Maybe He does that, but people don't want to hear it?
-
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!
God, the Author
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
Yerda
Veteran Member
Or maybe He doesn't.
Now, that probably leads to nowhere. So, please tell, if God would tell you directly what is said in the Bible, would it make any difference? Would you become righteous then? Why?
Why would you assume someone is not righteous just because they don't apply what's said in the Bible to their lives? I find such a suggestion both condescending and insulting.
Now, that probably leads to nowhere. So, please tell, if God would tell you directly what is said in the Bible, would it make any difference? Would you become righteous then? Why?
Yerda
Veteran Member
Yes it would make a difference. I would know for certain that God exists.
Now, that probably leads to nowhere. So, please tell, if God would tell you directly what is said in the Bible, would it make any difference? Would you become righteous then? Why?
If God would tell you directly what is true would you becom righteous?
I don't think knowing God is real, nor knowing surely what is true, makes person righteous. That is why I don't think it is necessary to convince anyone absolutely about God being true.
Sorry, the point of my question was not to claim you are not righteous, only to ask, would it make you righteous, if you are not.
If you are already righteous, then there is no point in doing more.
But, what do you think righteous means?
Acting in accord with divine and/or moral law, i.e. acting in accord with one's dharma.
Interesting. I think acting according to the law is not itself enough, because one can do so by non righteous reasons.
Since you're already dismissing this as "not enough," tell us...what is dharma?
Why? I don't think that really makes any difference to what I said and to that person can be evil and do right things, which is why action itself doesn't tell enough about person's goodness. For example, if the only reason someone doesn't murder others is that he fears the punishment, he is still in his mind a murderer, but just don't act on it.
Because you said it's not enough. If you can say it's not enough, you must know what it is, yes?
That would be Islam and some factions of Christianity. Are there any others? Even so, other religions also have similar quirks as they believe the gods or God communicates through peculiar means such as signs or weather or the stutterings of madmen or through feelings etc.
The exception is when the religious expect God (or some god or gods) to communicate with individuals directly as is appropriate to those individuals. It is not just the book people. Its most religious people who give excuses (yes excuses) for the silences of the divine. One could begin listing these excuses and not finish. "Everything is already obvious, so the gods need not say anything." "We are beneath the notice of the gods." "The ancestors should be trusted!" "This book contains the words, and so there is no point in gods communicating with us." "Tradition was given to us by our god(s)!" The exception is: "The divine will contact each person as needed and where appropriate...or not. Good luck!"
Why? That is beyond the scope of the OP, but I think there are two different modes for humans to exist in. 1. A dichotomy between fear and certainty. 2. Living without assurances. Many of us are used to having our questions answered, and so we mostly are in mode 1: either certain or anxious. A lot of us, though, are used to not understanding the basis of things and learn to live in mode 2: No idea what's real. You just kind of intuit how to live. This is the basis of a lot of human dynamics, maybe. We've got opposite ways of thinking about the world sitting right next to one another.
I meant, acting according to the law is not enough on its own, because it can be done by wrong reasons.
If dharma can't be understood as acting by some rule, why did you brought it up in this? It then was not meaningful for this matter.
Because dharma is much more than that. Acting is karma. There is no direct English translation for dharma, but it would include not only laws and actions, but reasons behind actions, including virtuous intent. It encompasses many things, including righteousness.
Dharmic actions, by definition, cannot be "done by the wrong reasons."
PureX
Veteran Member
God has blessed us greatly by remaining a mystery to us. But foolish men want to be in control of everything and everyone as if they are gods, so they pretend to speak for God. And they make up "God's rules" and then use those rules to rule over each other.
Fortunately, God's divine spirit dwells within us all. It is the spirit of love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity. And if we are willing, we can let that spirit guide us, and live together in peace and shared prosperity.
Fortunately, God's divine spirit dwells within us all. It is the spirit of love, forgiveness, kindness and generosity. And if we are willing, we can let that spirit guide us, and live together in peace and shared prosperity.
Ok, then I think it was not necessary to take the idea of "dharma" to this, because I was only speaking of that obeying law is not itself enough, because the reasons for doing so tell more of what kind of person one is.
You're right. Any ideas or concepts that lie outside your own personal paradigm are unnecessary.
My apologies for mentioning it.
The question is why She does not communicate directly through telepathy. Why make it so complicated, and so prone to communication noise, Chinese whisper effects, and all that?
As long as She uses middle men, middle women, books, and other forms of media, authored by some men, or women, .... then the assumption that those middle men and women, and all those authors, just made the entire thing up, will always be the most rational and parsimonious.
Ciao
- viole
I would rather say, concepts that are outside the topic that was discussed, can be left to some other debate.