God's love vs Parental love.

[nebulous1]

Originally Posted by AREQUIPA

By their fruits, I have to say, is not a guide to validity. That Hitler was not very nice says nothing about whether his reacial theories were true or not. That Stalin was not very nice is no indication of whether his political theories were valid or not. That various religious figures were nice (or not) says nothing about whether their beliefs are valid or not. It is only evaluation of their theories or beliefs that show that. Not their behaviour.

It is not uncommon for the religious to go around 'doing good' and then hold that up as some validation of their beliefs. Politicians do the same, I agree. Though that is more a question of covering up or explaining away their misdeeds. And that goes for one or two churchmen I could think of, too.

I agree. Watch their actions, not their words!

[nebulous1]

Originally Posted by cleatis

I don't quite follow what's going on here... I think you pretty much reiterated what I have been trying to say. "Me or hell", is not a parental decision. Likewise hiding from kids and having them learn it all from a book is also not good parenting.

I was talking about people who really are parents in regards to the mistakes comment. Sometimes a good parent will let their kids learn the hard way - this is a necessity. I was asserting that the omni-parent that runs this show doesn't really act like a parent at all. He just throws some fire and brimstone when things don't go how he wants.

My comments were directed to those who were disagreeing with me. I was echoing you, yes.

[nebulous1]

Originally Posted by Tricky D

Originally Posted by nebulous1 Probably for the same reason that people generally don't see what they do not understand.
People who have no notion what love is will never see it; the same way that autistic people generally cannot relate to 'normal' people because they are unable to understand things from another pov.

Again, love and God are two different things. One is an action, one is a being.

People cannot understand that which hides from them and doesn't communicate or show itself.

People don't see what they don't understand? You see objects made of atoms all around you. I doubt you understand the physical composition of them entirely or the complex atomic structures.

Seeing and understanding are two different things, again.

You blame people for not knowing God.

[TRANSPONDER]

Originally Posted by nebulous1

Again, love and God are two different things. One is an action, one is a being.

People cannot understand that which hides from them and doesn't communicate or show itself.

People don't see what they don't understand? You see objects made of atoms all around you. I doubt you understand the physical composition of them entirely or the complex atomic structures.

Seeing and understanding are two different things, again.

You blame people for not knowing God.

We don't need to understand the complexities of atoms to be able to produce convincing evidence that objects exist.

If one is take seriously as existing "that which hides from them and doesn't communicate or show itself", one must believe - as firmly as you believe if a god - in bigfoot, ghosts, ufos, aliens, trolls, dragons, ogres, djinns, bogeymen and metallic spiders on Titan. Oh yes; and all the other gods in which you don't believe.

No reason to believe in them? You just don't understand 'that which hides and does not communicate'. What criterion do you use for deciding which of these uncommunicating entities you will believe in? What you prefer? What someone talked you into believing with the same illogic you are using on us?

[Tricky D]

Originally Posted by nebulous1

Again, love and God are two different things. One is an action, one is a being.

I am what I do, which makes what I believe irrelevant.
Unless I'm not doing what I believe.

People cannot understand that which hides from them and doesn't communicate or show itself.

Like I've posted before, just because you're unable to see something does it mean that it is hiding from you.
Autistic people often cannot match someone else's facial expression to an emotion so they do not recognising that someone who is laughing is having fun.
Does it then mean that the laughing person is hiding his emotion?

People don't see what they don't understand?

Again, if you for example do not understand something like grief, you will most likey not see when people are grieving. No doubt you are looking at people, but not seeing that they are grieving.

Seeing and understanding are two different things, again.

As discussed in the medical case "To See and Not to See" where a blind man regained sight after an operation seeing is not a simple process.* The problem was that he had not learned how to process visual information.
He still had to touch an apple to understand that he was seeing an apple.
He also had trouble with depth perception because he had never seen the world like that.
Seeing and understanding aren't that different, because if you can't understand what you're seeing you're not seeing at all, only looking.

You blame people for not knowing God.

You are projecting, I don't blame anyone anything.

*An Anthropologist on Mars: Seven Paradoxical Tales is a 1995 book by neurologist Oliver Sacks consisting of seven medical case histories of individuals with neurological conditions such as autism and Tourette syndrome.
"To See and Not to See" is the tale of a man who was blind from early childhood, but was able to recover some of his sight after surgery. This is one of an extremely small number of cases where an individual regained sight lost at such a young age, and as with many of the other cases, the patient found the experience to be deeply disturbing.

Source: An Anthropologist on Mars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia