RE: The Stage is Yours.
August 2, 2012 at 5:07 pm
(This post was last modified: August 2, 2012 at 5:37 pm by Rayaan.)
(August 2, 2012 at 7:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: No it does not directly logically contradict anything. You simply don't understand what I mean by directly and personally knowable.
Well, I thought that the words "directly and personally knowable" meant that you would directly know who God is, which also implies that, at least, there is a way for "knowing" Him. I didn't exactly mean to say that God has to be empirically provable, but just that there is way to know Him as per your statement "God is directly and personally knowable," whether it is through the Bible, historical accounts of Jesus, or in any other way.
If your answer is the Bible, then the process of knowing Him is indeed metaphysical.
If you say that you know God through the historical accounts of Jesus, then the belief is not 100% metaphysical, since it relies on documentation. But, God cannot be documented.
(August 2, 2012 at 7:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: You think there is some physical (empirically provable) link between humans and God? Then this is your ignorance of Xtianity showing again.
No, I don't think that there's an empirically provable link between humans and God. See above.
(August 2, 2012 at 7:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Only if you think that direct and personal = empirically provable. Which it cannot be.
No, I don't. I suppose it was just the language that got me confused.
I apologize for that.
(August 2, 2012 at 7:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: It is only a metaphysical stance. That direct and personal relationship transcends the physical barrier. There is no way to prove empirically that God contacts you, or that you contact him. If you believe that, then your are also trashing your own belief and are declaring atheism here. Or at best deism.
Okay, so, that means that you know God directly and personally only in a metaphysical sense, not empirically. Duh!
But, let me ask you this. What's the difference between the following two?
1. God is knowable.
2. God is directly and personally knowable.
Doesn't the addition of the words "directly" and "personally" convey an extra message compared to the first one? That's what was curious about.
If your answer is no, then fine. I won't pick on these semantic bones anymore.
(August 2, 2012 at 7:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote: It was a joke Rayaan. You've taken an age to reply, which is perfectly fine. Mine was a joke in return.
Oh, okay. I kind of thought that, but I wasn't sure if that was a joke.
Secondly, the reason I replied two weeks later is only because I was in Canada for a week as I told you in this post, and then I had to catch up with other threads after coming back, hence the late reply. I also told the staff members that I was going to be away for a week for personal reasons. However, it seems that you have used that as an excuse just to avoid addressing my entire post in the previous page at the top (i.e. by making a joke in return). I think that is evasive. But, feel free to prove me wrong.
(August 2, 2012 at 7:39 am)fr0d0 Wrote:(August 2, 2012 at 1:44 am)Rayaan Wrote: Here's an escape trick for you:Thanks for the insult. Join the queue. Asshole.
If you think that you are unable to satisfactorily address my comments, then pretend as if you forgot to reply in this thread after the 2 weeks. Don't worry, though, because I'll forgive you. =D
Not an insult, but I was just making a joke in return as well (and it's clear), just like you jokingly said to me, "Give me 2 weeks and I'll get back to you."
So, if you can make a joke out of me like that, fr0d0, then why are you accusing me of doing the same?
