Does God still speak to mankind?

L

leVel8 the Earth Worm

New member
Oh i'm sorry, I was doing every sacriligious activity I could think of, where you saying something?

I just punched a cleric, convicted a priest of a crime, robbed a church, then torched the church, buried a unbaptized person in a church and so on and so forth. Then I worshiped my pagan god.

blah, blah, blah. :p
 
I know exactly how you feel, Duo, been there myself, once.

Would it help to know that you and I got the message wrong from the get-go?
 
I was curious of the percentage of members here that believe God still speaks to mankind. It doesn't have to be you, but He speaks to us
 
So? the vast majority of the uncultured, uneducated world of the dark ages believed that the earth was flat. Did it make that so?

You're just resorted to the fallacy of bandwagon. That is a alot of people believe in a God, that there must be one. That's a load of bull****. Besides, you're changed the discussion away from how the orthdox christian faith has no evidence of proof whatsoever.



Just like the numbers in the dark ages who thought the sun revolved around the Earth. It's quite easy to ignore. Your argument is fradulent.



So therefore Aristolian physics was actually true back then?
The Earth was flat?

:rolleyes:

Your argument is uncomphrendably stupid.



Why should I consider a obviously fradulent argument? Fraud deserves to be punished.



Then why did you make the threat?
 
Yes, but that is merely your God. Such is the problem. I have no way of proving that you are being talked to or that you are mentally unstable. To people like Bin Laden, God is truly justifying the murder of millions. To you, God is not. How do we prove who is right or that either of you are right? Haven't the slightest clue.
 
I have read some posters that have convinced me that they have not only not eaten the fruit if knowledge, they haven't even nibbled at it.
Dono
 
Then God is not omnipotent.
Then God is not the creator of all.



Then God is limited in scope.



Fine by me. Something that doesn't exist can't get into my "soul." :p



Then why don't you renounce all science, technology and live in a amish community? :)
 
First of man reformed their opinion of the earth's shape AFTER evidence. Secondly what did I threaten? That the Gospel is true? That Christ's love is pure? That man should repent for their evil and embrace good? That the world looks toward a being for guidance and understand humanity cannot go it alone? If this is a threat then it is not merely of worRAB but a threat of judgement by God.
 
theist arguments need 2 simple premises

1. God exists
2. God cannot be understood

God himself is defined as undetectable, and his actions are elusive and mysterious. this is why science and God can never interact. science can only interact with that which is identifiable, observable and understandable.


as to the topic, the majority of the bible is purported as God's worRAB or his actions ("let there be light"/rain flooding the earth). elsewhere is GoRAB worRAB and actions through men (psalms of david/david killing goliath). the bible would have us believe, in no uncertain terms, and repeatedly, that God spoke directly to people, and God interacted with people and nature in a tangible and observable manner. an occurance such as the red sea parting is undoubtedly God, since such an event is a clear defiance of the laws of physics.

the question then: "does God still speak to mankind?" can only be addressed if we first consider the questions "did God EVER speak to mankind?" and "can God POSSIBLY speak to mankind?"

in the bible, we have instances of whole passages and chapters opening with "and the lord said", followed by long speeches and lectures, and closing in "thus saith the lord". clearly, the bible would have us believe that those worRAB were either the quotes of God, or a paraphased dictation of God's speech. if this is the case, then the bible implicitly claims that God literally spoke to people in the past.

in modern-day christianity, many christians claim that they can percieve the guidance of the holy spirit in the form of a still small voice. this voice tells them not only what is right and wrong in real-time, but also gives them insider tips to help with decision making and day-to-day personal operations. of course this is very different from the divine method of communication in the old testament, but its something to work with nevertheless

the problem that arises now is that the concept of the "still small voice" today works so well, that even christians are doubting that God ever broadcasted divine speeches and lectures as in the old testament. it seems as though this old testament method is a contradiction of what they see as his modern manifestation. this sorta makes sense in a theistic way, since God is supposed to be eternal and unchanging (there are lots of problems with an eternal and unchanging God, but thats another discussion), why would he employ a speech-style in the old days and a personal direct approach today? that would be inconsistent and contrary to his nature

if this is the case, then the speeches in the bible cannot be considered quotes from God. in fact, God probably cannot be quoted. the whole idea of God communicating to man becomes a mass of confusion and contradictions. so what then?

refer to premise 2
 
Sir this is not the idiocy of a thousand fools. It is the idiocy of a thousand deaf ears! Jesus loves you! He bled for you! He was spit upon for you! He died for you so you may be with Him! Please I beseech you, do not give up such a gift as this one. You will never get it back when it's too late.
 
I think I've already answered that earlier; there's no way to tell what is accurate and what is embellished.





Unknown. Judge for yourself.

The whole thing about any religion, is that there usually is no hard evidence. You gotta believe. I can't present you with evidence of anything you're asking for. Like everything else, you have to take what you have and make your own decision. That's what faith is.
 
the point is that 95% of the populatino believing something does not make it more likely to be true. you cant make any assumptions about the truth of something based on the number of people that believe it
 
Back
Top