PhileoTruth
Lover of the Truth
How do you convince a deist that God is involved in life? How do you convince a hyper-charismatic that God is NOT as involved as he believes?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Deist vs. Charismatic
- Thread starter PhileoTruth
- Start date
Morse
To Extinguish
A better question is, how do you convince somebody who is trying to convince someone that he can't convince somebody?
Anyway, the best way to convince somebody is via facts and proofs, as well as anecdotal and experiential evidence to back it up (or be a silver tongued cult leader, but let's not go into that). God in the Abrahamic sense often seems to be transcendental of physical reality (hence why nobody can seem to give definitive proof either way), so giving facts and proofs is naturally ruled out.
So that leaves anecdotal and experiential evidence, which leaves you with a hopeless cause. Deists and Charismatics are convinced of their religion because of these evidences, and you would have to override a lot of conditioning to effect a change.
That is assuming they are a reasonable individual. As one female named Elizabeth Gaskell once said (probably), "I'll not listen to reason... reason always means what someone else has got to say."
*shakes eight ball* Outlook not so good.
Anyway, the best way to convince somebody is via facts and proofs, as well as anecdotal and experiential evidence to back it up (or be a silver tongued cult leader, but let's not go into that). God in the Abrahamic sense often seems to be transcendental of physical reality (hence why nobody can seem to give definitive proof either way), so giving facts and proofs is naturally ruled out.
So that leaves anecdotal and experiential evidence, which leaves you with a hopeless cause. Deists and Charismatics are convinced of their religion because of these evidences, and you would have to override a lot of conditioning to effect a change.
That is assuming they are a reasonable individual. As one female named Elizabeth Gaskell once said (probably), "I'll not listen to reason... reason always means what someone else has got to say."
*shakes eight ball* Outlook not so good.
PhileoTruth
Lover of the Truth
@ Morse,A better question is, how do you convince somebody who is trying to convince someone that he can't convince somebody?
Anyway, the best way to convince somebody is via facts and proofs, as well as anecdotal and experiential evidence to back it up (or be a silver tongued cult leader, but let's not go into that). God in the Abrahamic sense often seems to be transcendental of physical reality (hence why nobody can seem to give definitive proof either way), so giving facts and proofs is naturally ruled out.
So that leaves anecdotal and experiential evidence, which leaves you with a hopeless cause. Deists and Charismatics are convinced of their religion because of these evidences, and you would have to override a lot of conditioning to effect a change.
That is assuming they are a reasonable individual. As one female named Elizabeth Gaskell once said (probably), "I'll not listen to reason... reason always means what someone else has got to say."
*shakes eight ball* Outlook not so good.
I agree with you that you have to override a lot of conditioning to get a point across to either. I juxtapose these two because they represent opposite extremes in the spectrum of belief of God’s direct and ongoing involvement in human activity.
Please consider what specific arguments that you would make to one side on behalf of the other (i.e., please choose either the role of the deist or the charismatic in an appeal to the other). Thanks. I look forward to your reply.
PT