The GOP's rampant legal attempts to Usurp Power After Biden Win.

[Agema]

What's vague about it? Do you not know what God promises?

It's been over 25 years since I last read the Bible or went to church regularly, so I'm quite rusty on the old Christianity stuff.

It seems to me that you just don't know how many people in biblical times had direct proof of God.

I strongly suspect none at all, because I do not believe God exists. If He does exist and would like me to believe otherwise, He's welcome to pop down in a pillar of flame or burning bush and introduce Himself. Although honestly, on balance, I'd prefer Aphrodite to make herself known personally. Actually, no, scratch that - I'm married. I guess I'll go for Athena and a gift of wisdom.

 

[Houseman]

Luckily, your original statement with which I took issue just said "god", rather than "the god as described in the bible".

Yes, because that's obviously the god I was talking about. That should have been apparent from context.

 

[Houseman]

It's been over 25 years since I last read the Bible or went to church regularly, so I'm quite rusty on the old Christianity stuff.

Well, in God's promised kingdom, everyone will have certain knowledge that God exists, for starters.

I strongly suspect none at all, because I do not believe God exists.

That's fine.

But your claim that faith is such a crucial requirement and that knowledge belittles or diminishes free will is refuted by the bible itself, as very many people in the bible do have certain knowledge that God exists by way of him proving it

 

[Elijin]

Well, in God's promised kingdom, everyone will have certain knowledge that God exists, for starters.



That's fine.

But your claim that faith is such a crucial requirement and that knowledge belittles or diminishes free will is refuted by the bible itself, as very many people in the bible do have certain knowledge that God exists by way of him proving it

Proving it to individuals in a way which they cannot reproduce is literally an act of faith.

It requires you have faith it happened, have faith the person is not lying, misrepresenting or straight up misunderstand the message.

Prophets are literally a call to have faith. Here is a guy who hears god. God wont speak to all of you, you must have faith in the choice to work through the prophet, who cannot prove they hear god in any objective way.

You keep referring to these instances in the bible as certainty of existance when they are a call for faith.

 

[Houseman]

Proving it to individuals in a way which they cannot reproduce is literally an act of faith.

It requires you have faith it happened, have faith the person is not lying, misrepresenting or straight up misunderstand the message.

I don't think so.

Being able to trust your own senses and your own knowledge is not faith. At best, you can say that you need "faith" that the being speaking to you is who they say they are and will do what they say they will do, but humans have this kind of faith in each-other all the time.

"Can I borrow your car?"

You have faith that they aren't going to sell it, or trash it, or run away with it. Some of this is based on your personal relationship, and past experiences. You know that person to be trustworthy and responsible, so you say 'yes'. Same goes for everyone else in the bible. They had prior experience with God so they knew they could trust him.

Is that what you mean by faith?

Prophets are literally a call to have faith.

By doing miracles that prove to everyone that they have divine backing? Because that's what a lot of prophets in the bible did in order to get people to listen and believe them: miracles. So God doesn't just expect people to listen just because someone said so. He provides evidence.

 

[Agema]

But your claim that faith is such a crucial requirement and that knowledge belittles or diminishes free will is refuted by the bible itself, as very many people in the bible do have certain knowledge that God exists by way of him proving it

Well, I'm not terribly convinced by this, because actually in several thousands of years of history represented by the Bible (let's call it 1000+ years from Moses to Jesus), the percentage of Israelites who have some sort of direct experience of God still only amounts to a fraction of a percent.

I do remember the Bible provides a definition of faith, according to my New English Version: "Faith gives substance to our hopes, and makes us certain of realities we do not see." (Hebrews 11:1). And I think this tells us something quite important.

There's a lot of discussion over what faith means both within theology and philosophy, and there's a lot of variability - but there is a common trend that faith is not the same as knowledge or belief. It involves some sense of belief that goes beyond normal rationality. Not that it is entirely separate from or denies evidence and rationality - these can be a component - but it is some reach beyond. Thus I think it reasonable to argue that objective proof of the existence of God is contrary to the nature of having faith.

 

[Houseman]

Well, I'm not terribly convinced by this, because actually in several thousands of years of history represented by the Bible (let's call it 1000+ years from Moses to Jesus), the percentage of Israelites who have some sort of direct experience of God still only amounts to a fraction of a percent.

You still have to answer for that percentage of Israelites. Did their direct knowledge "diminish faith and the notion of free will" for them?

Thus I think it reasonable to argue that objective proof of the existence of God is contrary to the nature of having faith.

I would agree that, if you have knowledge, you don't need faith. And that's okay. Faith for faith's sake isn't important or desirable. It's not a bad thing to not have faith if you have knowledge instead.

It's like the joke where the guy is drowning in a river, and says "no thanks, God will save me" to all the attempts made to help him, and then when he drowns, God says "I sent you two boats and a helicopter!"

I feel like you're saying that having knowledge of God is something undesirable, and I disagree. As I said, lots of people had direct knowledge of God and they weren't worse off because of it.

I think that faith is important when it comes to God's promises for the future, salvation, heaven, that sort of stuff. I don't think faith was ever meant to be applied towards the existence of God. One should have faith that God will make good on his word.

 

[Elijin]

You know, him treating the bible as a credible source is probably a step up from the usual sources he draws from.

 

[dreng3]

Well, I'm not terribly convinced by this, because actually in several thousands of years of history represented by the Bible (let's call it 1000+ years from Moses to Jesus), the percentage of Israelites who have some sort of direct experience of God still only amounts to a fraction of a percent.

The professor who taught a course related to new religious movements at my university actually shared some statistics showing that there are more claims of alien sightings and abductions than of divine visitation or inspiration.

So I guess we'll have to assume that aliens regularly pop by and snatches up a few folks.

 

[Agema]

You still have to answer for that percentage of Israelites. Did their direct knowledge "diminish faith and the notion of free will" for them?

To be fair, the bluk Israelites didn't really interact with God, they just saw a burining pillar or cloud in the distance, and Moses chivvying them in that direction; likewise did Moses appear to part the Red Sea. Plus of course the basic idea across most Christianity that none of this happened precisely as written, it's just part of a wider creation myth and exists for symbolic purposes and examples of piety.

It is an interesting point though. Jesus said to Doubting Thomas (I paraphrase as I cannot remember the precise) "You have seen and now you believe, blessed are those that have not seen and believe". One could take that as an acceptance that Thomas is still pious although he needed proof (and thus so would others), but on the other hand Thomas was a saint and a divinely appointed messenger. The latter part suggests the expectation is that people are to believe without proof.

I would agree that, if you have knowledge, you don't need faith. And that's okay. Faith for faith's sake isn't important or desirable. It's not a bad thing to not have faith if you have knowledge instead.

I think it's absolutely a problem, because it seems to run contrary to the notion that man has freedom to choose. How free is that choice is something is proven to us? Knowledge of God derives from faith, not the reverse.

I don't think faith was ever meant to be applied towards the existence of God.

If one believes in God, one cannot help but have faith things will turn out well in the end, because that is intrinsic to the nature of God. It's all part of a package. When Job was tested, he continued to trust in God; to have given up on the faith his life would improve would have been to turn his back on God, too.

 

[Agema]

The professor who taught a course related to new religious movements at my university actually shared some statistics showing that there are more claims of alien sightings and abductions than of divine visitation or inspiration.

It's the same phenomenon. People just reach for the only explanation they can grasp: in a religious age this was gods, angels, demons. In the science fiction era, it's alien abduction. I suspect these were mostly seizures, hallucinations (induced by drugs, illness, fatigue, etc.), psychotic episodes, etc. or in less extreme cases fantasies.

The idea of seizures is an interesting one. The Exorcist in the 1970s is based on records of apparent demonic possession. Does that thrashing not look like the clonic phase of a seizure? Plus frequent mood and behaviour alterations after seizures? One might note the ancient Egyptians left us a record of epilepsy: the hieroglyphs represent "danger from god", implying that it may long have been viewed as some sort of supernatural possession.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes, because that's obviously the god I was talking about. That should have been apparent from context.

It was apparent from context that you believe in one particular form of god, and that in the course of the argument you just started presenting it as the truth as if we all agreed. Which we don't.

 

[happyninja42]

To be fair, deflecting everything to "god" is a classic conservative politician trope/tactic by this point.

Only when it's a good thing. When it's a bad thing, it's the dirty liberals and foreigners, and all the godless heathens.

 

[dreng3]

It's the same phenomenon. People just reach for the only explanation they can grasp: in a religious age this was gods, angels, demons. In the science fiction era, it's alien abduction. I suspect these were mostly seizures, hallucinations (induced by drugs, illness, fatigue, etc.), psychotic episodes, etc. or in less extreme cases fantasies.

The idea of seizures is an interesting one. The Exorcist in the 1970s is based on records of apparent demonic possession. Does that thrashing not look like the clonic phase of a seizure? Plus frequent mood and behaviour alterations after seizures? One might note the ancient Egyptians left us a record of epilepsy: the hieroglyphs represent "danger from god", implying that it may long have been viewed as some sort of supernatural possession.

That is jut conversion theory at the most basic, people have a need (answers) and a religion (or idea) provides said answers. And considering that, the only reasonable course of action is to convert, heart and soul.
Same goes for political parties in the end. You see someone happier than you and you need to know why? Well, of course it is because the government favours this person and he/she is being unfairly favoured, so you'd better support the right party, the one that will make him/her as miserable as you are.

 

[Houseman]

The latter part suggests the expectation is that people are to believe without proof.

Yes, I would agree with you that this is the expectation for most people.

I think it's absolutely a problem, because it seems to run contrary to the notion that man has freedom to choose. How free is that choice is something is proven to us? Knowledge of God derives from faith, not the reverse.

Do we "choose" to believe anything that we do? Do you choose to believe in gravity? Do you choose to believe that Australia exists? Can one just choose to believe in God?

Romans 10:14 says "How then are they to call on Him in whom they have not believed? How are they to believe in Him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher?"

Having faith in God is no different than having faith in anything else.

 

[Cheetodust]

Real good job not letting the troll derail the thread guys. At this point I can only assume you're in on it with him.

 

[Houseman]

Real good job not letting the troll derail the thread guys. At this point I can only assume you're in on it with him.

Be the change you want to see. Post something on-topic about the GOP usurping power, if you want. Our conversation doesn't prevent you from doing that.

 

[Silvanus]

The idea of seizures is an interesting one. The Exorcist in the 1970s is based on records of apparent demonic possession. Does that thrashing not look like the clonic phase of a seizure? Plus frequent mood and behaviour alterations after seizures? One might note the ancient Egyptians left us a record of epilepsy: the hieroglyphs represent "danger from god", implying that it may long have been viewed as some sort of supernatural possession.

On the same lines: the oracles at Delphi, prophesying the future through received visions... while also inhaling copious amounts of smoke and burnt herbs in an enclosed indoor setting.

 

[ObsidianJones]

So of course they are trying to frame the issue as "Oh, it's just waiting in line. Everyone does it at the Grocery Store"

Greene said so much herself just now.

But she doesn't get the fact to make it true, it would be literally what she just said. THE Grocery Store. As in, no other opportunity to shop anywhere else.

Why Do Nonwhite Georgia Voters Have To Wait In Line For Hours? Too Few Polling Places

The state's voter rolls have grown by nearly 2 million since the U.S. Supreme Court gutted the Voting Rights Act in 2013, but polling locations have been cut by almost 10%.

www.npr.org

Texas closes hundreds of polling sites, making it harder for minorities to vote

Guardian analysis finds that places where black and Latino population is growing by the largest numbers experienced the majority of closures and could benefit Republicans

www.theguardian.com

I would love to see how she and other Republican leaders would react if what people are trying to do to the minority vote would actually happen to them, in terms of the Grocery store availability analogy they trot out so often. If the state came in, mandated that you could only shop at the grocery stores in your district, and then limited their available stores to just five per district. Also, you can only shop at the day the state said and no other time, lest you break the law.

I'm hard pressed to believe Greene and others who attempt to misrepresent how much of a 'non issue' this is would be ok with trying to get their groceries on their scheduled food day of the month, with literally thousands of other people in their district having the same food shopping day, and their employers being under no obligation to give them the day off to get food.

When your options are artificially limited, your choice stripped from you, and your ability to do for yourself hamstrung by mandates that do not have your best interest at heart... yeah, you tend to get angry.

 

[ObsidianJones]