Should God show himself?

[PAUL MARKHAM]

Sort of like if Nessie and Bigfoot would
make an appearance.

And none of this "scoffers would deny..."

Like "god" isn't clever enough to put on a convincing show!

Well, some would like to think it's not as it keeps their myth going.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

The question then is, if God show up and told exactly what you would need to do to gain access to heaven, and you would with no struggle do it. What would you have learned about life, spiritual growth, suffering and so on? I believe it would be to learn nothing if we dont do it our self.

We would all know which one to follow.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

Dear PAUL MARKHAM

Perhaps God “shows” Itself to someone in the way that particular someone is most likely to comprehend?

Perhaps it is with God as it is with Divine insights. Such are not given in language, yet one will understand them in a/the language that one speaks (Not only that: Divine insights are given within the context that makes sense to its “receiver” - not always even a religious one, at that).

Humbly
Hermit

Or perhaps not.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

You're furthering the misunderstanding that you seemingly want to combat, and a God who is miraculous enough can create bibles without showing themselves. Even so bibles don't present themselves as created by God, so its irrelevant and reinforces a popular myth. The bibles are plainly libraries which rewrite more ancient material to make counterpoints. They don't anywhere claim "This library is actually a book handed down from God to humans." That is, it is obvious enough that this isn't what is claimed that it can be pressed as a point.

I also already said "Its not a textbook, and its not intended to deceive you into believing its a textbook." You then insisted it was presented as the word of God and further implied it was intended to be thought that way. Its not presented that way by itself any more than a check can endorse itself or set its own amount. There is no basis for presenting it as anything more than inspired. Returning to the OP:

I maintain that basic, common theology about the one God is that God is invisible, intangible, unnatural. Therefore a theologian should consider a visible God to not be God but a god or a divinity but not 'The' divinity. Be being visible God would no longer be supreme, since it would limit God to something visible. So no, theologians should not wish for God to confirm which version was right. Instead they should hope that people realize that God doesn't owe us any explanation.

So gods create bibles without communicating with the writers?

The problem with you're theology is there are many gods.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

he made the earth... he is allowed to destroy it, too, I think. An Artist may destroy his own pieces of art.

It did not create the Earth and the species on it, evolution did.

 

[thomas t]

Of course "flood" doesn't actually make him a psyvho...for the reason that...

THERE WAS NO FLOOD. ITS A BS STOTY

The flood was real, in my opinion.
When I destroyed a piece of art of mine, I wasn't psycho either. Even if I would have destroyed a good one.

Because [the comparison] is dead on.

I don't think it was dead on.

Shall we examine what you believe?

don't compare me to people that, according to you, think a human controls the weather with his mind.

 

[thomas t]

It did not create the Earth and the species on it, evolution did.

You have nothing to back the bolded assumtion up. In my opinion, it's mere presumption.

 

[Audie]

The flood was real, in my opinion.
When I destroyed a piece of art of mine, I wasn't psycho either. Even if I would have destroyed a good one.


I don't think it was dead on.

don't compare me to people that, according to you, think a human controls the weather with his mind.

Of course it is (just) your opinion.

However, it is just a story, as thoroughly disproved as any myth could be.

That too, I realize, is an uncomfortable truth.

 

[thomas t]

However, it is just a story, as thoroughly disproved as any myth could be.

That too, I realize, is an uncomfortable truth.

I don't think that this Bible story can be disproven. If you disagree, go ahead and cite a reason of why you think it is disproven.

I regard this Bible story as truth.

The ones that claimed God or God's actions to be disproven... they are the ones who should deliver evidence for their claim.
I merely said that I believe in God.

 

[Brickjectivity]

So gods create bibles without communicating with the writers?

The problem with you're theology is there are many gods.

So you're just going to assume something else was said other than what was said, essentially punishing anyone for replying at all. Thanks for helping me waste time.

 

[Audie]

I don't think that this Bible story can be disproven. If you disagree, go ahead and cite a reason of why you think it is disproven.

I regard this Bible story as truth.

The ones that claimed God or God's actions to be disproven... they are the ones who should deliver evidence for their claim.
I merely said that I believe in God.

If the flood had really happened then God would have shown himself by that act.

Is reality of flood a make-or -break for your belief?
Like, if its a lie then is the Bible is false?
Coz if so you may be incapable accepting
dispropf no matter how clear and obvious.

Nobody could disprove God, BTW, no more
than Bigfoot or flying saucers can be disproved.

So..is reality of flood essential to your belief?

 

[thomas t]

If the flood had really happened then God would have shown himself by that act.

yeah.

I happen to believe in the flood story. Not sure about which role it plays in my belief system. I'm no psychologist who is able to analyse himself.

I stay with my opinion: the flood story can't be disproven by anything, so you can't show that the Bible is a lie at that occasion, as I see it.

Reality is essential to my belief, as I see it.



Thomas

 

[nPeace]

With the 1,000s of different versions of religions and the different versions of those religions, an appearance by God is long overdue. There also billions on Earth who would welcome the knowledge of its existence just to confirm which version of its being, religion, messenger, prophets are right.

By not showing itself it only confuses the issue and leaves open the possibility that it's just a manmade creation. No theist really wants that, even if their religion might not be exactly right at least they would know how close they are to the truth.

Thinking about your question, I can only think of one answer. Because you would be dead.

To explain...
If God were to show himself,
1) man would die from his glory. It would be worst than asking to see the sun 1 million miles away.
2) man would die trying to capture God, like they try to capture anything they find and want to know everything about. So man's trying to capture or kill God, man would die when God swats them like flies.
3) it would make no difference to people who claim they want to see God... and this is seen from the fact that when Jesus gave proof of divine origin, people wanted to do away with him, and did so.
They killed the prophets of God, not because they did not believe, but because they did not want anyone telling them what to do.
That's the real issue, apparently... according to what we read in the Bible.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Says who?

That's the problem with the present method, we are all left to sort out which god sounds like the one that fits us or doesn't fit us.

Fake gurus make us even more confused.

That is indeed life, great thing is you have choices and God has not compelled and does not compel you to have Faith.

So you have a choice to consider why such choice is allowed and what would creation be if you did not have that choice. Part of that reflection, is to consider life that does not have the freedom of such choice.

Regards Tony

 

[TransmutingSoul]

yeah.

I happen to believe in the flood story. Not sure about which role it plays in my belief system. I'm no psychologist who is able to analyse himself.

I stay with my opinion: the flood story can't be disproven by anything, so you can't show that the Bible is a lie at that occasion, as I see it.

Reality is essential to my belief, as I see it.

Thomas

The great thing is Thomas that the story is what is important, not that it was a 100% factual event.

The story talks of the consequences of rejection of God and also contains Prophecy of events to come.

When looked at in a spiritual light, the flood happens in many ages, it is a timeless flood.

My Faith in the Bible being the Word of God is not shaken by knowing the stories are not a 100% material fact, I do not see that is why God gave us the records. The records contain lessons of the Spirit, given in Metephor.

All the best

Regards Tony

 

[Audie]

yeah.

I happen to believe in the flood story. Not sure about which role it plays in my belief system. I'm no psychologist who is able to analyse himself.

I stay with my opinion: the flood story can't be disproven by anything, so you can't show that the Bible is a lie at that occasion, as I see it.

Reality is essential to my belief, as I see it.



Thomas

Shouldn't take a psychologist to know if disprove if flood would make any difference.

But good that you see reality as essential to
belief for you...not all do!

You most likely don't know any geology, so
that makes it harder to explain.

I really need to get some sleep now but first...
Can you describe the flood? Like entire world,
Water 15 cubits over mt everest, or local, or what? Do you feel there is any physical evidence that it happened?

But for now its goodnight lil audie good night

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

The flood was real, in my opinion.
When I destroyed a piece of art of mine, I wasn't psycho either. Even if I would have destroyed a good one.


I don't think it was dead on.

don't compare me to people that, according to you, think a human controls the weather with his mind.

The flood wasn't as the bible describes, it was a local flood of the Black Sea. DNA proves there was no worldwide flood, the lack of a layer of bones in the ground also proves there was no world wide flood.

We have evidence, all you have is Bronze Age myths.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

You have nothing to back the bolded assumtion up. In my opinion, it's mere presumption.

So what do you have, give us your evidence.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

I don't think that this Bible story can be disproven. If you disagree, go ahead and cite a reason of why you think it is disproven.

I regard this Bible story as truth.

The ones that claimed God or God's actions to be disproven... they are the ones who should deliver evidence for their claim.
I merely said that I believe in God.

http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/Nr38Reasons.pdf

Forget about Noah's Ark; There Was No Worldwide Flood | Bible Interp

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | National Center for Science Education

Now give us your evidence.

 

[PAUL MARKHAM]

So you're just going to assume something else was said other than what was said, essentially punishing anyone for replying at all. Thanks for helping me waste time.

This is your original post.

Totes wrong in my opinion. Basic, common theology about the one God is that God is invisible, intangible, unnatural. A theologist would consider a visible God to not be God but a god or a divinity but not 'The' divinity. Be being visible God would no longer be supreme, since it would limit God to something visible.
​

How can an invisible, intangible, unnatural thing tell prophets and messenger what to create in the countless bibles?

If I got the wrong reply please give me the right one.