Why Does God Reveal Himself to Some People and Not to Others?

Originally posted by duecer
you have no idea what you are talking about, that is evident. You are taking a literal translation of a 3000 year old text and applying modern text dynamics to it. God made "adam" which literally means mankind...including women.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man [b](mankind) in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the ...[text shortened]... mankind itself was created and Adam (the person) was made separately for a specific reason.[/b]

What translation are you using for this?
Kelly

Originally posted by Penguin
That depends entirely on which book of Genesis you read. They are inconsistent between them so you can't really say both are true. Book 1 says they were created on the same day, with no indication that either came first or from what they were made.

Book 2 obviously goes into far more detail on this particular point but where book one does specify an order ...[text shortened]... 1, because it tells a different story.

Therefor, it is [b]not evident.

--- Penguin.[/b]

Genesis 2 (American Standard Version)
2: 7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

2:18 And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.

2:22 and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

2:23 And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

2: 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.


Seems evident to me that God made man, then made woman using man to do it.
It also seems evident to me that God made man first. I acknowledge that because
God drew woman from man that when God made man he was also making al there
was for woman too; however, that to me does not lend itself to proving the point
that God is someone how an it, and that it is an error to assign male traits to Him.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Genesis 2 (American Standard Version)
2: 7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

2:18 And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.

2:22 and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, mad ...[text shortened]... int
that God is someone how an it, and that it is an error to assign male traits to Him.
Kelly

Evident means "plain or obviously true by simple observation, clearly revealed to the mind or the senses or judgement". If this were the case, surely the vast majority of rational, intelligent people would agree with you?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Genesis 2 (American Standard Version)
2: 7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

2:18 And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.

2:22 and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, mad ...[text shortened]... int
that God is someone how an it, and that it is an error to assign male traits to Him.
Kelly

Chapter one comes before chapter two, they are differing accounts because in chapter one it references humankind, and chapter two references specific individuals.

I used the NIV btw, which is very close to the KJV in language. If you want to truly understand what the difference in the two chapters are, you will need Strong's Exhaustive Concordance

edit: I never said it was wrong to assign male traits to God, my point is that God is gender neutral and all of our traits, male and female, are attributed to the creator...we are all made in Gods image.

Originally posted by KellyJay
There are millions of things people believe that unfalsifiable not just things that
center around religion either. I believe because I and everyone else use the word
faith when talking about this, that sort of is a given that you are not going
get "PROOF", you are either going to accept it or reject it. Yes, I have seen the
movie "'The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers'" a long time ago and a couple of
different versions of it too.
Kelly

Thanks for your patience.

Now, you say:
There are millions of things people believe that unfalsifiable not just things that
center around religion either.
I think it would be really helpful to our dialogue if you could give a couple of examples.

I think 'The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers' is a powerful metaphor for me. In the remake with Donald Sutherland, do you remember the scene where he is cornered by the Leonard Nimoy character, who tries to argue that he should surrender?

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Thanks for your patience.

Now, you say:
[b]There are millions of things people believe that unfalsifiable not just things that
center around religion either.
I think it would be really helpful to our dialogue if you could give a couple of examples.

I think 'The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers' is a powerful metaphor for me. In the remake with ...[text shortened]... re he is cornered by the Leonard Nimoy character, who tries to argue that he should surrender?[/b]

People believe in the Big Bang, they believe in Abiogenesis, they believe their
wives or husbands love them, they believe in several things; I'm not sure why
you want a list, you should be able to come up with as much as I can.

I do not recall that part of the movie, but it has been a long time since I have
seen it.
Kelly

Originally posted by duecer
you have no idea what you are talking about, that is evident. You are taking a literal translation of a 3000 year old text and applying modern text dynamics to it. God made "adam" which literally means mankind...including women.

Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man [b](mankind) in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the ...[text shortened]... mankind itself was created and Adam (the person) was made separately for a specific reason.[/b]

Okay, I'm sure you didn't mean to do this as trying to get away with something,
but you are adding verbage to the text to prove your points! Huge no, no in
almost every circle. If you are going to add words like (mankind) you should at
least highlight the fact your adding text to what your quoting, or you are not
really quoting anything your making it up as you go!


The accounts between Gen 1 and 2 are both refering to the same event, you think
they are different accounts and so we should throw one way?
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
I agree.

You cannot find a non-existent something honestly –no matter HOW honestly you try!

In fact, you cannot find a non-existent something dishonestly! And this is true no matter HOW dishonestly and deviously and underhandedly you try and find it! Even if you cheat and lie and rape and kill to find it!

Sure you can find things that are not there dishonestly, it happens all the time!
People look for excuses to accuse others of things all the time, and they find
cause to do so, even if the causes are not real.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
People believe in the Big Bang, they believe in Abiogenesis, they believe their
wives or husbands love them, they believe in several things; I'm not sure why
you want a list, you should be able to come up with as much as I can.

I do not recall that part of the movie, but it has been a long time since I have
seen it.
Kelly

Ok, I think there is a distinction to be made between people who believe things even though the evidence is patchy at best, and people who believe things in such a way that no amount of contrary evidence can shake the belief.

I think the aspect of your faith you have shared is like the second kind, whereas all of the examples you give have the possibility that very good evidence in favour or against will alter the belief.

Do you understand the difference?

If you're not that familiar with how Invasion of the Bodysnatchers goes, no problem.

Originally posted by Lord Shark
Ok, I think there is a distinction to be made between people who believe things even though the evidence is patchy at best, and people who believe things in such a way that no amount of contrary evidence can shake the belief.

I think the aspect of your faith you have shared is like the second kind, whereas all of the examples you give have the possibil ...[text shortened]... erence?

If you're not that familiar with how Invasion of the Bodysnatchers goes, no problem.

Yea, I understand the difference.
Kelly

Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
“…Where would any feeling of love or hate come from if all that is here is some DNA
coding that develops material into forms that we call life?...”

I don’t understand why you think this is a contradiction. Why do you think this is this a contradiction?

And I don’t understand what you mean by “ALL that is here is some DNA
Coding…” ; what is it ...[text shortened]... m:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbic_system

-so I don't understand your reasoning here.

I'll ask again, maybe you have an answer, why would any life form in a world where
none had them develop emotion?
Kelly

Originally posted by bbarr
The problem is that I have this peculiar cognitive disposition to believe only on the basis of good evidence. My parents and professors are the same way, alas. Moreover, I wouldn't know how to begin to change this disposition, since I would first have to be convinced, on the basis of good evidence, that I should change. So, I'm stuck. It's not much o ...[text shortened]... ee me suffer an eternity than believe by evidence alone, without the need for faith.

The Soap Opera operates
on a deep-seated hypnosis
laid in layer by layer,
episode by episode,
until the melodrama
has been thoroughly entrained—

Hope keeps the organ music grinding,
faith sustains the hypnotic spell.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Yea, I understand the difference.
Kelly

So you'll understand that this kind of faith is a means by which you might stick with a belief regardless of whether it is correct or not?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Sure you can find things that are not there dishonestly, it happens all the time!
People look for excuses to accuse others of things all the time, and they find
cause to do so, even if the causes are not real.
Kelly

I was joking 🙂

However, I think I should point out that I was implicitly making the distinction between when a person REALLY finds something and when a person merely BELIEVES he has found something.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I'll ask again, maybe you have an answer, why would any life form in a world where
none had them develop emotion?
Kelly

Maybe you could find your answer in here -

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/emotion.html