Divine Hiddenness

[R00tKiT]

At work.

 So, no real idea then Klorophyll?

 Diety performed selective, 'Personal' (Subjective) individual revelation?

 Naffy.

 

Yes, revelation is selective. It's not up to us how revelation would occur, after all......

It's possible to argue though that the selection wasn't subjective, the people who were the chosen prophets maybe were the most capable of such a monumental task.

Humans never made progress relying on their senses outright. 

The famous scene in Star Wars where Luke was asked why he turned off his targeting computer, is bullshit. It makes for feel good movie drama, but if Sully Sullenberger had taken the same approach, he wouldn't have landed a passenger jet successfully in an emergency landing on the Hudson river.

In reality, if I were advising Luke, and he turned off his targeting computer, I'd fucking cuss his ass out.

Well we know that our senses deceive us. If we can be fooled by a mirage, we can certainly mistake a high technology for a deity.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

Uhm.... except, Brian37, that in Luke's reality the Force is real. Hence why there's a fekkin' Force ghost whispering in his fekkin' ear to turn the computer off.

Sheese. We might differ on our take of the Creator's later artistic liscence *Cough* Force bacteria *Cough* but come on.

[LadyForCamus]

I’m thinking there’s a bit of equivocation here (in the bit I posted) between knowledge and presence. I can’t think of a scenario where more information about a subject would limit someone’s intellectual freedom rather than the other way around. God making himself known is different from being constantly present, as others have mentioned. I know my parents exist which provides me with information and context for my choices, but they aren’t constantly in my presence. I’m sure I’d behave differently if they were.

[Angrboda]

I’m thinking there’s a bit of equivocation here (in the bit I posted) between knowledge and presence. I can’t think of a scenario where more information about a subject would limit someone’s intellectual freedom rather than the other way around. God making himself known is different from being constantly present, as others have mentioned. I know my parents exist which provides me with information and context for my choices, but they aren’t constantly in my presence. I’m sure I’d behave differently if they were.

If your parents threatened to burn you alive if you behave incorrectly then it might crimp your style.

The problem there is the threat delivered, not that it is delivered in-person.

[John 6IX Breezy]

“Just as God's purpose does not allow man to be a physical prisoner, neither does it permit him to exist in an intellectual prison. How would man behave if God were to constantly reveal Himself? Would he really be free? If man were constantly made aware that he was standing in the King's presence, could he go against His will? If God's existence were constantly apparent, this awareness would make man a prisoner.“

As I understand it, belief in God's existence has never been the most important variable:

"You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!" (James 2:19, NKJV).

And in one of the parables the analogy was given of a dead man asking to be sent back from the grave so that people might see him and repent. The response was this:

"He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" (Like 16:31, ESV).

Obviously this is New Testament and your friend is Jewish, but it echoes his point in a sightly different way. It argues that nothing of value changes by believing He exists. Almost every story in the Bible, from Adam and Eve onwards, involves people who saw or experienced God in some way, and nevertheless betrayed Him.

So this adds to your friends argument, which I think is good as well.

[Belacqua]

At work.

 So, no real idea then Klorophyll?

 Diety performed selective, 'Personal' (Subjective) individual revelation?

 Naffy.

 

Diety is not a word.

Deity.

[Angrboda]

“Just as God's purpose does not allow man to be a physical prisoner, neither does it permit him to exist in an intellectual prison. How would man behave if God were to constantly reveal Himself? Would he really be free? If man were constantly made aware that he was standing in the King's presence, could he go against His will? If God's existence were constantly apparent, this awareness would make man a prisoner.“

As I understand it, belief in God's existence has never been the most important variable:

"You believe that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe—and tremble!" (James 2:19, NKJV).

And in one of the parables the analogy was given of a dead man asking to be sent back from the grave so that people might see him and repent. The response was this:

"He said to him, ‘If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead" (Like 16:31, ESV).

Obviously this is New Testament and your friend is Jewish, but it echoes his point in a sightly different way. It argues that nothing of value changes by believing He exists. Almost every story in the Bible, from Adam and Eve onwards, involves people who saw or experienced God in some way, and nevertheless betrayed Him.

So this adds to your friends argument, which I think is good as well.

You realize, of course, that in fiction characters may act in whatever way their author wants them to act, don't you?

[John 6IX Breezy]

I can’t think of a scenario where more information about a subject would limit someone’s intellectual freedom rather than the other way around.

Almost every psychological study involves withholding certain information from the subjects, otherwise their choices are compromised and the research is invalid.

[Peebothuhlu]

At work.

 So, no real idea then Klorophyll?

 Diety performed selective, 'Personal' (Subjective) individual revelation?

 Naffy.

 

Diety is not a word.

Deity.

Yeah..... which is why there's an explanatory header to help folks understand some poster's time constraints.

Diety

[John 6IX Breezy]

You realize, of course, that in fiction characters may act in whatever way their author wants them to act, don't you?

Great; and do you realize that religious people, regardless of being convinced of God's existence, nevertheless act in ways inconsistent with that belief?

You do as well—its normal human behavior. You procrastinate despite knowing your work is due. You don't eat right or exercise despite knowing the consequences. The list goes on—knowledge does not equal behavioral change. This work of fiction seems to have nailed it on the head don't you agree?