Unrevealed Morality

[PainefulTruth]

If, as I believe, God exists but doesn't interact with us (in order to preserve our free will), how then do we derive a moral code? Other religions say we can't come up with it ourselves because then we can ignore it just as easily, and there would be too many conflicting versions. My first answer is, look at all the conflicting moral codes we have now from all the religions.

But mostly, it's easy because morality, a code that governs our interactions with each other, is mostly very easy and covers all situations for adults. Using one assumption, that life is of value and human/sentient life is of ultimate value, you come up with the following, which is a refinement of the Golden Rule--versions of which are buried in most major religions. In any case, morality is:

Honoring the equal rights of all to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud.

That's it. All personal behavior that doesn't violate this code, I refer to as virtue, and is up to the individual to determine.

Some conclusions we can draw from this:

Only morality should be made into law, not virtues.

If a religion or other group wants to make its code of virtue mandatory (enforceable only by social pressure or contract), that's their business; but it can only apply to that group. Social pressure is fair game, however, to enforce virtue even outside of one's group.

>>A moral double standard is the source of ALL evil.<<

The only gray areas I've come across deal with children, abortion and the humane treatment of animals (another thread please).

 

[HenryBHough]

At last I've found the other congregant of The First Church of If It Feeleth Good, DO it!

 

[PainefulTruth]

At last I've found the other congregant of The First Church of If It Feeleth Good, DO it!

And you're certainly not the last of the supplicants of The Church of the Holy Easy Cheap Shot. You see a flaw, hit me with your best shot, only this time make it substantial I won't know until then that reason figures into your mix at all. If not, have a nice afterlife.

 

[HenryBHough]

At last I've found the other congregant of The First Church of If It Feeleth Good, DO it!

And you're certainly not the last of the supplicants of The Church of the Holy Easy Cheap Shot.

Aw shucks.....and here I thought I had found a true believer!

Ah well, superstition defeats pleasure once again. Sad, that.

 

[PainefulTruth]

At last I've found the other congregant of The First Church of If It Feeleth Good, DO it!

And you're certainly not the last of the supplicants of The Church of the Holy Easy Cheap Shot.

Aw shucks.....and here I thought I had found a true believer!

Ah well, superstition defeats pleasure once again. Sad, that.

I'm an agnostic who eschews both blind faith as well as subjective rationality to justify gratuitous pleasure/corruption. I'm interested in what everyone has to say, including you, if there's anything you'd care to put out there.

 

[hortysir]

An Agnostic that believes that God exists

 

[The Irish Ram]

If, as I believe, God exists but doesn't interact with us (in order to preserve our free will), how then do we derive a moral code?

I think the answer to your question is in the question.
We derive a moral code from a God that does interact with us, and etched 10 rules of conduct in stone. And gave us a book that covers moral/immoral situations and how to respond when we find ourselves in one of those situations.
Our free will is an exercise in decision making, choosing one over the other, not absenteeism.

Matthew 28:20 And be sure of this: I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

 

[PainefulTruth]

An Agnostic that believes that God exists

Yes. Being an agnostic means making no claim to to possessing knowledge. Belief can be based on nothing but hope, or on as much as something being virtually proven. All of that would be short of knowledge. I know a lot of people equate being agnostic with being an atheist, but agnosticism is an attitude not a belief. If I were an atheist, I'd be an agnostic-atheist. As it is, I'm an agnostic-deist.

If, as I believe, God exists but doesn't interact with us (in order to preserve our free will), how then do we derive a moral code?

I think the answer to your question is in the question.
We derive a moral code from a God that does interact with us, and etched 10 rules of conduct in stone.

I'm sorry but that's 3500 year-old hear-say. Do you believe we should stone people for gathering sticks on the sabbath? Or that people used to be damned for the sins of their ancestors four generations past?

And gave us a book that covers moral/immoral situations and how to respond when we find ourselves in one of those situations

.

Can you give an example of an adult situation that wouldn't be covered by my simple code? Would you even think of sacrificing one of your children if God told you to? All revealed religions reflect good and the bad in the ones who revealed them, since it is never God revealing it to us directly. Wouldn't God actually do it directly to us all at once instead of giving it to a fallible human to distribute or corrupt according to his human foibles? I daresay there are millions of people who have never come in contact with any of the major revealed religions--but I'll bet their local shaman has some revelations for them.

Our free will is an exercise in decision making, choosing one over the other, not absenteeism.

God, if It exists, is not absent, just watching. Full human free will is based on our self-awareness, that no animal or even young children have. It forces us to know the consequence of our actions on others because it puts us mentally in their shoes--and we understand our mortality. You can't turn your mind away, you know inherently it's wrong inherently from when you were a child. But you can force yourself to ignore the wrong of what you're doing, then after a while you won't even flinch.

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know..............I have a problem with morals. Me personally? I like having values.

Morals are things which the majority imposes on the individual to force them to behave in a manner that the majority deems appropriate. But, the problem is, that morals can be taken to extremes, and instead of helping the whole survive, it only serves to fracture it. If you need an example, look at the Puritans, and their whole desire to be "purer" than their fellows.

Sorry, but the only sins that actually exist are those written in the 7 Noahide Commandments or those written in the 10 Commandments (and additionally, the 10 Commandments aren't really "commandments" at all, because if you take their translation from the original Hebrew, they are the 10 Utterances or "suggestions"). Do I believe murder is a sin? You bet, because you shouldn't take the life of someone who is innocent. However, can you kill someone? You bet, because if they attack you with the intent of taking your life, you have every right to defend yourself. FYI.................the Commandment of "thou shalt not kill" is actually written as "thou shalt not MURDER". If you come at me with the intent of doing serious harm to me, I will defend myself as best I can.

But that brings us to another level of this same kind of thinking. A lot of people in their quest to show how "holy" they are have stated that many other things outside of what is specified in the 10 Commandments are also "sins". Is drinking a sin? Nope, it's a vice, and not only was wine a gift from God to gladden the hearts of men, but it can also be taken to extremes, and that is talked about in the Song of Solomon. Vices in and of themselves aren't sins, but if you let them get out of hand, they can cause you to sin. Drink too much and see what happens.

Is cussing a sin? Nope. It only shows how you really feel, and if it offends others, so what? However, if you let it become a lifestyle and start to make it a habit, you may end up cussing at God, and disrespecting God or taking His name in vain which IS a sin. In other words, if you cuss at other people all the time, you may one day end up cussing at God.

Morals are something that a collective group of people like to try to impose on others, because they want everyone to think as they do and eliminate the "sin" by telling others it's wrong.

Values on the other hand are something that the individual takes for themselves, because they see how those values they hold dear help them deal with life and interact successfully with others. I value other people, so therefore I won't murder them, nor will I try to get them to do things they think will harm them. But in allowing them that freedom to do as they wish, I would hope they would allow me to do as I wish as well.

Is dancing a sin? Nope. It's an expression of you being glad you're alive, and moving to music (which is a joyful noise unto the Lord because it makes you happy and allows you to connect in with Father) is an expression of how glad you are that God allows you to be here.

And..........................if you check into it, the main reason that the Commandments (and free will) exist, is because it allows all of us to live together without murdering each other.

If you need me to explain this further, just post a reply and ask.............I will tell you my take of the 10 Commandments and why they exist as I understand it.

And...................I like to keep things pretty simple.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Sorry, but the only sins that actually exist are those written in the 7 Noahide Commandments or those written in the 10 Commandments (and additionally, the 10 Commandments aren't really "commandments" at all, because if you take their translation from the original Hebrew, they are the 10 Utterances or "suggestions").

So what do you suggest we base our laws on, the 10 Commandments/Suggestions, or the 7 Noahide Commandments. If so, you're suggesting a theocracy which is as arbitrary and oppressive as any other despotic government or theocracy based on another religion than yours.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Irish Ram, can you give an example of an adult situation that wouldn't be covered by my simple code? If you object because it didn't come from your God, then you're a theocrat. If you object on other grounds, please state what they are.

 

[DGS49]

"Honoring the equal rights of all to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud."

What about abortion? Are fetuses included in "all"? If so, when? If not, why not?

What about animals? Was it OK for Buffalo Bill to shoot buffalo for sport? What if he was shooting them for food for the poor? OK?

Is it OK to drive an SUV, knowing that it emits much, much more CO2 than necessary and wastes irreplaceable natural resources? Not to mention that it endangers everyone else on the road who happens to be driving a conventional car.

Does advertising constitute "fraud," in your view? Most advertising includes distortions or outright falsehoods, or does not include enough information to make a sound judgment about the product. Are salesmen immoral?

What about "malum prohibitum"? Are arbitrary laws binding? LIke driving on the right side of the road. I'm more comfortable driving on the left side and there is nothing intrinsically "wrong" about it. People in England do it all the time.

 

[BreezeWood]

"Honoring the equal rights of all to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud."

What about abortion? Are fetuses included in "all"? If so, when? If not, why not?

What about animals? Was it OK for Buffalo Bill to shoot buffalo for sport? What if he was shooting them for food for the poor? OK?

Is it OK to drive an SUV, knowing that it emits much, much more CO2 than necessary and wastes irreplaceable natural resources? Not to mention that it endangers everyone else on the road who happens to be driving a conventional car.

Does advertising constitute "fraud," in your view? Most advertising includes distortions or outright falsehoods, or does not include enough information to make a sound judgment about the product. Are salesmen immoral?

What about "malum prohibitum"? Are arbitrary laws binding? LIke driving on the right side of the road. I'm more comfortable driving on the left side and there is nothing intrinsically "wrong" about it. People in England do it all the time.

PainefulTruth: The only gray areas I've come across deal with children, abortion and the humane treatment of animals (another thread please).

I'm with DGS49, pre-exempting obvious grey areas etc. is not much of a debate ....

 

[Avatar4321]

But God does interact with man. So the question is just a hypothetical exercise.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Sorry, but the only sins that actually exist are those written in the 7 Noahide Commandments or those written in the 10 Commandments (and additionally, the 10 Commandments aren't really "commandments" at all, because if you take their translation from the original Hebrew, they are the 10 Utterances or "suggestions").

So what do you suggest we base our laws on, the 10 Commandments/Suggestions, or the 7 Noahide Commandments. If so, you're suggesting a theocracy which is as arbitrary and oppressive as any other despotic government or theocracy based on another religion than yours.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Irish Ram, can you give an example of an adult situation that wouldn't be covered by my simple code? If you object because it didn't come from your God, then you're a theocrat. If you object on other grounds, please state what they are.

Actually, the 7 Noahide commandments say pretty much what the 10 Commandments state.

And no..................it is not a theocracy that I'm asking for, I'm just asking for people to look for a reason to live.

BTW......................it's not for greed, it's for survival.

Greed kills.

Want an example? Look at the Greedy Odd People (aka the GOP). Why else would they try to hold the nation hostage if they didn't have to pay off the lobbyists with their votes?

Sorry to break it to you, but the big money talks, and the rest of us (meaning the 98 percent) are screwed.

 

[editec]

Using one assumption, that life is of value and human/sentient life is of ultimate value, you come up with the following, which is a refinement of the Golden Rule--versions of which are buried in most major religions. In any case, morality is:

Value is a subjective term, not an objective one.

Value demands that we address the question of who is the value-er?

While I actually agree with your value, neither of us can prove its merit.

We only believe this "value" because we are live and sentenent.

Morality is a code of conduct that is entirely arbitrary, and no logic is going to take you anywhere until you start out with presuppossitions that are not logically supportable.

One does not need a religion to have morals and values, ture, but one does start with presuppositions that are have nothing to do with logic and are no less "faith based" that the most dogmatic relgion.

Humanism, for example...not a religion but nevertheless its value system is as faith based as any other.

 

[PainefulTruth]

"Honoring the equal rights of all to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud."

What about abortion? Are fetuses included in "all"? If so, when? If not, why not?

What about animals? Was it OK for Buffalo Bill to shoot buffalo for sport? What if he was shooting them for food for the poor? OK?

I'll address the gray areas soon enough. We have to come to terms with the easy part first, unless you're going to insist that a two year old has a right to liberty.

Is it OK to drive an SUV, knowing that it emits much, much more CO2 than necessary and wastes irreplaceable natural resources? Not to mention that it endangers everyone else on the road who happens to be driving a conventional car.

Pollution (CO2 isn't a pollutant) falls under your malum prohibitum below.

Does advertising constitute "fraud," in your view? Most advertising includes distortions or outright falsehoods, or does not include enough information to make a sound judgment about the product. Are salesmen immoral?

If they commit fraud, yes. So too for politicians.

What about "malum prohibitum"? Are arbitrary laws binding? LIke driving on the right side of the road. I'm more comfortable driving on the left side and there is nothing intrinsically "wrong" about it. People in England do it all the time.

All such supposedly self-justifying laws are ultimately based on enforcing morality. The purpose of morality it to provide good order for all. If situations arise due to technology where conventions are the only solution, such as driving on the right side of the road or aircraft following inflight procedures, taxes to enforce these as well as straightforward moral issues etc., violating them puts the rights of others to their lives and property at immediate risk--at the very least.

But God does interact with man. So the question is just a hypothetical exercise.

There is neither proof nor evidence of that other than hear-say--which with a buck 50 might buy you a cup o Joe.

Value is a subjective term, not an objective one.

Value itself and ultimate value are objective statements. The degree of that value, and the relativity of the value of different things, is subjective. You might argue that we sentients are not of ultimate value, but the only ones capable of arguing for the greater value of something else (some other form of life, or a rock or whatever), are us. We are the only ones with full self-awareness and therefore the only ones capable of understanding the consequences of our actions on others.

Can you name something of greater value than human/sentient life?

Put another way:

Value demands that we address the question of who is the value-er?

Exactly.

While I actually agree with your value, neither of us can prove its merit.

We only believe this "value" because we are live and sentenent.

Exactly, again. Sentience IS that value. We are the only ones who can say we are of the greatest value. All else is innocent.

Morality is a code of conduct that is entirely arbitrary, and no logic is going to take you anywhere until you start out with presuppossitions that are not logically supportable.

I assume you meant "are" logically supportable. Our full self-awareness and sentience is not arbitrary. In that respect, we are on an equal footing with God (if It exists). That's why Genesis got the "In God's image" part right.

One does not need a religion to have morals and values, ture, but one does start with presuppositions that are have nothing to do with logic and are no less "faith based" that the most dogmatic relgion.

What? Our full self-awareness and sentience are not presuppositions or faith based. Neither is the presupposition of the desire all humans have (except for despots and anarchists) for good order, faith based.

Humanism, for example...not a religion but nevertheless its value system is as faith based as any other.

I wholeheartedly agree, in fact it has no reasonable foundation. You can include socialism in that category as well. I've equated theocracy and socialism as being faith based for a long time. What is faith, or blind faith at least, if nothing but decision making using only our emotions. There is no revealed religion that's not completely reliant on blind faith.

 

[The Irish Ram]

An Agnostic that believes that God exists

Yes. Being an agnostic means making no claim to to possessing knowledge. Belief can be based on nothing but hope, or on as much as something being virtually proven. All of that would be short of knowledge. I know a lot of people equate being agnostic with being an atheist, but agnosticism is an attitude not a belief. If I were an atheist, I'd be an agnostic-atheist. As it is, I'm an agnostic-deist.

I think the answer to your question is in the question.
We derive a moral code from a God that does interact with us, and etched 10 rules of conduct in stone.

I'm sorry but that's 3500 year-old hear-say. Do you believe we should stone people for gathering sticks on the sabbath? Or that people used to be damned for the sins of their ancestors four generations past?

And gave us a book that covers moral/immoral situations and how to respond when we find ourselves in one of those situations

.

Can you give an example of an adult situation that wouldn't be covered by my simple code? Would you even think of sacrificing one of your children if God told you to? All revealed religions reflect good and the bad in the ones who revealed them, since it is never God revealing it to us directly. Wouldn't God actually do it directly to us all at once instead of giving it to a fallible human to distribute or corrupt according to his human foibles? I daresay there are millions of people who have never come in contact with any of the major revealed religions--but I'll bet their local shaman has some revelations for them.

Our free will is an exercise in decision making, choosing one over the other, not absenteeism.

God, if It exists, is not absent, just watching. Full human free will is based on our self-awareness, that no animal or even young children have. It forces us to know the consequence of our actions on others because it puts us mentally in their shoes--and we understand our mortality. You can't turn your mind away, you know inherently it's wrong inherently from when you were a child. But you can force yourself to ignore the wrong of what you're doing, then after a while you won't even flinch.

Odd that you profess a lack of knowledge, and yet you know that God is watching. What proof or provable knowledge do you have for that conclusion?

How does your simple code cover abortion? How many children has God murdered, how many have human's murdered. Get your condemnations straight.
and:
The Jews had no dilemma concerning God's existence. They saw Him every day and through the night guiding them out of the desert.
They asked for the Law to replace God's Grace, forgiveness and omission of rules, based on their confidence in self. 3,000 of the self absorbed dropped dead on the spot due to their lack of knowledge of how fallible self actually is, not God's.

You prefer in depth definitions like agnostic ath as opposed to agnostic dei , so let's delve into free and will. Free is unconstrained ability. Will is voluntary conduct. It is that simple to define.
Here are 2 examples.

A child, capable of thinking can exercise free will. If I tell my child to get out of the pool and instead she dives off the board into the water, she has exercised free and will.
If I say to my unleashed dog, who is capable of making decisions, "come here.", and knowing commands, she intentionally walks off in the other direction, she has exercised free will.

Relying on self, instead of tested instruction isn't all it's cut out to be. If my dog doesn't listen to my instruction and chooses to walk the other way, she may not see the car bearing down on her, because her knowledge is limited, and death could be the consequence.

Lack of knowledge is not a good place to live. And self can decide incorrectly as to what is right and what is wrong.
Without knowledge, (a self induced ignorance), you exercising free will is detrimental. And even if you do finally gain enough knowledge to make a decision, that does not guarantee that you'll make the right one, but at least it boosts your chances.

God is multi dimensional. He can visit dimensions in past, present and future states of existence. I have this knowledge because,
1. I have knowledge of His future predictions.
2. I scrutinize what He said would come to fruition and I watch it actually happen just like He said it was going to.
3. I know He has to exist to be able to do that. Otherwise I wouldn't know (agnosticism) that Israel will survive the upcoming invasion against her. But I do know, because I choose knowledge over a lack thereof.
What knowledge do you have concerning prophecy? Can self write a book filled with it? Can self visit next Wed. lottery drawings and come back and tell me what numbers to choose?

Don't limit your knowledge on the one subject that concerns your eternity. Learn everything you can and then exercise free will based on knowledge and not the lack of it.
And you already, somehow, have the insight that He exists. I think you chose agnosticism as a way out in case your insight is incorrect. It's not. You're right. All you lack is the knowledge that produces faith in your conviction. And I can tell you're smart enough to find it. Get down off of that fence, and boldly take a stand. You'll be glad you did.

Revelation 3:20 - I know that you are neither cold nor hot.* I wish you were ...

I have this feeling you have a high IQ. Lukewarm and lacking knowledge doesn't seem to suit you.

 

[PainefulTruth]

Odd that you profess a lack of knowledge, and yet you know that God is watching. What proof or provable knowledge do you have for that conclusion?

I only know that IF God exists (which I don't know), and since God doesn't interact in this natural universe (which is confirmed by a complete lack of non-hearsay evidence, and a motive not to), the only thing left for It to do is watch. God may be sustaining our natural law but It doesn't override it.

How does your simple code cover abortion? How many children has God murdered, how many have human's murdered. Get your condemnations straight.

I've already said, let's get the simple part (adults) straight first before we move on the the gray areas, which includes abortion, the most complex moral issue we face.

and:
The Jews had no dilemma concerning God's existence. They saw Him every day and through the night guiding them out of the desert.

A 3500 year old myth. The Bible is the, manufactured, edited, translated, re-edited etc. word of man with itself as its only completely unsubstantiated authority. Yes, it does contain verified history, but there's not one miracle or aspect of the divine verified by that history.

They asked for the Law to replace God's Grace, forgiveness and omission of rules, based on their confidence in self. 3,000 of the self absorbed dropped dead on the spot due to their lack of knowledge of how fallible self actually is, not God's.

You prefer in depth definitions like agnostic ath as opposed to agnostic dei , so let's delve into free and will. Free is unconstrained ability. Will is voluntary conduct. It is that simple to define.
Here are 2 examples.

A child, capable of thinking can exercise free will. If I tell my child to get out of the pool and instead she dives off the board into the water, she has exercised free and will.
If I say to my unleashed dog, who is capable of making decisions, "come here.", and knowing commands, she intentionally walks off in the other direction, she has exercised free will.

Relying on self, instead of tested instruction isn't all it's cut out to be. If my dog doesn't listen to my instruction and chooses to walk the other way, she may not see the car bearing down on her, because her knowledge is limited, and death could be the consequence.

Free will is a phrase meaning moral free will (as opposed to physical free will), the ability to make unfettered decisions between right and wrong, which as I've explained is already embedded in our psyches. I suppose it's possible that some would defy God with It visibly watching them. But most wouldn't. Bute the most important part is that neither God nor we would KNOW for certain that we made the correct/moral choices without It's scowling face, or approval. God would want to know, as would I, what I'd do on my own. If we create something, we want to know that was all "me" that did it. How much more important is that concept when the creation is the totality of those moral decisions and creative efforts summed up into our soul.

Lack of knowledge is not a good place to live.

Boy are you right there. The scariest, most uncomfortable thing I ever did was to leave my Christian heritage and what I thought was its security. I'm not a particularly courageous person, but the courage it took to do that is definitely in my plus column.

And self can decide incorrectly as to what is right and what is wrong.

Our self-awareness tells us that it's wrong to murder, enslave, rape or rob others. But our ability to lie to ourselves is only limited by us. That ability, our internal "devil", justifies making our rights superior compared to those of our intended victims. A moral double standard is the root of all evil.

God is multi dimensional. He can visit dimensions in past, present and future states of existence. I have this knowledge because,
1. I have knowledge of His future predictions.
2. I scrutinize what He said would come to fruition and I watch it actually happen just like He said it was going to.
3. I know He has to exist to be able to do that. Otherwise I wouldn't know (agnosticism) that Israel will survive the upcoming invasion against her. But I do know, because I choose knowledge over a lack thereof.
What knowledge do you have concerning prophecy? Can self write a book filled with it? Can self visit next Wed. lottery drawings and come back and tell me what numbers to choose?

If God knows what we're going to do, if we are written in the Book of Life from the beginning, what's the point of all this? Why not just create the "saved" in heaven and forget the pain and all the rest? This natural universe was (created?) for one purpose only, as a stage to exercise our free will.

Don't limit your knowledge on the one subject that concerns your eternity. Learn everything you can and then exercise free will based on knowledge and not the lack of it.

That what I'm doing.

And you already, somehow, have the insight that He exists.

No. The chances that God exists or doesn't are 50/50. I think that's by design, but since we have no evidence either way.....

I think you chose agnosticism as a way out in case your insight is incorrect

.

And others chose faith to cover all the bases, knowing deep down that they don't know. But as Jefferson said, "Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

It's not. You're right. All you lack is the knowledge that produces faith in your conviction.

All I lack is the evidence that produces knowledge of my belief.

Revelation 3:20 - I know that you are neither cold nor hot.* I wish you were ...

This has been an underlying passion all my life, always there, but surfacing with a vengeance a while back. Just because I don't know, that doesn't mean I don't care, immensely.

I have this feeling you have a high IQ. Lukewarm and lacking knowledge doesn't seem to suit you.

You flatter me, but we all have low and high intelligence, just in different areas. I've found there are many facets to it. If I sound smart it's only because I've been doing my homework all my life, and I can write pretty well. But in person I'm like Moses, slow of tongue, or more like tied of tongue.

 

[Avatar4321]

There is neither proof nor evidence of that other than hear-say--which with a buck 50 might buy you a cup o Joe.

And yet, hearsay evidence, when admissible, could convict a man for murder.

But the truth is your wrong. I know that God interacts with man because I've interacted with Him. This isn't hearsay. I know this for myself. It's my own personal experience and Eye witness.

Hearsay would be if I said, "I know God interacts with man because He has been talking to John down the Street."

I can promise you from my own experiences that God interacts with man.

Even aside from my testimony, we can see the fingers of Divine Providence acting throughout the History of man. We see it in the revelation of scientific discovery. We see it in the inspiration of plays, movies, music, poetry. You can choose not to believe that evidence. But the evidence is there nontheless.

But the beauty of the Lord is that you don't have to take the evidence on it's own. You don't have to believe that the Lord has interacted with me and my life just because I say so. You can go to the Lord yourself. You can humble yourself in mighty prayer. You can study the scriptures. You can experiment on the commandments and covenants found within the scriptures. You can have your own experiences with the Lord.

"... prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. (Malachi 3:10)

"If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

But let him ask in faith, nothing wavering. For he that wavereth is like a wave of the sea driven with the wind and tossed (James 1:5-6)

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8)

Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (John 7:16-17)

I invite you with all of my heart to experiment on the word of God. Seek the Lord and you will know that He does interact with men. You can recieve your own personal witness and so much more. He just requires us to sacrifice our pride, fear, and envy. Seek Him and Ask Him in the name of Jesus Christ and you will obtain a witness.

 

[PainefulTruth]

And yet, hearsay evidence, when admissible, could convict a man for murder.

No, it can't. Hear-say evidence is only admissible when the original source of the exculpatory evidence can be called, or when the evidence raises doubt about the guilt of the defendant. In a trial, the Truth often cannot be determined. For religion, the burden of proof is on the witness

But the truth is your wrong. I know that God interacts with man because I've interacted with Him. This isn't hearsay. I know this for myself. It's my own personal experience and Eye witness.

While I don't believe what you think is God interacting with you, neither will I challenge it because I can't read your mind. The point is your hear-say evidence does nobody else any reasonable good unless you can produce some corroborating evidence. The real issue is why would God communicate through select intermediaries. I think this profound passage from The Age of Reason states the issue most precisely:

“It is only in the CREATION that all our ideas and conceptions of a word of God can unite. The Creation speaketh an universal language.... It is an ever-existing original, which every man can read. It cannot be forged; it cannot be counterfeited; it cannot be lost; it cannot be altered; it cannot be suppressed. It does not depend upon the will of man whether it shall be published or not; it publishes itself from one end of the earth to the other. It preaches to all nations and to all worlds; and this Word of God reveals to man all that is necessary for man to know of God.”--Thomas Paine

But the second reason besides lack of any reasoned evidence to disbelieve in God's intervention, is the reason why we're here--free will. The Big Bang is a fire wall beyond which we can retrieve no evidence at all, for or against God. I believe that's by design, but here again, I have no evidence for that either. The odds of a spontaneous universe coming into being while leaving no evidence of its cause seem phenomenal, but again, I've got no evidence for that conclusion either.

Hearsay would be if I said, "I know God interacts with man because He has been talking to John down the Street."

And why should I believe you? You could be mentally unstable, hysterical, have low discrimination skills or outright lying for any of a number of reasons. And it is hear-say, because you're reporting what you say God said. John down the street is double hear-say. Actually that's what Job did, he subpoenaed God to testify why he, an admitted perfect person, what being punished. God did show but said, basically, it's none of your business. Why is that if we're made in "His" image? Some author, attempting to answer the many questions of "Why?" this or that, went to a lot of trouble writing that allegory that ended up saying nothing. At least I, as a deist, when faced with tragedy and grief, don't need to add that question to my grief. And I know the reason, our free will must be maintained

I can promise you from my own experiences that God interacts with man.

re: above

Even aside from my testimony, we can see the fingers of Divine Providence acting throughout the History of man. We see it in the revelation of scientific discovery. We see it in the inspiration of plays, movies, music, poetry. You can choose not to believe that evidence. But the evidence is there nontheless.

I know that evidence is there, but it is evidence for the curiosity, talents and persistence of man. Everything you mentioned was accomplished by man as God designed things to be. God created the universe to spawn us with those capabilities. But ask yourself, why did God do it? I can only speculate, but I think it was so that It could be surprised, delighted, disappointed and above all, so that It could know companionship. Angels are a myth, they offer no companionship because they are only extensions of God's omnipresence. They would never have been able to acquire the free will necessary to be companions, unless they'd been through the process we're going through.

But the beauty of the Lord is that you don't have to take the evidence on it's own. You don't have to believe that the Lord has interacted with me and my life just because I say so. You can go to the Lord yourself. You can humble yourself in mighty prayer. You can study the scriptures. You can experiment on the commandments and covenants found within the scriptures. You can have your own experiences with the Lord.

Been there done that. I probably know the Bible better than 95% of people who call themselves Christians. I was a devout Christian. But then sources of doubt driven by reason, and the contradictions in the Bible caused me to leave the church and the Christian faith. Then that was validated by the thoughts I've presented on free will.

"... prove me now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. (Malachi 3:10)

Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. (Matthew 7:7-8)

Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me.

If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. (John 7:16-17)

All of those are almost certainly transmutations brought about by Paul who overlaid Mithraism onto the story of a man he never knew or cared to understand. Paul was a Herodian and as such born a Roman citizen, and hated by the Jerusalem followers of Jesus to the point of trying to kill him, later numbering him as the beast in Revelation.