emotional

</strong>

Well then, Albert, which way to communicate with God? That's the premise of each religion: WE have the ONLY or ONLY COMPLETE way of assuming contact with God. Of your communion with God, a Muslim will say that it is a satanic illusion, and of the Muslim's communion with God, a Christian will say the same. See my article <a href="http://www.geocities.com/stmetanat/discerning.html" target="_blank">Discerning It</a> for a more expansive treatment of the subject.

- Devnet the NonTraditional Naturalist, the One Who Doesn't Trust Scripture A Single Bit.

Demiurge

Just as Zeus and Apollo communicated with the Greeks through the ILIAD and the other stories. Or the way the Hindu gods inspired someone to write the Upanishads. Or the way Allah gave visions to Mohammed. Or the way Vikings passed down stories about meeting Odin and Thor. But, oh yeah, I forgot, those are all just fictional, and they have nothing to do with your religion.

Yeah, it does. It's a perfectly good reason to stop talking to "him." If you talk to a wall or a statue, people are going to look at you like you're crazy. Because you're not talking to anything. But, oddly enough, religions have this hypnotizing effect on people, to convince them that there is indeed something there (which, however, like the wall and statue NEVER responds). Take a look at all those Jews on the West Wall, bobbing and praying... they look like chickens on a chalk line.

I believe it indeed has some historical elements, but that they are mixed with myths. A fiction that makes use of historical elements shouldn't be construed as true, just because the historical elements are accurate. For example, if I write a book about Alexander the Great, in which the historical parts, battles, etc. are accurate, but I give him magical powers on top of that, it doesn't mean Alexander historically had magic powers.

This just sounds like a feel-good placebo, not a rational basis for belief in a deity. It sounds like a cop-out, Albert. "God's hand works in mysterious ways!" We haven't heard that before. Come off of it. Don't be one of those fools who at every strange coincidence smiles dumbly and says, "And there's our proof of God!" You're pushing the standard lower and lower... Now you're saying, yeah, God doesn't communicate with us clearly, but maybe he does in a hazy, miasmal, ambiguous way, like with dreams and coincidences... Give me a break. Albert, I thought you were a rational Catholic. But now you sound like a guest on Maury Povich or one of the testimonials for a psychic hotline. Have some respect for yourself.

[ January 03, 2002: Message edited by: Demiurge ]</p>

Demiurge

Originally posted by Optimistic: &lt;snip picture of handicapped person running&gt;

I don't have a problem with people making fun of us for "wasting our time" arguing on the Internet... Maybe we are. But to make fun of mentally handicapped people is juvenile and insensitive. I'm not laughing.

Vibr8gKiwi

The refutation of the argument came when I pointed out Paul's words were allowed despite coming after Jesus' death (therefore and obviously after the end of Jesus' public ministry). If you want to have a “cogent” (yet still arbitrary) non-biblical argument for the closing of the heavens you have to deal with that.

Um, Paul's teachings GREATLY changed things! Paul practically invented the church structure of Christianity and add TONS of stuff not in Jesus' teachings. If you allow Paul you need to take that "logical" argument above and change it so it allows additions added after Jesus' public ministry. Once you do that you can then explain why it allows Paul but disallows changes added by other people claiming to have later visions of Jesus, like say Joseph Smith of the Mormons.

Then after you do that you can still deal with the fact it’s non-biblical and arbitrary and apparently only inferred on the fact a few early Christians didn’t seem to be getting any direct contact from god, rather than god actually saying he was done speaking. Nothing like hanging up on your god after 4000 years of him talking simply because a few people had thought he stopped speaking for a few years.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ

Well, I don't hold to Christianity at all, though I do believe in the big man. I don't thnk he has made any revelation to anyone-if he had, trust me, it would be a little overwhelmingly obvious. Christianity isn't overwhelmingly obvious. There's debate about it.

Albert Cipriani

Dear Sandlewood,
You ask:


Between equals, it is reasonable to meet halfway. Between the infinite and the finite, there is no halfway mark at which to meet even if God wanted to do as you suggest.

You say:


Yes, I do consider that possibility, just as I consider the possibility that there is no God all the time.

You ask:


Naw. God isn't saying all that much. Jesus Himself didn't say much that hadn't been said before. It's what He did that matters the most.

If there's a test, it ain't about what God has to say to us. We're verbal animals, and so we naturally put a lot of stock in words, but we shouldn't project that onto God.

God is more about action than talk. He wants us all to use our will more than our tongues or ears. That's why He is masculine and not feminine. Tho He is of course beyond sex (unless you’re a Mormon! ) He is not beyond being the penetrating principle of the universe. He's in everything, not gossiping about anything. Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Yamori

I did communicate with god! Well, I left a bunch of messages on his answering machine, but he never called back, what a jerk&gt;&lt; He was probably too busy burning the souls of aborted fetuses for eternity, being the just and fair creature he is..0_o

emotional

</strong>

Huh? What has the one to do with the other? Why is wanting us to use our will more than our tongues or ears a reason for being masculine instead of feminine?


</strong>

You've just contradicted yourself. But there's nothing new under the sun, 'cos there's plenty of that sorta thing in the Bible... ("answer a fool according to his folly ... answer not a fool according to his folly" - one sentence after the other in contradiction).

Albert Cipriani

Dear Devnet,
You seem to be unaware natures. It's the intellectual construct that supposes everything has an essential existence, not just an actual existence.

The utilitarian, technological, ends-oriented modern world has lost sight of nature; dazzled as it is with production, it's lost interest in the means of production which is found in the nature of things. Ergo, you say:


Men and women do not just act differently, they are different because their natures are different. Tho they share the same superset of human nature, the amounts vary. So the willful active nature of man is more pronounced than it is in woman. The communicative integrating nature of woman is more pronounced than it is in man.

So when we say that God is our Father and not our mother, we mean that It is a being Who is more willful and active than communicative or integrating.

Of course God has no parts or characteristics and being infinite cannot logically be said to have more of one characteristic than another. I am necessarily using words imprecisely here in order to say more with less of the little bastards! -- Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic

Albert Cipriani

Dear Demiurge,
You crack me up:


I enjoy to a well-crafted put-down. Thank you. I needed that.

Honestly, don't you think that communication is over-rated? How often I hear people say "I don't understand" when they really mean "I don't agree." Ergo, those who claim to be starving for some sort of communication from God are, in my mind, mostly engaged in a pretense for not having to agree with what He's already said.

This has not been an argument. It's an observation and psychological speculation that I only wished to COMMUNICATE with you. Pretty worthless, right? Which only goes to prove my point that God Himself doesn't put much stock in it as He's stopped doing it in public for the last 2,000 years. – Cheers, Albert the Traditional Catholic