Originally posted by no1marauderActually, if mass communication was a reality back then, we wouldn't have this silliness today. It was the lack of communication that allowed this Fraud to be committed in the first place. Ironically, it is mass communication that allows the proliferation to continue.
DVD? Television? Telephone? A personal chat with every human being (your God is omniscient)? After all, he didn't write the book anyway; he communicated directly with people and then they wrote things down. If He could do that 2000+ years ago, why not now? What's the line is "Jesus Christ Superstar":
If He'd have come today he would have been a sensation,
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication
21 Jun '05 22:32Originally posted by no1marauderActually, the Bible is different from, say, direct mental telepathy in one respect - it requires a human action (viz., actively searching for the Truth).
DVD? Television? Telephone? A personal chat with every human being (your God is omniscient)? After all, he didn't write the book anyway; he communicated directly with people and then they wrote things down. If He could do that 2000+ years ago, why not now? What's the line is "Jesus Christ Superstar":
If He'd have come today he would have been a sensation,
Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication
22 Jun '05 19:00Originally posted by lucifershammerIt makes sense to me that god would want us to search for the truth, because I believe that an active learning process gives a deeper understanding than just taking something for granted. But while a good teacher (obviously, I am talking about my own view of a "good teacher", your view might differ) will encourage an active learning process, he/she will also have to give sufficient information and the right kind and amount of help (which will be different for different students). The goal would be that the student finds the right answer with as little help as possible. But if a student honestly tries to find the answer, but fails because the information and/or help was not sufficient, it's the teacher who has failed.
Actually, the Bible is different from, say, direct mental telepathy in one respect - it requires a human action (viz., actively searching for the Truth).
Back to Top