-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Do you think that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world?
- Thread starter Trailblazer
- Start date
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
93%??? You are assuming only one god is believed in.....
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Que sera sera
People assume a lot of things. I have no idea where the 93% comes from. A quick search showed only 7% of Chinese do believe, so that's 93% of 1/6 of the planet that don't. That in itself puts the theist substantially below 93%.
Which is why proselytizing is becoming illegal in some places, and I think that will increase. In my case it is a clear ONLY if they ask (persistently), and even then it'll go incredibly slow at first to determine if it actually might help the person. I'm careful as, it can cause a ton of confusion, and spreading confusion would be a horrid karma to bear. Of course this is a substantially different approach from all proselytizing religions.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Do you think that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world?
If you think God should do that, please explain why you think so.
If you think God should not do that, please explain why not.
Please explain the reasons for your answer.
Thanks, Trailblazer
God does. But because so many people think their way is the only way, many people get a bad taste in their mouth about God or don't recognize He/She/It when they otherwise could.
sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Because it’s true. And, for the record, I happen to agree with the part you quote. I don’t think for one second that God wants our “saccharine adoration.” I don’t think God can be “swayed” by our prayers, and I don’t think God “becomes petulant.” I think these things are absurd, theological fantasy that serve people like Joel Osteen, James Dobson, Creflo Dollar and Franklin Graham very well. For me, the spiritual journey is much more serious, much deeper, and much less emo than the quotation describes.
I believe he already does. The question we need to ask ourselves is: are we listening?
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Maybe it's claim to you, but for me it is evidence that Christ Jesus sent his
12 disciples out into the world to give his message to the world.
Matthew 28:19-20
19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world"
There's your evidence, if you can handle it.
Scripture making the claim is not evidence.
syo
Well-Known Member
No, never. God should never force his presence to anyone.
Faithofchristian
Well-Known Member
Maybe not to you, but for me the Scriptures is all I need for my evidence.
I am using the standard English definition and criteria for what may be called evidence. The personal anecdotal and subjective interpretation of ancient scripture does not qualify as evidence.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
In court, if so-and-so says such-and-such it is evidence. How that evidence is taken is irrelevant. As is the truth if it. Evidence doesn't mean you have to believe it, it only means it's on the table. Lies are entered into evidence all the time. You can say you don't believe it, you can even demonstrate that it is wrong, but you really only reinterpret evidence when you do that, you don't transforms it into non-evidence.
That being said, evidence from scripture is just written words of someone's opinion and takes no more than that to counter. Inasmuch as an ancient dead man's words are evidence of God's existence, the words of an atheist today are evidence of the lack thereof. Both equally easy to come upon and equally easy to dismiss or adopt.
Evidence all the same.
Walterbl
Member
No. Imagine if God spoke directly with everyone on earth. Humans would ask God's approval for every single decision and would remain perpetual children, unable to decide anything on their own.
"Godm what should I study? God, does this dress makes me look fat, God, is it true that you kill a kitten every time I do something wrong?"
"Godm what should I study? God, does this dress makes me look fat, God, is it true that you kill a kitten every time I do something wrong?"
Not convincing meaningful evidence all the same, to be convincing.needs to have quality,and not the superficial 'evidence all the same.'
Third hand testimony in scripture without provenance of authorship is not accepted as evidence even in a court of law nor in science.
From: evidence | Definition of evidence in English by Oxford Dictionaries
evidence-
The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
From: Evidence (law) - Wikipedia
"The law of evidence, also known as the rules of evidence, encompasses the rules and legal principles that govern the proof of facts in a legal proceeding. These rules determine what evidence must or must not be considered by the trier of fact in reaching its decision. The trier of fact is a judge in bench trials, or the jury in any cases involving a jury.[1] The law of evidence is also concerned with the quantum (amount), quality, and type of proof needed to prevail in litigation. The rules vary depending upon whether the venue is a criminal court, civil court, or family court, and they vary by jurisdiction."
Science - Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method.
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
Great question.Do you think that God should communicate directly to everyone in the world?
If you think God should do that, please explain why you think so.
If you think God should not do that, please explain why not.
Please explain the reasons for your answer.
Thanks, Trailblazer
I would imagine that if I heard a voice talking to me, I would have no idea whom it belonged to, and I think that would leave people more confused as they currently are.
The naturalist would conclude that ETs were using some form of technology to communicate with the earthlings.
The Devil worshipers would probably want to know what was going down, although it might be revealed to them.
Persons of various religions would probably assume that their various gods - whether Hindu, Buddhist, Jain, etc. - had begun talking to them.
The confusion, I imagine would be chaotic. Especially if certain instructions were heard from this voice, that people did not like. Their reaction might result in groups being singled out to be massacred. Some might even try to prove the voice is not God's, by committing sin on a greater level. So maybe that might prompt another question - Should God destroy all who don't listen and obey the voice?
I think the all-wise God knows exactly what is best, and does it.
The current method imo, seems to be working great.
As it was with me, I see people who seek to know the creator make changes in their lives for the better all because of a book that contains the greatest wisdom found anywhere.
No other book is available to more than 90% of the world's inhabitants. No other book has endured the tests of fire like the Bible.
I have not seen any other book that has had such a powerful effect on people's lives - overcoming drug addiction, immoral practices like prostitution, masturbation, adultery, pornography, homosexuality, etc, racial and national hatred, violent and hateful habits, abusive behavior and speech...
Look how it has influenced people so much that even these forums and others have rules against obscene and vulgar speech. Even many many sites have in their license agreement that vulgarity of any kind, whether in media or otherwise is forbidden.
That's the power of the scriptures.
I don't think the problem is with God not audible communicating. If he did, it would make no difference, imo. The problem is with proud stubborn hearts that are not willing to humble themselves like little children - thinking too much of themselves.
I mean, Pharaoh is an excellent example.
At the end, it's their loss. God is not going to lower his wisdom to their level, and he loses nothing. Millions love him - the little children, the teens, the young adults, the elderly, and there are all happy, just like their happy God... Jehovah.
[GALLERY=media, 8640]Happy by nPeace posted Aug 12, 2018 at 1:47 PM[/GALLERY]
The love and unity and unbreakable faith evident among Jehovah's people, is as a result of applying Bible truth in their lives.
Sir Doom
Cooler than most of you
Granted, but 'meaningful' and 'convincing' are both value judgements made subjectively by the individual (which is a perfectly normal and effective way to accept or reject evidence).
What is or isn't accepted as evidence in a court of law is determined by the subjective process of precedent, itself determined by the subjective opinion of judges on a case by case basis. Scientific evidence obviously fits quite a separate category and seeking such strict, formal measures on a forum is kind of ludicrous. We are limited to electronic media and almost exclusively text based communication, after all.
Considering that you copied and pasted this from an online source:
Unnamed author from Oxford
Published in book form
Copied to the internet version
Relayed to you by Google
And pasted here for me.
That's what? 5th hand testimony? from a written work with no provenance of authorship?
I still consider this evidence as it is a body of information indicating the truth of a proposition. Just like scripture.
Yes, exactly. Should I remind you that the Bible has been entered into evidence more than once under many different legal systems? I hope not, I really don't want to do that reasearch.
And when we design an experiment on this subject we had better adhere to these rules if we are to be taken seriously. We aren't doing that, though. We're debating. And we aren't debating how best to use a super collider so scientific evidence is hardly necessary.