Why would God show Himself in the first place?

[sojourner]

Thats why they invent creative ways to convince people God is there when the reality is clear that nothing is there to begin with

How is that “reality,” and how is it “so clear?” It’s not so clear to me. And it certainly isn’t reality from my perspective. Why does God have to “be there” to be Reality?

 

[sojourner]

I'm simply pointing out that the Vikings (more rightly called the Norse I believe) had a culture where you defended your honor against all forms of disrespect. If someone harmed your family, you took revenge. If someone even looked at you funny, you could rightly (in their eyes) challenge them to battle and kill them. The victor was understood to be in the right. No doubt, sometimes the killing came before the challenge. The Norse called this honor

The proper term is “Heathenry.” It’s a real religion. There are (or have been) several heathens on this forum. I don’t think Heathenry is quite the way you’re describing it. It’s probably not any worse than the ancient Hebraic faith that advocated stoning people to death for petty crimes. In fact, the ancient law “an eye for an eye” was created as a way to mitigate overly zealous punishments. We all have our skeletons in our past closets.

 

[Thief]

Why not just put people on Earth and see what happens?

this is precisely the scheme of it all

as for Face to face......
Moses had a shot at it

Moses was not allowed to look God.....in the Face

but I suspect
we all take a turn shortly after the last breath
we get to see Him

Moses was not allowed
but Moses did not die
he did go up unto the mount to meet his Maker
but he did not die
forty days and nights without food OR water
and he did not die
I suspect the Face to face comes AFTER the last breath

if you say nay to that play
then most of religion is dead to you

 

[Twilight Hue]

How is that “reality,” and how is it “so clear?” It’s not so clear to me. And it certainly isn’t reality from my perspective. Why does God have to “be there” to be Reality?

Well if you look at the so-called 'record' or past 'history' it seems like God in a lot of religious texts has been quite boisterous , talkative, and loud for a lack of a better word.

Then one magical day God suddenly became deaf mute and blind.

 

[sojourner]

Well if you look at the so-called 'record' or past 'history' it seems like God in a lot of religious texts has been quite boisterous , talkative, and loud for a lack of a better word.

Then one magical day God suddenly became deaf mute and blind.

Not true — at least for the Bible. As the books progress, God progresses from being imminently involved and speaking to people, to being more in the background, allowing others to speak for God. Then BANG! The gospels happen, and all of a sudden, God is with us — among us — as one of us, interacting, healing, preaching, loving. So it’s not “one magical day,” nor is it magic at all. Rather, it’s humanity coming to better grips with our own Divinity.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not true — at least for the Bible. As the books progress, God progresses from being imminently involved and speaking to people, to being more in the background, allowing others to speak for God. Then BANG! The gospels happen, and all of a sudden, God is with us — among us — as one of us, interacting, healing, preaching, loving. So it’s not “one magical day,” nor is it magic at all. Rather, it’s humanity coming to better grips with our own Divinity.

That's why I say the explanations are creatively made to accommodate actual reality. There is no choice otherwise but to word it that way.

 

[sojourner]

That's why I say the explanations are creatively made to accommodate actual reality. There is no choice otherwise.

I don’t see what you mean. How is “we are becoming more aware of our own Divinity” a creative twist of reality?

 

[Twilight Hue]

I don’t see what you mean. How is “we are becoming more aware of our own Divinity” a creative twist of reality?

Because it's entirely in your head. If a person doesn't say or do anything , God isn't going to be around to say or do it in that person's stead. It's why I refer to God as being a mental puppet.

There's the reality of a person believing something, that aspect is real enough to acknowledge.

However the object of that belief does not qualify.

 

[sojourner]

Because it's entirely in your head. If a person doesn't say or do anything , God isn't going to be around to say or do it in that person's stead. It's why I refer to God as being a mental puppet.

There's the reality of a person believing something, that aspect is real enough to acknowledge.

However the object of that belief does not qualify.

What has that to do with our growing awareness of our own Divinity?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

And I was pointing out that this is false propaganda. The “pagan” cultures were generally no more or less violent or vicious than their Christian neighbours. Duels to the death probably did happen in early periods, though that was true in the early Christina period too. In both cases, they generally transitioned to “first blood” kind of rules in later times.

The bottom line is that the Norse people were no more or less violent or murderous than their Christian contemporaries and, of course, in later periods many of them converted to Christianity without a vast shift in culture or behaviour.

You are simply wrong, and being quite anthropocentric in the process. It's like saying other cultures are not more cannibalistic or don't practice more infanticide or more human sacrifice. The truth is that different cultures DO have different morals and values.

 

[HonestJoe]

You are simply wrong, and being quite anthropocentric in the process. It's like saying other cultures are not more cannibalistic or don't practice more infanticide or more human sacrifice. The truth is that different cultures DO have different morals and values.

I'm not making a global statement, only one referring to the neighbouring European cultures early European Christians dismissed as “pagans”. They did indeed all had all sorts of different morals and values along with associated beliefs and practices. The fact remains that the Vikings (which was a negative misnomer in the first place of course) can’t be generically labelled as definitively worse (or better) than their Christian contemporaries or indeed any of the other contemporary cultures and societies of the region. There are so many good, bad and contextually complex aspects to all historical (and modern for that matter) cultures that mean making any simplistic and generic assertions can’t be supported.

Anyway, regardless of whether “pagan” societies could be legitimately described as “morally worse” than Christian ones, the statement you made that for Vikings “even murder is sanctioned, even valued” would still be flawed at best (not least because death in a formal duel wouldn’t be murder by definition).

 

[IndigoChild5559]

The fact remains that the Vikings (which was a negative misnomer in the first place of course) can’t be generically labelled as definitively worse (or better) than their Christian contemporaries or indeed any of the other contemporary cultures and societies of the region.

I gave one very, very specific example about Viking morality considering murder to be a virtue. I gave detail as to the circumstances under which these murders might take place. I gave this as an example of morality not being universal.

 

[HonestJoe]

I gave one very, very specific example about Viking morality considering murder to be a virtue. I gave detail as to the circumstances under which these murders might take place. I gave this as an example of morality not being universal.

And I am suggesting that example is based on a false understanding. Formal duels, even to the death, wouldn’t be technically murder for a start and they weren’t exclusive to Viking or “pagan” societies. There is nothing to suggest that actual murder in this kind of context (i.e. killing someone for an insult before a legal duel was arranged) would be any more (or less) likely in Viking societies as any other, including Christian ones of a similar era. Your assertions don’t prove anything about Viking morality, only your perceptions of it.

The bottom line remains, there is nothing fundamental to the “pagan” societies to render them definitively worse (or better) than their Christian contemporaries with our negative impressions fed by generations of history written by the “victors”. The suggestion that if monotheism never took hold in Europe our society would still be the same as the pre-Christian period (or our perception of it) is totally unsupported (and probably unsupportable).

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

While reading a recent thread ("If God Could Just Show Himself..."), I was thinking of the basic idea of God "showing Himself" to those who lack faith or belief in God as a way of proving that God exists.

But most religions I'm aware of tend to claim that God has already shown Himself, as recorded in Scriptures. But if the whole idea is for people to have faith in the unseen, why would God bother to announce His presence in the first place? Why not just put people on Earth and see what happens? If this is supposed to be some kind of test of humanity's character, isn't God skewing the results by announcing His existence?

Moreover, why would God actively interfere and meddle in the affairs of humans - and then turn around and presume to judge human society, as if He had nothing to do with how it turned out?

Things we need to keep in mind:

- if God doesn't show himself, the plot of the religion's foundational stories doesn't advance.

- in most religious traditions, the scriptural authors did not envision a time when God's existence wouldn't be - in their eyes - self-evident.

- this whole thing where "faith" has been redefined as "belief without evidence" (instead of other senses of the word, like "loyalty") is a very recent phenomenon.