Posted by so on May 19, 2005, at 22:35:18
In reply to Re: God may or may not test us » so, posted by alexandra_k on May 19, 2005, at 20:43:08
> > > > > > > But we can always rely on Dr. Bob. :)
>
> > And I also wonder, do you appreciate that some people who hold a profound faith in what they beleive to be an actual supreme being might be distressed by an assertion, qualified only by an ambiguous collection of punctuation marks, that any mere mortal, even a doctor, is as reliable as the god in which they place -- or attempt to place -- absolute faith? I would wonder if Scientologists would be particularly taken back when they read a suggestion that a psychiatrist is as reliable as "god".
>
> Maybe...
> Maybe I'm missing the point.
> I thought it went
>
> 'god may or may not test us but we can rely on Dr Bob to do so'.
>
> It is arguable whether god tests us or not.
> Strictly speaking I do believe that it is supposed to go that god does not test us, rather, by giving us free will he allows satan to test us.
>
> So.
> 'god may or may not test us'
> Indeed.
> Not just because he might only exist as an idea (which I don't think was Dinah's point)
> But also because, strictly speaking if we assume (have faith) that god exists then he doesn't do the testing - satan does.That would only be considered true by particular sects of some faiths that hold certain cosmologies, but i'm not that interested in the topic of cosmology and if I were, we would have to drag the discussion back over to the religion board, ... nah, he said bring it here, so ... if the presumptions of a god were true, if the presumption of a divinely constructed human free will were true, and if humans are tested, it could be that humans are allowed a few days in the sun during which time they may test theirselves.
My real point and hopefully my final word on this is matter below:
Maybe...
> God allows Dr Bob to test us...
>
> Hmm.
My read of the post was that god might or might not be using us for experimental purposes, but at least the psychiatrist in question is reliable. I read what it said, and not the implicit message you state was intended, which was that the psychiatrist could be relied upon to administer tests.Okay, I can add that if the psychiatrist is intentionally testy in his administrative style, his testiness would not be consistent with his stated purpose or role in the site. But anyone familiar with my recent posts might recognize that I am not a beleiver in the consistency of human motivation, nor of the coherence of human communicaiton with inner thoughts. So if he is testy and claims otherwise, it would be consistent with what I expect.
poster:so
thread:499683
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/500155.html