Proofs for God/Religion. Got a good one?

[BottomlessThought]

It is not my claim at all, I was referring to claims in the Bible,

To be fair, I think he's asking you to give a direct quote containing a claim from the Bible, as evidence that (according to the Bible) it is indeed possible "to see God's face and live".

 

[Quagmire]

Your claim that the paragraph was unnecessary is both unfounded and misleading;

Nope. For my purposes (and they should have been self-explanatory) your response was completely superfluous.

while you may not have meant to back up the original statement, you certainly implied that you were backing it up with your post,

The only thing I implied was that someone was making a claim about something they had no knowledge of.

Anything else you got out of that is from you.

which is why it is perfectly excusable that I thought you were backing it up, which is why I'm not really in the wrong here.

LOL! Um, OK.....you're excused.

 

[muffin8or]

Thanks for proving my last post.

I'm actually genuinely interested in the power of words and symbols now. I'm hurt that you'd think that I'm still trolling. All power structures that have had success have also had captivating words and symbols. Think of religion and their symbols and texts, governments and constitutions that are held so dear, Hitlerian rhetoric and Nazi symbols. Maybe there is more to words and symbols than we might at first think.

Still not trolling -.-

 

[Quagmire]

It is not my claim at all,

So now you're saying you didn't post this:

According to the bible, plenty of people have seen gods face and lived.

What happened there? Someone hack into your account?

I was referring to claims in the Bible, I don't believe any of it.

How does that excuse you from saying that there's something in the Bible that actually isn't in the Bible?

I was refuting a claim made by another,

With false information.

but you know that anyway.

Yes, I did know that already that's why I asked you to back up your claim.

I forgot you were a buddhist.

And I forgot you were a ......I'll stop there.

heheh!
If you don't know what it says, maybe you should stop making claims about me.

Not only do I know what it says, and what you said, I showed you several times now.

Did you see anyone defending the claim?

Your claim that there are plenty of people in the Bible who have seen the face of God and live? No, I haven't seen anyone defending that claim. Why should anyone? It was your claim and you aren't defending it.

No? Perhaps others have read the bible too.

Yes, others have, and I'm saying maybe you should too if you want to make claims about what it says.

According to the bible, plenty of people have seen gods face and lived.

Still waiting.

 

[Quagmire]

To be fair, I think he's asking you to give a direct quote containing a claim from the Bible, as evidence that (according to the Bible) it is indeed possible "to see God's face and live".

Yes, thank you. He and I would be having basically the same conversation if he had said "There are plenty of penguins in the works of Shakespeare".

Although calling it a conversation is overly generous at this point.

 

[BottomlessThought]

Nope. For my purposes (and they should have been self-explanatory) your response was completely superfluous.

For your purposes, my response was superfluous: I accept that. But it was not self-explanatory at all.

The only thing I implied was that someone was making a claim about something they had no knowledge of. Anything else you got out of that is from you.

There is a difference between what you said and what was implied from it. The question is, what would a logically thinking bystander think when they saw your post? My guess is that they would think it is in relation to the original claim. If not, that's fine, but it's certainly not me at fault.

LOL! Um, OK.....you're excused.

Glad to have cleared that little bit of nonsense up.

Yes, thank you. He and I would be having basically the same conversation if he had said "There are plenty of penguins in the works of Shakespeare".

Although calling it a conversation is overly generous at this point.

Well, we have yet to reach certainty whether or not he actually knows of any such quotes from the Bible, whereas we can be fairly certain that there are no penguins in the works of Shakespeare, so I wouldn't make that comparison; to be honest, I was just trying to point out that he had completely misunderstood what I thought was quite an easy post to understand ("Name one" is pretty self-explanatory, in your defence).

 

[Quagmire]

Well, we have yet to reach certainty whether or not he actually knows of any such quotes from the Bible,

I'm certain.

whereas we can be fairly certain that there are no penguins in the works of Shakespeare, so I wouldn't make that comparison;

If someone is equally unacquainted with Shakespeare and the Bible, I think it's a fair comparison.

Of course my example was more immediately obvious. Analogies are supposed to be.

to be honest, I was just trying to point out that he had completely misunderstood what I thought was quite an easy post to understand ("Name one" is pretty self-explanatory, in your defence).

Thank you. I'm thinking the lack of response on the claimants part is just as self-explanatory.

 

[cablescavenger]

So now you're saying you didn't post this:

What happened there? Someone hack into your account?



How does that excuse you from saying that there's something in the Bible that actually isn't in the Bible?



With false information.



Yes, I did know that already that's why I asked you to back up your claim.



And I forgot you were a ......I'll stop there.




Not only do I know what it says, and what you said, I showed you several times now.



Your claim that there are plenty of people in the Bible who have seen the face of God and live? No, I haven't seen anyone defending that claim. Why should anyone? It was your claim and you aren't defending it.



Yes, others have, and I'm saying maybe you should too if you want to make claims about what it says.



Still waiting.

I know the answer, if you want to call me a liar or tell me to butt out, doesn't that equate to a personal attack?

If you want to prove me wrong, you are going to have to read the bible yourself, I have more time for poking my eyes out with sticks.

I guess that is what they call Karma.

 

[BottomlessThought]

I'm certain.

Let's not get into the ins and outs of certainty at this stage.

If someone is equally unacquainted with Shakespeare and the Bible, I think it's a fair comparison.

Of course my example was more immediately obvious. Analogies are supposed to be.

I am acquainted with both, and it's a bit unfair to assume that cablescavenger (be it as it may that he is unable to answer when it comes to the Bible) knows nothing about Shakespeare.

Thank you. I'm thinking the lack of response on the claimants part is just as self-explanatory.

Yes, it's getting late now, and it's looking more likely that he doesn't have any quotes up his sleeve. To be honest, he should have posted one along with his assertion, rather than hoping no-one would pick him up on it.

I know the answer, if you want to call me a liar or tell me to butt out, doesn't that equate to a personal attack?

If you want to prove me wrong, you are going to have to read the bible yourself, I have more time for poking my eyes out with sticks.

I guess that is what they call Karma.

I'm personally of the opinion that there is a lot in the Bible which shows God being immanent to people in it, and tomorrow (it's 1am right now, and I'm tired) I'll get quotes for it if need be, but you really need to actually post a quote if you don't want to be called a liar with justification.

 

[Quagmire]

I know the answer, if you want to call me a liar or tell me to butt out, doesn't that equate to a personal attack?

Although you may feel threatened by any requests you receive to back up whatever claims you make, that doesn't equate to a personal attack.

If you want to prove me wrong, you are going to have to read the bible yourself,

Already have (not in it's entirety of course, but enough to know when someone is faking it).

I have more time for poking my eyes out with sticks.

If you're that reluctant to read the book, what are you doing commenting on it?

I guess that is what they call Karma.

Yes it is.

 

[Quagmire]

Yes, it's getting late now, and it's looking more likely that he doesn't have any quotes up his sleeve. To be honest, he should have posted one along with his assertion, rather than hoping no-one would pick him up on it.



I'm personally of the opinion that there is a lot in the Bible which shows God being immanent to people in it, and tomorrow (it's 1am right now, and I'm tired) I'll get quotes for it if need be, but you really need to actually post a quote if you don't want to be called a liar with justification.

Actually, I have one for him. That's the irony. IMO, "Plenty" is still enough of an exaggeration to discount the point though.

 

[cablescavenger]

To be fair, I think he's asking you to give a direct quote containing a claim from the Bible, as evidence that (according to the Bible) it is indeed possible "to see God's face and live".

Yes it does appear that way to you and others, but there is some history between Quagmire and I from the other night, and you might overlook his name calling and expect me to do the same, but I have already made it clear to him, that his behaviour is unacceptable to me, and I have no time for him.So forgive me if I do not indulge in his mind games.

Also the opening post asks for proof of God, so it seems odd that Sojourner, says something unsubstantiated about God, and I reply with a contradiction that is evidenced in the bible, yet I am asked to go and get the quotes from the bible to prove I am telling the truth, yet Sojourner, the Christian is not?

 

[Quagmire]

Yes it does appear that way to you and others, but there is some history between Quagmire and I from the other night, and you might overlook his name calling and expect me to do the same,

Talking about someone in the third person is usually considered less than respectable. And when did I call you any names (out loud I mean)?

but I have already made it clear to him, that his behaviour is unacceptable to me,

Yes, you've made it clear that you would rather propagandize with impunity and without being called on it. I told you that wasn't going to happen here.

and I have no time for him.So forgive me if I do not indulge in his mind games.

And forgive me for consistently exposing yours.

Also the opening post asks for proof of God, so it seems odd that Sojourner, says something unsubstantiated about God, and I reply with a contradiction that is evidenced in the bible, yet I am asked to go and get the quotes from the bible to prove I am telling the truth, yet Sojourner, the Christian is not?

I know Sojouner, and I know you. 'Nuff said.

 

[sojourner]

I see how it is. You can be woolly and imprecise but I can't? Think all you like, darling, thinking things doesn't make them true.

Flip that round, maybe divergent opinion is ridiculous?

At what point does theology become ridiculous? What point are you even referencing?

I know trolling is against forum rules. I'm not trolling.

I think the word canoe, it has such a unique sonority and ring. The hard c followed by the soft, slightly nasal n before the elongating, soothing 'oo' sound. Maybe canoes are God, just my opinion. In fact, I'm going to research this; objects as deities. I understand some religions have statues that embody their deity. Sounds like a weekend of fun research

Precision isn't called for if proof and definition aren't called for. We can't narrow God down like a fungus. God's too broad for that. We can be precise when talking about ways in which we choose to understand God -- such as the use of specific metaphors. I provided the specific one of a quilt, which you proceeded to dismiss by being imprecise in saying that "all duvets are God."

Saying that "God is like a quilt" is a FAR different sort of thing than saying "all quilts are God." And the really dumb thing is, you know it! Yet, you accuse me of "being all over the place." Interesting that you would choose to employ transference in that way. It is indicative of dishonesty on a basic, psychological level and probably explains why you refuse to find the Divine in any way.

At any rate, you then "posit" that "canoes are God." Fine. Let's look at that, Dearie.

Canoes cannot be God, first off, because canoes are plural. God is not. Second, canoes are manufactured goods. God is not. Your statement is clearly dismissive.

However, if you wanted to say, "God is like a canoe," that's a precise metaphor and one with which we can work, if you so desire. Let's assume for the moment (laughable, considering the evidence we've gathered about your postings thus far) that your metaphor is an honest one.

In what way is God like a canoe? How does seeing God as a canoe help you to a broader understanding of the world, yourself, and others? How does picturing God as a canoe inform your inner life and help you engage it? How does "God as a canoe" inform the nature of humanity and our place in the created order?

If God is like a canoe, how does that help us identify specific areas in which humanity has failed by not being "canoelike?" When human beings suffer, how does "God is like a canoe" help us to understand and cope with that suffering?

If God is like a canoe, how does that understanding inform ways in which our deviation from the "created norm" can be rectified? If God is like a canoe, how is God immanent to humanity? How is God transcendent with regard to humanity?

If God is like a canoe, how does that metaphor help us re-envision our place in the world?

If you're serious about engaging this as a precise metaphor for God, then these questions, aimed precisely at areas of human spiritual engagement, must be considered. Perhaps you'd like to contemplate them and answer them as honestly as you can -- that is, if you were serious about your OP, and not just using it to troll for fish to fry.

 

[sojourner]

Does it not strike you that God is even more unlikely to exist than the chances of our nature coming about by chance?

Explain how you arrive at this.

 

[sojourner]

Don't be patronising, people around you might not like that.

Transference. Again. You must be a disciple of P.T. Barnum. You're certainly clowning around here enough...

 

[sojourner]

According to the bible, plenty of people have seen gods face and lived.

Oh? Who?

 

[sojourner]

I think the more accurate statement is that "No one can see the face of God, and hope to escape electric shock treatment".

That's Biblical. Nor does it engage the imbedded theology of the text. Therefore, not "more accurate."

 

[sojourner]

Let's be honest, it makes no difference to the existence of God whether or not people can claim to "see him and live". I may as well say that no-one has the right to see my amazing piece of toast while they are alive; does that make it any more likely that the toast exists?

It counts as an argument only in the case of when people question why God does not make himself immanent, but even then, there is the eternal question of why God does not make himself immanent (the only thing clarified by the statement that "no-one can see him and live" is that he is not immanent, not that he should not be immanent).

God has made God's Self immanent. Just not in the way you would like.

 

[sojourner]

That is like the first question on who wants to be a millionaire. It is your bible, surely you don't need me to tell you what it says.

We do if you're the one making the false claim.