Philosophy Now Forum

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote: No, I'm asking you what it takes to convince you that somebody is a prophet.

Obviously not you then.

That's about as non sequitur an answer as I've heard in a long, long time.

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote: No, I'm asking you what it takes to convince you that somebody is a prophet.

Obviously not you then.

That's about as non sequitur an answer as I've heard in a long, long time.

Shit- obviously you failed to predict that. Not a prophet then!

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:That's about as non sequitur an answer as I've heard in a long, long time.

Shit- obviously you failed to predict that. Not a prophet then!

Ever think of using a dictionary once in a while?
prophet
[prof-it]
noun
1. a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.

bobevenson wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

bobevenson wrote:That's about as non sequitur an answer as I've heard in a long, long time.

Shit- obviously you failed to predict that. Not a prophet then!

Ever think of using a dictionary once in a while?
prophet
[prof-it]
noun
1. a person who speaks for God or a deity, or by divine inspiration.

Ever wonder why an omnipotent God would need someone to speak for him? Why doesn't he just do it himself?

sthitapragya wrote: Ever wonder why an omnipotent God would need someone to speak for him? Why doesn't he just do it himself?

That's what I reckon. What's the point in being a god if you're too shy to brag about it? If I was a god I'd make bloody sure every bastard knew it.

Obvious Leo wrote:

sthitapragya wrote: Ever wonder why an omnipotent God would need someone to speak for him? Why doesn't he just do it himself?

That's what I reckon. What's the point in being a god if you're too shy to brag about it? If I was a god I'd make bloody sure every bastard knew it.

And such an inefficient system. What is the point of telling one man something that you demand and insist and require that everyone must follow? It would be more efficient to simply appear in front of everyone and tell them, "look scumbags, here is a list. Follow it to the letter. Or else..." and that would be that. Even atheists would follow him because that would be bloody scary and I am not going to not believe in a God that came and told me that.

There are some things that just cannot be delegated.

sthitapragya wrote:There are some things that just cannot be delegated.

Agreed. My old man always said that you should never ask a boy to do a man's job and if you want a job done properly then you should do it yourself.

bobevenson wrote:Obviously, it's impossible to connect with you people on spiritual matters.

Afraid not, Bob. My ouija board was never the same after the dog chewed it.

Obvious Leo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Obviously, it's impossible to connect with you people on spiritual matters.

Afraid not, Bob. My ouija board was never the same after the dog chewed it.

I think your dog has been chewing on more than your ouija board, my friend. Better see a doctor.

If the Bible said that Planks constant was 6.62607004 X 10(-34) m(2) Kg/s I would believe that it is the word of God. Unfortunately, it.thinks that all those begats are more important.
In other words if you know something that no human could possibly know at that time (like making predictions) I would believe that you are a prophet.

So Bob where and when will one of tomorrow's lighting strikes be? I am sure that tomorrow on the internet will be a report that lighting hit a barn etc. Where is that barn? Predict and I will accept you as my prophet!

bobevenson wrote:Obviously, it's impossible to connect with you people on spiritual matters.

No, really, Bob... isn't this a totally reasonable and good question that sthitapragya asked:

sthitapragya wrote: Ever wonder why an omnipotent God would need someone to speak for him? Why doesn't he just do it himself?

Isn't it also reasonable to ask/consider if MAN interjected himself for his OWN sense of self-importance (and control)? Why would a god NEED this kind of "translation" if the god created ALL of it and man in the god's own image? Knowing how humans can distort things, why would a god utilize such a static-prone frequency to transmit messages? What is NOT spiritual about asking reasonable questions?

Lacewing wrote:Isn't it also reasonable to ask/consider if MAN interjected himself for his OWN sense of self-importance (and control)? Why would a god NEED this kind of "translation" if the god created ALL of it and man in the god's own image? Knowing how humans can distort things, why would a god utilize such a static-prone frequency to transmit messages? What is NOT spiritual about asking reasonable questions?

But if God is God and the author of all, why would there be any substance other than just God-stuff? Why would there be any creation at all since there is no need for it? Instead of light shining from a sun, there *should* only be God's presence: the light of all light. Similarly with water, or heat, or cold, space, time and anything. What is the 'purpose' of setting all this strange stuff in motion, and then what is the purpose of this 'cloaking' effort by the author of all creation? Why the mystery?

Christian forms are weak in explanatory metaphysics, I think, and the stories out of which some aspect of metaphysic is cobbled-together, are inferior stories. But in Eastern (Indian) metaphysics there is some attempt to 'answer' the question of how existence comes out of a divine fount. All mythologies deal in cosmology and our philosophy and our religion derives from these sorts of question.

From the mystical perspective, and those who describe a vision of reality seen from an exalted (or 'enlightened') platform, they describe God's 'play' or 'lila'. The mystic poets of India talk about God playing hide-and-seek with man, or with the seeker-philosopher. The implication seems to be that man has to arrive at some basic platform of awareness and consciousness, and then to hone it and work it, preserve it, increase it, and through this process different levels of revelation come to man. Also from that 'mystical' perspective, they describe revelation and understanding as unifying vision/understanding and in seeing and understanding that all is God. In yoga-philsosophy of certain branches yoga as a psycho-physical practice is a science of weaning oneself from the incarnated state. That would of course entail the awakening of revelation about how it is that one came to be here. That is (according to this view) how one has chosen the specific material level of incarnation in which we exist (Hindu thought recognised various levels, both more material and 'deadly', and less so and 'lighter'). But all this is part of an epistemological system, a way of interpreting reality. As it pertains to the yoga-schools, they all deal on the question/problem of incarnated existence, and they propose a way-and-means of being here, living here, carrying on here, which will allow for ascent in understanding to an eventual decision to graduate to another plane.

I mention this only to bring it to your-plural's attention. All metaphysical systems, and even the one we are in now, must make positivist proposals about reality, what it is, and what we must do here.

You imagine that you are asking 'good' questions - sharp and pertinent - but they could also be described as facile. It all turns on the question, which has been, is now, and will always be received in human consciousness: What is all this, How did it originate? Who or what is the author of it all? And what is my purpose and role in it? These are unavoidable and inevitable questions. They have to be asked (again) and they have to be pushed to points of decision and decisiveness.

You have abandoned them in a substantial way, but this does not mean that you are not involved in an interpretive project. You insist that the project must occur in limited parameters which you stand over and monitor.

For someone who does not believe in 'god', to then ask the question why the revelation of God occurs in 'prophets and holy men' and not by direct revelation, is sort of stupid. For you would not accept any story of a 'direct revelation' anyway and consider it either an illusion, an hallucination, or the symptoms of mental illness.