Foxfyre wrote:Mindonfire wrote:echi wrote:It seems reasonable to me that if God created everything that exists, his own existence would be evident in his creations. Also, if he wants us to believe in him and worship him, it seems that he would have made his existence very plainly obvious. That would be a win for God AND Man.
LoL! This is exactly what the Bible states. Have you been sneaking off and reading the Bible.
Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. Romans 1:20
The operative phrase here is "that which may be known of God" don't you think? It certainly does not say all that God is is shown in nature.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Yes. This was an 'out' for those who were not able to hear the preaching of the Word. They could still experience it through God's creation. It does not imply more than that.
What do you mean, "It does not imply more than that." it implies much more. It states that God is seen.
Mindonfire wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Mindonfire wrote:echi wrote:It seems reasonable to me that if God created everything that exists, his own existence would be evident in his creations. Also, if he wants us to believe in him and worship him, it seems that he would have made his existence very plainly obvious. That would be a win for God AND Man.
LoL! This is exactly what the Bible states. Have you been sneaking off and reading the Bible.
Romans 1:19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed [it] unto them. Romans 1:20
The operative phrase here is "that which may be known of God" don't you think? It certainly does not say all that God is is shown in nature.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Yes. This was an 'out' for those who were not able to hear the preaching of the Word. They could still experience it through God's creation. It does not imply more than that.
What do you mean, "It does not imply more than that." it implies much more. It states that God is seen.
No. It doesn't mean that God is "seen" in the sense of being visible. It means that evidence of God is seen in nature. You "see" love in the face of your child or spouse. You "see" possibilities in the land lying fallow. Or you "see" the hand of God in the unfolding events in your life.
The Bible is so full of layer upon layer of symbolism and metaphor, even in Paul's letters, you have to read it through the eyes of those who wrote it to understand it. Try to attach literal 21st century interpretation to it, and you will quite frequently get it wrong.
Foxfyre wrote:
No. It doesn't mean that God is "seen" in the sense of being visible. It means that evidence of God is seen in nature. You "see" love in the face of your child or spouse. You "see" possibilities in the land lying fallow. Or you "see" the hand of God in the unfolding events in your life.
In case you have' nt noticed, love is a physical entity which can be and is seen. Maybe, you see things differently, but all of those exmples that you have just given, involve visible sight. Romans is speaking of God being visible.
Foxfyre wrote: The Bible is so full of layer upon layer of symbolism and metaphor, even in Paul's letters, you have to read it through the eyes of those who wrote it to understand it. Try to attach literal 21st century interpretation to it, and you will quite frequently get it wrong.
Have you tried it?
Mindonfire wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
No. It doesn't mean that God is "seen" in the sense of being visible. It means that evidence of God is seen in nature. You "see" love in the face of your child or spouse. You "see" possibilities in the land lying fallow. Or you "see" the hand of God in the unfolding events in your life.
In case you have' nt noticed, love is a physical entity which can be and is seen. Maybe, you see things differently, but all of those exmples that you have just given, involve visible sight. Romans is speaking of God being visible.
Foxfyre wrote: The Bible is so full of layer upon layer of symbolism and metaphor, even in Paul's letters, you have to read it through the eyes of those who wrote it to understand it. Try to attach literal 21st century interpretation to it, and you will quite frequently get it wrong.
Have you tried it?
Look friend. I'm giving you an informed opinion on this but nobody is suggesting you are expected to agree with my opinion. Dispute my take on it if you can.
Foxfyre wrote:Mindonfire wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
No. It doesn't mean that God is "seen" in the sense of being visible. It means that evidence of God is seen in nature. You "see" love in the face of your child or spouse. You "see" possibilities in the land lying fallow. Or you "see" the hand of God in the unfolding events in your life.
In case you have' nt noticed, love is a physical entity which can be and is seen. Maybe, you see things differently, but all of those exmples that you have just given, involve visible sight. Romans is speaking of God being visible.
Foxfyre wrote: The Bible is so full of layer upon layer of symbolism and metaphor, even in Paul's letters, you have to read it through the eyes of those who wrote it to understand it. Try to attach literal 21st century interpretation to it, and you will quite frequently get it wrong.
Have you tried it?
Look friend. I'm giving you an informed opinion on this but nobody is suggesting you are expected to agree with my opinion. Dispute my take on it if you can.
You have already disputed your take on it.
echi wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Mindonfire wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
No. It doesn't mean that God is "seen" in the sense of being visible. It means that evidence of God is seen in nature. You "see" love in the face of your child or spouse. You "see" possibilities in the land lying fallow. Or you "see" the hand of God in the unfolding events in your life.
In case you have' nt noticed, love is a physical entity which can be and is seen. Maybe, you see things differently, but all of those exmples that you have just given, involve visible sight. Romans is speaking of God being visible.
Foxfyre wrote: The Bible is so full of layer upon layer of symbolism and metaphor, even in Paul's letters, you have to read it through the eyes of those who wrote it to understand it. Try to attach literal 21st century interpretation to it, and you will quite frequently get it wrong.
Have you tried it?
Look friend. I'm giving you an informed opinion on this but nobody is suggesting you are expected to agree with my opinion. Dispute my take on it if you can.
You have already disputed your take on it.
You are certainly entitled to think so without explaining why. I am also entitled to think that I have not.
Foxfyre wrote:echi wrote:Foxfyre wrote:Mindonfire wrote:Foxfyre wrote:
No. It doesn't mean that God is "seen" in the sense of being visible. It means that evidence of God is seen in nature. You "see" love in the face of your child or spouse. You "see" possibilities in the land lying fallow. Or you "see" the hand of God in the unfolding events in your life.
In case you have' nt noticed, love is a physical entity which can be and is seen. Maybe, you see things differently, but all of those exmples that you have just given, involve visible sight. Romans is speaking of God being visible.
Foxfyre wrote: The Bible is so full of layer upon layer of symbolism and metaphor, even in Paul's letters, you have to read it through the eyes of those who wrote it to understand it. Try to attach literal 21st century interpretation to it, and you will quite frequently get it wrong.
Have you tried it?
Look friend. I'm giving you an informed opinion on this but nobody is suggesting you are expected to agree with my opinion. Dispute my take on it if you can.
You have already disputed your take on it.
You are certainly entitled to think so without explaining why. I am also entitled to think that I have not.
I recognize that we are both entitled to think our own thoughts without explaining why. But I have explained it, and I will explain it again, if you want.
Sure, please do.
Meanwhile, if you want to use proof texting to show that God is "seen"; i.e. visible according to the scriptures, you should include other texts as well as the text in Romans which must be put into context:
1 Timothy 1:17 Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to God who alone is wise, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.
Colossians 1:13-15
He delivered us from the power of darkness and transferred us to the kingdom of his beloved Son, in whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins. He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation."
The passage from Romans in context:
"1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people39 who suppress the truth by their40 unrighteousness,41 1:19 because what can be known about God is plain to them,42 because God has made it plain to them. 1:20 For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made. So people43 are without excuse. 1:21 For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God or give him thanks, but they became futile in their thoughts and their senseless hearts44 were darkened. 1:22 Although they claimed45 to be wise, they became fools 1:23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for an image resembling mortal human beings46 or birds or four-footed animals47 or reptiles."
It is God's 'invisible attributes' which are "seen", not God and they are 'seen' in the creation itself, not literally as the attributes they are.
Foxfyre,
All I can say is what I've said before.
Your opinion rests on the belief that "God" is a concept. You may not accept that this is true, but you cannot refute it.
echi wrote:Foxfyre,
All I can say is what I've said before.
Your opinion rests on the belief that "God" is a concept. You may not accept that this is true, but you cannot refute it.
No, I have experienced something of which I am most certain. It is your opinion that my belief is based on something different.
Now which of us has the better case? The one who has experienced what s/he professes? Or the one who doesn't want to believe that the other has experienced it?
Foxfyre wrote:echi wrote:
Your opinion rests on the belief that "God" is a concept. You may not accept that this is true, but you cannot refute it.
No, I have experienced something of which I am most certain. It is your opinion that my belief is based on something different.
How else can you find meaning in your experience if not by referring it to some concept that you value?
echi wrote:Foxfyre wrote:echi wrote:
Your opinion rests on the belief that "God" is a concept. You may not accept that this is true, but you cannot refute it.
No, I have experienced something of which I am most certain. It is your opinion that my belief is based on something different.
How else can you find meaning in your experience if not by referring it to some concept that you value?
I have not discussed what meaning I've found in my experience. I have only discussed the reality of it. These are two different things.
Foxfyre wrote:I have not discussed what meaning I've found in my experience.
Foxfyre wrote:I am a Christian relating my experience with and belief about the being I call God.
Foxfyre wrote:I only know with certainty what God has revealed to me and I have absolutely no doubt that this is miniscule compared to all there is to know. So yes, my concept of God is of necessity incomplete.
You relate your necessarily subjective experience to a necessarily incomplete concept that you call "God".
Have you always been religious?
echi wrote:Foxfyre wrote:I have not discussed what meaning I've found in my experience.
Foxfyre wrote:I am a Christian relating my experience with and belief about the being I call God.
Foxfyre wrote:I only know with certainty what God has revealed to me and I have absolutely no doubt that this is miniscule compared to all there is to know. So yes, my concept of God is of necessity incomplete.
You relate your necessarily subjective experience to a necessarily incomplete concept that you call "God".
Have you always been religious?
I really am not religious I don't think. I think of religion as following a prescribed doctrine along with ritual rules. I'm pretty much a rebel on that point. I prefer to think of it as being spiritual. I was raised to be religious however and cannot remember a time when I did not believe in God. I do not consider my experience of God as subjective.
I wonder, is it possible to understand not believing in a god, if one has always done so?
I suppose you could relate by not believing in Poseidon....but to be without any beliefs in any gods is different I think.
Proof of God
if there were no God, how do we explain ourselves as individuals. does creativity and talent and learning come from evolution? if love is a chemical reaction in the brain then it is possible to make a pill to balance the chemicals of all people so we all love or feel remorse (just think one pill to stop crime)one pill to balance all the chemicals in our brains so we can be exactly like eachother.someday maybe...but unlikely. God gave us freewill and thoughts and feelings, life is not an accident it's a gift.
By the evidence available in this and kindred discussions on these boards, one may conclude only that those participants in these discussions as who happen to be given to forwarding the Christian proposition are incapable of distinguishing between an argument for faith and a declaration of faith.
sandspider, welcome to A2K.
You make a lot of baseless assumptions. One of the most obviously wrong of which is....such pills already exist.
Are you basing a gods existence on your need to prove yourself to be a certain thing???
Eorl wrote:I wonder, is it possible to understand not believing in a god, if one has always done so?
I suppose you could relate by not believing in Poseidon....but to be without any beliefs in any gods is different I think.
Oh sure. I once believed in Santa Claus and trolls under bridges and that all princesses were beautiful and lived in magical looking castles. I came to disbelieve those things though I was careful to allow my own children the joy of believing for a time as well. I have known people however who claim that they never believed in such things because they were never taught to do so. For instance I've never believed in pink elephants or that pigs can fly.
I do not believe in Roman gods or Greek gods or many other larger-than-life religious figures that are the basis for many of the world's lesser and great religions. I can fully appreciate and understand those who do not believe in any form of the supernatural and who reject my concept of God.
I also think they're missing a lot but that IS a subjective opinion.
