In the old Testament, God's Name did reside in the Holy of Holies and the Priest did attend to God's Name. So a chosen few had direct interaction.
In the new Testament God's Name resides in the individual by being baptized into it.
" i baptize you in (into) the Name .....). Thus allegedly among the true believers, they daily have direct interactions as priests in their own right, with God residing in the Holy temple of their bodies. Which is suppose be the fulfillment of the pattern of things established by the tabernacle in the wilderness.
So allegedly, the silence of faith is suppose to lead to direct interaction. However based on the cacophony found in 99.999% of Christendom, not soul would believe it.
Sir, better look for a couch to lie down and watch the pretty pictures go away.
In future please note that beginners should not start out smoking hashish in their bhong.
I'm afraid I understand what he is saying... and I haven't even been smoking anything! I think I should go lie down anyway.
I only understand it from having read the Bible. So... some Christians literally think the God is inhabiting their bodies? I could agree with that on a very different level - that the same forces which gave rise to life and evolution (ie a Creator of sorts) are within our world and the bodies of all living things.
That's not quite the same thing, though, is it? Maybe the writers of the Bible were unknowingly on to something, but they hadn't the science to work out the particulars?
It usually works out Diane, that after a visit from Michael, or his alter-ego, Angelo, we all could use a rest - at least those who feed his craving for attention.
As for the one thing that all life shares, it's that electrical spark that kicked the whole thing off. If anyone wants to call that spark "god," I suppose it's OK, but although I'm grateful to it, I can't see building it a cathedral.
Interesting article I ran across today:
Did Belief in Gods Lead to Mayan Demise?
You might also note Diane, that he hasn't responded to any of my posts to him - "Michael" and I have met before - or at least one or more of his cronies who use that username to post here (they seem to work in shifts - I suspect students in a theological school somewhere, when one has to go to class, another, distinctly different personality takes over -- that, or Mike's schizophrenic -- or both!)
Haha, that would be cool...
COME TO THINKATHEIST.COM
to learn about YOUR religion!!
Brilliant - This is the one :D
He has a "style" so consistently riddled with grammatical and spelling and other linguistic idiosyncracies and flaws that he'd be hard not to recognize under any other name.
Dissecting this with Occam"s razor. What is more likely? That god is keeping neutrality to allow room for faith, or that humans who have invented religion elevated the idea of faith to achieve obedience without question from their followers?
Of course, Occam's razor must render faith foolish. If faith weren't so foolish, it would not have been so hard for Abraham to offer up Isaac. The sacrifice of logic is so profuse and profound, yet as a high priest in the Holy Temple of your body, this is what he dwell in the Holy of Holies of your soul and in whom we move and exist, requires.
@Miguel - Most of us would risk our lives to save the life of a child, yet when old Honest Abe was told to take Ike up a mountain, slit his throat and barbeque him, he didn't tell the boogy man who spoke to him in his delusions dreams, to f*** off - why do you suppose that is, Mike?
Honestly I am watching this from the sidelines and I just want to hurl. With my background, this just looks so silly, but refuting it would require digging through my spare room, locating my notes, ect. Thanks for holding it in your stomach and fighting this one out for the rest of us. Not sure how much it will accomplish though.
I will add this though to help out. Michael... Prophecies in the ancient near east did not concern issues of the far future. They always concerned a near-future prediction. This was true in Mari when prophets urged Zimri Lim on how to conduct business with Hammurabi, and it is true about a thousand years later when Isaiah comes to Ahaz when he is standing at the water cistern to determine if he needs to ally with Assyria in order to defend against the Syrian coalition, when he says "The woman will be with child and before he knows right and wrong the coalition you are concerned about will be no more". It doesn't concern far future prophecy, it is dealing with the current political situation. The Israelite and the Judean prophecies, parallel the way that the prophets of Mari talk about Zimri-lim. Only the post-exilic prophets start predicting a further future. But the prophecies in Daniel revolve around Antiochus Epiphanes. It is blatantly obvious. As for the "prophecies" in Revelation. Even the Eastern Orthodox know that the main purpose of that book was not to prophesy.
The main purpose of Revelation is to give a coded message that the current situation under Domitian was something the 7 churches needed to bear because in the end the author felt Christ would be victorious and kingdoms would rise and fall. It is a genre called apocalyptic literature, it isn't prophecy, it is encoded messages and the code is pretty easy to decipher, because it is one of many apocalyptic literature books written with an encoded message characterized by an angel guide revealing things through visions, ect. It is like how in the old days, how your grandma would write a single letter and mention the 7 people in the family who are all supposed to read it. It had a present day message. The end of the world thing was just a backdrop. Reading other books of it's style that predate it, starting from the exile period in babylon reveals this. It is one of many apocalyptic lit books and isn't meant to be taken literally.
As for this faith thing, looking at the Iliad, and how Zeus has a conversation about why he doesn't want to kill Hector, because "hey he offers sacrifices faithfully", but in the end relents to Athena (I think it was), shows how even if you did everything right, you could still get on the bad side of a god. If a god tells you to do something, you are SOL. You just do the thing. And human sacrifice was part of ancient near east worship. Heck there is a story in the bible about how godly Israelite warriors were stopped because a pagan king sacrificed his son to a pagan god.
27 Then he took his oldest son who was to reign in his placeand offered him for a burnt offering on the wall. And there came great wrath against Israel. And they withdrew from him and returned to their own land." 2 Kings 3:27 (ESV) Nice and sanitized in most older translations.
Okay now he is all yours again Archaeopteryx.