Sour grapes... said the fox

  • Thread starter Thread starter Serious
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Serious said:
Why are you surprised? If there is God, and he is whatever you believe about him then he would be the best qualified to decide what is the most convincing evidence for me. By the way… if God demonstrated his existence for me, then I would not “believe” that he exists… I would KNOW!
Click to expand...
By the way… God demonstrates His existence to you all the time! You are, right now, too angry to pay attention.
What I think is of no consequence. If there is an omnimax God, he would know and act accordingly.
Click to expand...
He does know and act accordingly, but because He is God and not a genie He does not meet your expectations. Keep in mind, He made the rules, we follow them, how is that unfair? Because you can’t change them?
 
mwok said:
By the way… God demonstrates His existence to you all the time! You are, right now, too angry to pay attention.
Click to expand...
Oh well, I guess I will have to disregard you from now on. This stupid remark about “angry” has been the straw that broke the camel’s back.
 
Serious said:
Oh well, I guess I will have to disregard you from now on. This stupid remark about “angry” has been the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry that I enraged you. I know what anger sounds like, its not healthy so I feel obligated to point it out.
 
inocente said:
My impression is you’d even want God to prove His existence to you so you don’t have to lift a finger.
Click to expand...
Apologies for butting in here, but this phrase intrigued me. I must confess that I have not been following this thread, so again I apologise if I’m raising issues that have already been thoroughly canvassed.

I wonder very much at the insistence, offered by determined believers, upon a convergence between the Biblical conception of a theistic god who is omnipotent and omnipresent and also immovably demanding and jealous; and by contrast, the god claimed to exist by many apologetic believers, who is hesitant, shy, unwilling to announce his presence, but also understanding, forgiving, and who - importantly - allows human free will even when it leads to unbearable human suffering.

What, exactly, is this being called God? A psychopath? A hermit? A scientific geek who wants to see the results of his experiments? Or just an imaginary entity dreamed up by believers who really have no idea how to reconcile their faith with experienced reality?
 
Sair said:
I wonder very much at the insistence, offered by determined believers, upon a convergence between the Biblical conception of a theistic god who is omnipotent and omnipresent and also immovably demanding and jealous; and by contrast, the god claimed to exist by many apologetic believers, who is hesitant, shy, unwilling to announce his presence, but also understanding, forgiving, and who - importantly - allows human free will even when it leads to unbearable human suffering.
Click to expand...
Me too.
What, exactly, is this being called God? A psychopath? A hermit? A scientific geek who wants to see the results of his experiments? Or just an imaginary entity dreamed up by believers who really have no idea how to reconcile their faith with experienced reality?
Click to expand...
Baptists believe that each of us is competent to form her own conscience and beliefs, and even that’s not a creed. To us there’s not much point in putting all our faith in proofs, dogmas and dry definitions. They may look neat and tidy, but the danger is they get cast in stone, are internally inconsistent, and conflict with what we otherwise know, a doublethink.

While unfashionable, I’d reckon that the core of all beneficial beliefs, whatever those beliefs may be, must be experiential, empirical, but keep that just between ourselves.

So, long way of saying I’m not the guy to ask. 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top