The Laws Of Nature, A Violation?

[whag]

When a person declares what he has witnessed for himself, that isn't hearsay, it's an eyewitness report.
And of course, whether someone else accepts that report as cause for consideration will be determined by his opinion of the witness's reliability.

No, it's hearsay. You wouldn't and shouldn't accept anything that I claimed to have witnessed as true. You have that right.

Actually it's less tricky than Monotheism. I don't have to dream up cycles and epicycles to explain the Biblical record.

But you do have to process the idea that the universe is filled with gods. Good luck evangelizing with that.

[whag]

Nonsense, I wasn't arrogantly flaunting anything. Norm is just not an honest man. And this thread was doing fine until Norm jumped in with his inane points, like this one: Do you think you could arrange some sort of miracle to prove your God is the TRUE god? Like God was a trick pony, or that I had some magical power. That is what really frosted me, like I even asked for this to happen. And Norm knows better, that is why he is dishonest.

That's what you get when you admit your doubt is as strong as the skeptic's. Your faith requires miracles to thrive.

[tabibito]

No, it's hearsay. You wouldn't and shouldn't accept anything that I claimed to have witnessed as true. You have that right.

Certainly have the right - but I wouldn't actually write off a testimony unless I had no reason to believe that the witness was reliable, or good reason to believe that the witness was unreliable.

But you do have to process the idea that the universe is filled with gods. Good luck evangelizing with that.

The founding apostles and evangelists didn't have a problem with it. In the ordinary course, other gods are irrelevant in any case - they aren't part of the gospel. Of course, that might change if a Shintoist happened to be committed to Otohime - but there wouldn't be any arguing that his favourite goddess was really an evil spirit.

[whag]

Certainly have the right - but I wouldn't actually write off a testimony unless I had no reason to believe that the witness was reliable, or good reason to believe that the witness was unreliable.

By default you wouldn't accept it, and if you did it would be for selfish reasons, such as deriving a sense of hope and comfort from the story. Investigating seer's, or anybody's, reliability is a methodology in itself.

The founding apostles and evangelists didn't have a problem with it. In the ordinary course, other gods are irrelevant in any case - they aren't part of the gospel. Of course, that might change if a Shintoist happened to be committed to Otohime - but there wouldn't be any arguing that his favourite goddess was really an evil spirit.

Please be more specific. Are you talking about actual gods or evil spirits? Henotheism isn't the belief that demons = gods. Henotheism is the belief in actual gods and a divine hierarchy wherein one of those gods is paid sole allegiance.

[NormATive]

No, you weren't chiding him. You were acting self righteous and irritated. Be happy about your divine sign, don't arrogantly flaunt it and say that Norm doesn't get divine pyrotechnics shows because God knows Norm won't appreciate them. Listen to yourself. Get off your high horse.

Your friends were right. You shouldn't have posted about it here. The context of your miracle was to encourage your brethren, at most. Only a naive skeptic would change his worldview based on hearsay.

Actually, I would respect some kind of supernatural demonstration of G-d's power. I searched for it for many years in vain. It is just more comforting for Seer to imagine me as not being serious. If the skeptic is just being silly or nonsensical or worse; evil (notice how he implied that Satan is my father), he can ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

He pretends that because I came to different conclusions than him, I must not be serious. And when he speaks of G-d performing magic tricks for him as though G-d is personally cognizant of him to the exclusion of peons like you and me, as though it is PROOF that his god is the only god, well; you are correct: I damn well will call him on it!

NORM

[tabibito]

By default you wouldn't accept it, and if you did it would be for selfish reasons, such as deriving a sense of hope and comfort from the story. Investigating seer's, or anybody's, reliability is a methodology in itself.

I accepted Seer's testimony well before it had any application to my own circumstances. That it did convey some sense of comfort a few days later is not part of the equation. At other times and in other circumstances, I would not accept such a testimony as necessarily valid. Even had I seen the Seer's first post about the event when he submitted it, I would not have given it a whole lot of credence - though neither would I have necessarily dismissed it as false.

Please be more specific. Are you talking about actual gods or evil spirits? Henotheism isn't the belief that demons = gods. Henotheism is the belief in actual gods and a divine hierarchy wherein one of those gods is paid sole allegiance.

Yup - that is what Henotheism is. I accept that there are other gods: they are simply irrelevant. If someone is adherent to Otohime, or Hachiman (or whoever), the nature of that god is of no interest. I am not going to argue that they are demons because I don't know which category a specific god might be assigned. For all that I DO know, the god in question might be wholly imaginary.

Further note: When Paul was in Athens, the Athenians were calling the Christian god a demon. In Koine Greek, a demon is simply a low ranked god (lesser god).

[seer]

Actually, I would respect some kind of supernatural demonstration of G-d's power. I searched for it for many years in vain.

The Rich Man and Lazarus

They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear themIf they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead

[tabibito]

The Rich Man and Lazarus

People who aren't familiar with the way it flows can be forgiven for putting too much faith in the efficacy of miracles to bring about a change of heart, surely.
It's kind of naive, but by no means a matter of lying.

[seer]

People who aren't familiar with the way it flows can be forgiven for putting too much faith in the efficacy of miracles to bring about a change of heart, surely.
It's kind of naive, but by no means a matter of lying.

And some men tabibito really don't understand how hard their hearts are to the things of God. They pretend to be open minded but are far from it.

[NormATive]

And some men tabibito really don't understand how hard their hearts are to the things of God. They pretend to be open minded but are far from it.

Some day, G-d will help you with that. I'm sure of it.

NORM

[Jedidiah]

The Rich Man and Lazarus

Apt, but wasted in this case.