(November 27, 2012 at 12:30 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:

(November 27, 2012 at 12:24 pm)pocaracas Wrote: According to the myth, some people did have direct interactions with this god. Some other people simply witness some interactions of this god with the world.

Why is it that, once the myth was established, he stoped interacting?

He stopped interacting? Support, please.

If he didn't, then where's the evidence that he does interact?
As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence, hence no interaction.

(November 27, 2012 at 12:30 pm)CliveStaples Wrote:

Quote:Or he didn't and it's just a case of 21st century people just being blind to those interactions in a way that 10th century BC people living in a half-desert country were not?

First, 10th century BC people would probably describe and understanding things very differently than we do.

bah... 10th century, 5th century...Somewhere in between, I don't care exactly when... I just know it was too long ago. The 10th century was just a ballpark figure... why nitpick details and completely miss the point of the post?

(November 27, 2012 at 12:30 pm)CliveStaples Wrote: Second, how do you know that God doesn't interact with people now? How do you know how precisely God chooses interacts with people? Where did you come by this knowledge?

To all 3 questions, I don't know.
Do you?
If you do, then you may provide some way to actually measure that interaction.... or is it just the usual babel: feelings this and that, wishful thinking, etc, etc, etc?... all capable of being described by psychological constructs within the human brain.
Again, as far as I'm aware, there's no god-people interaction. But there are people who are convinced they actually had such interaction... this is probably what you called "anecdotal evidence".
Please, provide any non-anecdotal evidence of god-human interaction. I'll wait.

But beware that the only one that would probably convince me would be the one where this god actually behaves like in the myth: direct, visible, audible interaction and displays of super-natural power (Instantaneous transport across galaxies would make a first good impression, but wouldn't rule out "aliens").

(November 27, 2012 at 12:55 pm)pocaracas Wrote: If he didn't, then where's the evidence that he does interact?
As far as I'm aware, there's no evidence, hence no interaction.

You haven't supported your claim. If you're going to claim that God has stopped interacting, you have to support it. The burden isn't on me to disprove you; the burden is on you to prove your truth-claims.

Quote:bah... 10th century, 5th century...Somewhere in between, I don't care exactly when... I just know it was too long ago. The 10th century was just a ballpark figure... why nitpick details and completely miss the point of the post?

...uh, what? I wasn't nitpicking whichever century you mentioned...

Quote:To all 3 questions, I don't know.
Do you?
If you do, then you may provide some way to actually measure that interaction.... or is it just the usual babel: feelings this and that, wishful thinking, etc, etc, etc?... all capable of being described by psychological constructs within the human brain.
Again, as far as I'm aware, there's no god-people interaction. But there are people who are convinced they actually had such interaction... this is probably what you called "anecdotal evidence".
Please, provide any non-anecdotal evidence of god-human interaction. I'll wait.

Do you retract your claim, then, since you're refusing to support it?

Quote:But beware that the only one that would probably convince me would be the one where this god actually behaves like in the myth: direct, visible, audible interaction and displays of super-natural power (Instantaneous transport across galaxies would make a first good impression, but wouldn't rule out "aliens").

It is not incumbent on me to disprove a claim that you have offered without evidence.

Has god been interacting with you recently Clive?

(November 27, 2012 at 12:59 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Has god been interacting with you recently Clive?

Relevance?

Well, you mentioned being open to being led by god, and you're asking someone to prove that a god (which has never been established as existing in the first place) has stopped interacting with people.....so..whether or not god has interacted with you would be pretty relevant. You could easily falsify the claim that god has stopped interacting by establishing that a god interacted with you, and similarly this claim could be supported by asking everyone if god had interacted with them. If we don't get any affirmative responses then it would be a pretty solid claim....consider yourself the first in a broader survey.

and.......... a god -would- have to interact with you to lead you in anything. Your understanding of this gods will would have to be based on interaction with this god for it to be more than simply "your understanding" an authority you yourself have called into question by reference to the interpretation of the interpretation of the proverb in question (in our discussion).

So, relevant to both discussions, yes, I think so. Convenient for your continued involvement in apologetics..no...probably not.

(why do I get the feeling that I'll be answering a whole hell of alot of questions in this discussion without much reciprocation?)

(November 27, 2012 at 1:16 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Well, you mentioned being open to being led by god, and you're asking someone to prove that a god (which has never been established as existing in the first place) has stopped interacting with people.....so..whether or not god has interacted with you would be pretty relevant. You could easily falsify the claim that god has stopped interacting by establishing that a god interacted with you, and similarly this claim could be supported by asking everyone if god had interacted with them. If we don't get any affirmative responses then it would be a pretty solid claim....consider yourself the first in a broader survey.

Hmm. Well, I don't think God has intervened in my life in any significantly different way than He intervenes in the lives of anyone else, believer or not.

Quote:and.......... a god -would- have to interact with you to lead you in anything. Your understanding of this gods will would have to be based on interaction with this god for it to be more than simply "your understanding" an authority you yourself have called into question by reference to the interpretation of the interpretation of the proverb in question (in our discussion).

So, relevant to both discussions, yes, I think so. Convenient for your continued involvement in apologetics..no...probably not.

(why do I get the feeling that I'll be answering a whole hell of alot of questions in this discussion without much reciprocation?)

Uh, I don't think God has to "interact" with you in order to lead you, in the sense of God literally speaking to you and telling you things.

Of course my actions are going to be based on my understanding--specifically, of my understanding about God's will for me. That's not what Proverbs 3 is cautioning against.

(November 27, 2012 at 12:34 pm)catfish Wrote:

(November 27, 2012 at 7:27 am)Gooders1002 Wrote: No wrong, My intention was to see who is the crazy ones and who was the sain ones and I can no intention to ridicule anybody. All I wanted to a simple yes I believe point 1 or no I don't which you seem not do have gotten. It's nice to see a Christian do research and not take it blindly (unlike most). But it seems you can't decipher my original point, and I did not need a lecture about your believes I want a simple YES or NO answer (with a brief explanation of why to believe that point or not), Also I want to know the personal views on the 9 points not the majority views. What part of this don't you get?

Exactly how stupid and intellectually dishonest are you really? You just supported my statement with your response. What part of THAT don't you get? It appears that you couldn't do your own research so you resorted to changing the subject. Read the fucking OP yourself... You can finally admit that you really haven't read the Bible and you're just an unbelieving sheeple, it's OK, really it is. Your oxymoronic position is amusing and yet quite predictable...

I gave you simple yes/no answers with my agree/disagree responses (with very brief explanations). Does your delusional mind deny this??? (obviously it does) Perhaps you forget what you said not so long ago??? " I want you to tell me if they're right or wrong and correct me, I want to know if you really believe them and if they're accurate or not. I want to see things from your eyes that not been corrupted by somebody else with their own goals and your view on those points, That's the whole point of the thread." I challenged 1 point and you ran from that challenge, now didn't you? I gave you several examples of why your point #3 was incorrect in my eyes, do you deny this? Can you refute MY points? Probably not...

And you DID need the lecture on my beliefs... With that "lecture", you fell right into the "no true Scotsman fallacy". On what basis do you think that I'm not a Christian? Really Gooders, I would love to hear your reasoning behind THAT... lol! It's fucking hillarious that an atheist would resort to the "not a True Christian™" angle...

So Gooders, the ball's in your court... Prove to me that you're not troll, can you do that????

After going back and rereading all that was send between us and not once did I use the 'no true Scotsman fallacy' as I can't see it (if you want to point it out then I will gladly except my mistake) and at no point did you offer a challenge (again I can see it so if you want to point it out...). Yes you did answer my point but I was unsure of what you were agreeing to. Also when did I say you were a not Christian (if your on about my agreement with Kirbmarc I was agreed I to his point that if you were not a Christian, then you should have not answered the point, I never once said you were not and if I did tell me were).
Also I did go back to the OP. Obviously the question was not as clear as I thought.

On the point of research, the 9 points are what I have been hearing and seeing from Christians over the years and I wanted to see if my 'stereotyped' points are accurate from the 'horses mouth'. If I researched this point I would have got what a group said not what a individual said, which is what I am after. To point it simply the whole thread was: 'Are my stereotypes that I have got about Christians, over the years accurate' and I thought the best people to ask was Christian there-selves.
I hope that cleared it up.
If you have disagreements with anything I said, quote me on it, And I will gladly correct or make clear any misunderstands or contradictions or logical fallacies or inconsistencies.

Well, thinking that he hasn't intervened in any way different from how he intervenes in the lives of others still assumes or implies interaction, unless you're implying that he hasn't interacted with you in exactly the same way that he hasn't interacted with me - for example-.

I wouldn't disagree with you there. I don't have to physically speak with someone to have interacted with them either (or to lead them). Nevertheless, there is a hefty chunk of the narrative that describes direct, personal conversations (or walks even) with a god....and of course we don't really see a whole hell of alot of that anymore. Some folks wonder why.

Quote:Of course my actions are going to be based on my understanding--specifically, of my understanding about God's will for me. That's not what Proverbs 3 is cautioning against.

Bolding is mine...

Quote:"Don't think that you've got everything figured out already. Be willing to be changed/lead by the Lord".

It appears to me...that your interpretation of the interpretation of said proverb cautions against that exactly. As I have been saying..it's a self defeating statement - unless you can invoke and establish interaction from a god involving a description of it's will...and not just your understanding of it.

(November 27, 2012 at 1:43 pm)Rhythm Wrote: I wouldn't disagree with you there. I don't have to physically speak with someone to have interacted with them either (or to lead them). Nevertheless, there is a hefty chunk of the narrative that describes direct, personal conversations (or walks even) with a god....and of course we don't really see a whole hell of alot of that anymore. Some folks wonder why.

Wonder away to your heart's content. But when "some folks" start making claims--like "God has stopped interacting"--then they have the burden of giving evidence to support their claims.

To quote Christopher Hitchens: What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

Quote:

Quote:Of course my actions are going to be based on my understanding--specifically, of my understanding about God's will for me. That's not what Proverbs 3 is cautioning against.

Bolding is mine...

Quote:Of course my actions are going to be based on my understanding--specifically, of my understanding about God's will for me. That's not what Proverbs 3 is cautioning against.

Bolding is mine...

Quote:It appears to me...that your interpretation of the interpretation of said proverb cautions against that exactly. As I have been saying..it's a self defeating statement - unless you can invoke and establish interaction from a god involving a description of it's will...and not just your understanding of it.

...uh, what exactly do you think my interpretation of Proverbs 3 is? Did you even read it?

That's true, and that's why the whole god bit is dismissed. Asking why god has stopped interacting with people is humoring those who don't feel obliged to offer any evidence that he ever did. It's simply granting someone that god "walked" with people at some time, spoke to them directly. All of this overt and obvious interaction actually occurred - granting all of it with absolutely nothing offered as evidence in the first place....and then asking why this all seems to have stopped. Even you appear to be far less than comfortable claiming to have interacted with a god - and you assume that it exists. There doesn't appear to be any evidence that god interacts with anyone today -even if we assume that he did "once upon a time".