(July 10, 2015 at 6:22 pm)Neimenovic Wrote:(July 10, 2015 at 5:38 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Guys, while many less attentive (or more hostile) members of the forum simplistically dismiss me because they claim I'm only here to preach my own gospel. However, I'm actually more interested in finding and presenting good answers to your questions.
Now, you will both want to respond to my question below, but you seem to be raising the same objection. I'm happy to attempt an answer but I want to be sure that I understand exactly what the objection is.
Are you asking: Why doesn't God reveal himself dramatically today like he did in the Old Testament?
If not, please express the issue in your own words.
This is NOT my answer, but if Abraham, Moses, the prophets and others had a personal encounter with God that managed to get written up in the various books which we know collectively as the Bible, why do you count those as somehow "legitimate" whereas the Near Death Experiences or other supernatural occurences in the lives of modern believers are discounted?
What's the difference?
My questions are, why is god silent (compared to the OT at least) and why don't OT revelations interfere with human free will like you claim they would?
And to answer your question, there is no difference. They are all unsupported claims, events that have natural explanations and are all equally invalid as evidence for god; however, for the sake of argument, let's pretend that god exists. Why doesn't he interfere like he used to? how did his interferences not violate free will?
if you're saying that ndes are the way god reveals himself now, how does that not violate our free will?
N-
Are you actually saying on the one hand that God needs to reveal himself or you won't believe but on the other hand if he does reveal himself he's violating your free will?
