# We have so far to go....



## ambush80 (Oct 27, 2015)

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/1...cmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obnetwork


_"It is the same area where a group of tourists were arrested in May for posing nude on top of the country’s highest mountain which locals said ‘offended the gods’ and triggered an earthquake, killing 18 people.

A Facebook user who saw these new photos wrote “If a tsunami comes, then we will know who to blame.”"_


----------



## Israel (Oct 28, 2015)

To go to what?


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 28, 2015)

Israel said:


> To go to what?



To a world where people do not chalk up natural disasters to perceived sleights against their version of God. How many people have said recently the U.S. is going to end because we extended marriage rights to gay people? If I remember correctly when Katrina struck New Orleans a bunch of people attributed the ensuing disaster to the sinful lifestyle of the city.. not to the inadvisability of building a city on the coast beneath sea level, and the unfortunately powerful hurricane that formed for fairly well understood reasons.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 28, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> To a world where people do not chalk up natural disasters to perceived sleights against their version of God. How many people have said recently the U.S. is going to end because we extended marriage rights to gay people? If I remember correctly when Katrina struck New Orleans a bunch of people attributed the ensuing disaster to the sinful lifestyle of the city.. not to the inadvisability of building a city on the coast beneath sea level, and the unfortunately powerful hurricane that formed for fairly well understood reasons.



Isreal is just being coy.  That's what he does


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 28, 2015)

We are coming into an age where we have the most information ever available at our fingertips. Now we just have to figure out how to balance it.   My vision is we will see a day soon where the type of ignorance discussed in the article is eradicated.


----------



## Israel (Oct 28, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Isreal is just being coy.  That's what he does



You think it's really being "coy"? You titled the thead...no one else. Am I wrong? Being devious? Is there not an inherent admission toward a "something"...either idea, or ideal, toward which a something must progress till it is realized. 
Are you not in service to an ideal?


----------



## Israel (Oct 28, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> We are coming into an age where we have the most information ever available at our fingertips. Now we just have to figure out how to balance it.   My vision is we will see a day soon where the type of ignorance discussed in the article is eradicated.




To quote another:


Classic.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 28, 2015)

Israel said:


> You think it's really being "coy"? You titled the thead...no one else. Am I wrong? Being devious?



Yes. Unless you only read titles and reply. Then, you are being something quite different.

After reading the body of the post, it was casual to the most obvious observer what the title meant. 
Surely, with your command of the language, you got it.


----------



## Israel (Oct 28, 2015)

C'mon...now who's being coy?
It's not as if the story was posted toward anything but a repudiation of a form of deism. Even the title of the piece refers to "Muslim fury". If you wanted to make a case for "a long way to go" toward being able to be nude on beaches...as though one had a deep commitment to being au naturel at the shore...well, I suppose there's enough latitude still left to backtrack.

But that's not really what the point is, is it? Especially if you read what's quoted of the article in the OP.

And I am not even remotely interested in making a case for deism off the piece. But the truth is plain as stated ...a long way to "go" is toward a something  foreseen, or imagined...but not yet realized...to be worked toward. An idea. Or ideal. Particularly relative to what would be an "ideal" for man.

Far be it from me to think I could discourage anyone, or want to...just don't play coy when you're caught seeking after something you haven't seen...but believe could be...and may even be...just there...a little bit ahead. After all, ya gotta serve somebody...


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 28, 2015)

Israel said:


> C'mon...now who's being coy?
> It's not as if the story was posted toward anything but a repudiation of a form of deism. Even the title of the piece refers to "Muslim fury". If you wanted to make a case for "a long way to go" toward being able to be nude on beaches...as though one had a deep commitment to being au naturel at the shore...well, I suppose there's enough latitude still left to backtrack.
> 
> But that's not really what the point is, is it? Especially if you read what's quoted of the article in the OP.
> ...



I don't think there is a holistic 'ideal' that ambush was going for here, sometimes it is enough to speak out against an injustice without knowing a clear path to saving all of humanity from itself. My take on the spirit of the discussion is that this is another case of nonsensical religious edicts about nudity and how it may offend their even less sensical god(s), causing real harm to people who were just trying to enjoy their life. While admittedly many things much more horrific than being jailed for apparently taking a topless picture on a beach occur due to religious zealots and their establishments around the world, it doesn't mean that we cant lay this at the feet of religion as yet another injustice, and laugh at them for holding such ridiculous beliefs as to think a few people having nude fun on the beach is going to lead to a tsunami.

Lets just hope there isn't actually a tsunami now.. they'll probably charge them with murder for every victim of the wave if there is.


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 28, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I don't think there is a holistic 'ideal' that ambush was going for here, sometimes it is enough to speak out against an injustice without knowing a clear path to saving all of humanity from itself. My take on the spirit of the discussion is that this is another case of nonsensical religious edicts about nudity and how it may offend their even less sensical god(s), causing real harm to people who were just trying to enjoy their life. While admittedly many things much more horrific than being jailed for apparently taking a topless picture on a beach occur due to religious zealots and their establishments around the world, it doesn't mean that we cant lay this at the feet of religion as yet another injustice, and laugh at them for holding such ridiculous beliefs as to think a few people having nude fun on the beach is going to lead to a tsunami.
> 
> Lets just hope there isn't actually a tsunami now.. they'll probably charge them with murder for every victim of the wave if there is.



I guess you do have to spell it out....

Thanks.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 28, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I don't think there is a holistic 'ideal' that ambush was going for here, sometimes it is enough to speak out against an injustice without knowing a clear path to saving all of humanity from itself. My take on the spirit of the discussion is that this is another case of nonsensical religious edicts about nudity and how it may offend their even less sensical god(s), causing real harm to people who were just trying to enjoy their life. While admittedly many things much more horrific than being jailed for apparently taking a topless picture on a beach occur due to religious zealots and their establishments around the world, it doesn't mean that we cant lay this at the feet of religion as yet another injustice, and laugh at them for holding such ridiculous beliefs as to think a few people having nude fun on the beach is going to lead to a tsunami.
> 
> Lets just hope there isn't actually a tsunami now.. they'll probably charge them with murder for every victim of the wave if there is.



Well put.


----------



## Israel (Oct 28, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I don't think there is a holistic 'ideal' that ambush was going for here, sometimes it is enough to speak out against an injustice without knowing a clear path to saving all of humanity from itself. My take on the spirit of the discussion is that this is another case of nonsensical religious edicts about nudity and how it may offend their even less sensical god(s), causing real harm to people who were just trying to enjoy their life. While admittedly many things much more horrific than being jailed for apparently taking a topless picture on a beach occur due to religious zealots and their establishments around the world, it doesn't mean that we cant lay this at the feet of religion as yet another injustice, and laugh at them for holding such ridiculous beliefs as to think a few people having nude fun on the beach is going to lead to a tsunami.
> 
> Lets just hope there isn't actually a tsunami now.. they'll probably charge them with murder for every victim of the wave if there is.



Do you willfully ignore the implications of that statement...or just imagine the part of humanity that needs saving from itself is of everything else except you?


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 29, 2015)

Israel said:


> Do you willfully ignore the implications of that statement...or just imagine the part of humanity that needs saving from itself is of everything else except you?



While of course I personally think I have good reasons for believing the things I do, I'm under no illusion that I am omniscient and know a path forward. I'm equally aware that in all likelihood there are plenty of things that I hold incorrect positions on that I may never discover in my lifetime. Are you willfully ignoring my implicit admission that I don't have the solutions and implying that i'm arrogant in spite of this?

If we are waiting for a perfect solution before acting against things that are clearly wrong, we're going to be waiting a long time for the kind of 'ideal for man' you propose. I sincerely doubt that such a thing exists except relative to each individual. Are you a deist in the sense that you think there is an absolute 'ideal'?


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 29, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> While of course I personally think I have good reasons for believing the things I do, I'm under no illusion that I am omniscient and know a path forward. I'm equally aware that in all likelihood there are plenty of things that I hold incorrect positions on that I may never discover in my lifetime. Are you willfully ignoring my implicit admission that I don't have the solutions and implying that i'm arrogant in spite of this?
> 
> If we are waiting for a perfect solution before acting against things that are clearly wrong, we're going to be waiting a long time for the kind of 'ideal for man' you propose. I sincerely doubt that such a thing exists except relative to each individual. Are you a deist in the sense that you think there is an absolute 'ideal'?



I think we can establish some base lines.  I can't see how one believing themselves born wretched could possibly result in a  state of mental well being.


----------



## gordon 2 (Oct 29, 2015)

What does the Christian hero say about so called "acts of God"? On what side of the "we"  fence is He?

 "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4"Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? 5"I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."

So yes some have a long way to go.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Oct 29, 2015)

gordon 2 said:


> What does the Christian hero say about so called "acts of God"? On what side of the "we"  fence is He?
> 
> "I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish. 4"Or do you suppose that those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them were worse culprits than all the men who live in Jerusalem? 5"I tell you, no, but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish."
> 
> So yes some have a long way to go.



You're going to have to prove that the bible is the inspired word of God if you want anyone outside of the christian community to take its contents seriously. Don't worry though, you aren't alone, we atheists are waiting on a good reason to think any other religious text is god(s)' inspired word as well. So far no dice, although I must say Dianetics was supremely entertaining if unlikely.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 29, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> You're going to have to prove that the bible is the inspired word of God if you want anyone outside of the christian community to take its contents seriously. Don't worry though, you aren't alone, we atheists are waiting on a good reason to think any other religious text is god(s)' inspired word as well. So far no dice, although I must say Dianetics was supremely entertaining if unlikely.



Dianetics was an entertaining read. Inspiring even.


----------



## gemcgrew (Oct 29, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> You're going to have to prove that the bible is the inspired word of God if you want anyone outside of the christian community to take its contents seriously.


Why would we want a non-Christian to take its contents seriously?


----------



## Israel (Oct 30, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> While of course I personally think I have good reasons for believing the things I do, I'm under no illusion that I am omniscient and know a path forward. I'm equally aware that in all likelihood there are plenty of things that I hold incorrect positions on that I may never discover in my lifetime. Are you willfully ignoring my implicit admission that I don't have the solutions and implying that i'm arrogant in spite of this?
> 
> If we are waiting for a perfect solution before acting against things that are clearly wrong, we're going to be waiting a long time for the kind of 'ideal for man' you propose. I sincerely doubt that such a thing exists except relative to each individual. Are you a deist in the sense that you think there is an absolute 'ideal'?



If you can, or care to, go back again and reread all posts...starting with original thread title. I propose nothing except this, the language that is used, employed by a mind that speaks, is as close to a religious (or what in other circumstance or forum area) lexicon as can be found.
I have not, nor have any inclination, to seek to make a case for a better world as in "It's better with believers in it" or anything that might be otherwise derived.
One confesses a something to be achieved, and if he weren't now as scrupulous with his words...he might admit he believes a "purpose" to man...to be worked toward. (Inherent in admission to purpose is of course, design)
Another has a "vision".
Yet another easily states the condition of man is in needing "saving from itself".
You, yourself, quite boldly state "clearly wrong". 
I find no fault in any of these, of themselves, nor could I, for I do not believe the confessions are, of themselves, wrong...or even a lie. Not even misguided. There is purpose. Men have visions, we need saving...and yes, men do wrong. Clearly wrong. But to what and whom is for each to confess.


----------



## drippin' rock (Oct 30, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Why would we want a non-Christian to take its contents seriously?



As I get older, it is increasingly amusing to see Man's need to be on a team.  I'm not above it, I fall prey to it as much as anyone. It can be seen in nearly every aspect of our existence. Funny to watch.


----------



## 660griz (Oct 30, 2015)

> Why would we want a non-Christian to take its contents seriously?



Wow! Just wow.


----------



## Israel (Oct 30, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Why would we want a non-Christian to take its contents seriously?



Instead of marveling at this question, or its writer's possible motives/bent toward tribalism in whatever seeming supposition, why not consider it a question for answer?

(You know what part of Lethal Weapon 2 is the best!)


----------



## ambush80 (Oct 30, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Why would we want a non-Christian to take its contents seriously?



Do you see this as divisive?  Do you think that divisiveness is an obstacle towards peaceful coexistence?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Oct 31, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Why would we want a non-Christian to take its contents seriously?



I think a better question would be "why would we(Christians) think a non-Christian could take it's contents seriously? 
I would think we(Christians) would want non-Christians to take it's contents seriously.

Wait, let me think this through. If God must open the minds of the non-Christians in order to take it's contents seriously, then we(Christians) should not want non-Christians to take it contents seriously as we should want what God wants.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 2, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I think a better question would be "why would we(Christians) think a non-Christian could take it's contents seriously?
> I would think we(Christians) would want non-Christians to take it's contents seriously.
> 
> Wait, let me think this through. If God must open the minds of the non-Christians in order to take it's contents seriously, then we(Christians) should not want non-Christians to take it contents seriously as we should want what God wants.



How do you know what God wants?  

I'm guessing it would require some interpretation of scripture on your part or some kind of revelation.  Do you see how that demands that YOU are the agent of God's message?  The message comes through YOU.  You have to able to declare with certainty that you have heard what God said or you have interpreted scripture correctly.  Are you that confident in your abilities?


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 2, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> How do you know what God wants?
> 
> I'm guessing it would require some interpretation of scripture on your part or some kind of revelation.  Do you see how that demands that YOU are the agent of God's message?  The message comes through YOU.  You have to able to declare with certainty that you have heard what God said or you have interpreted scripture correctly.  Are you that confident in your abilities?



I support his confidence, but it's not his abilities that inspire my support.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 2, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> I support his confidence, but it's not his abilities that inspire my support.



You have to perform the same exercise. How do you know you're getting the signals loud and clear?  Are you getting them with the same clarity as the writers of the Bible?  At some point you guys have to say that God has inspired your thoughts or your interpretation of scripture.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 2, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> You have to perform the same exercise.



No I don’t.
I can save those efforts for someone who does not presuppose that believers are purveys of falsehood**.



> How do you know you're getting the signals loud and clear?



Experience.



> Are you getting them with the same clarity as the writers of the Bible?



How could anyone know another’s experience to that degree?



> At some point you guys have to say that God has inspired your thoughts or your interpretation of scripture.



But we don’t have to claim control of it.



**”you are making it up as you go along”
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=854246&page=4   #99
“Believers talk out of both sides of their mouths …”
(what follows does not conflict)
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=854246&page=5  #101

If you doubt my characterization of your terms, I invite you to go to any job site where you find a hundred, or so, Ironworkers, Carpenters, Masons, and Pipefitters and try out your terminology there.  I'm confident that you will be immediately issued a challenged giving you two choices: 1) to tuck you tail between your legs, 2) prove your point outside the perimeter fence.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 2, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> No I don’t.
> I can save those efforts for someone who does not presuppose that believers are purveys of falsehood**.



When you say you said: "I support his confidence, but it's not his abilities that inspire my support. " I assumed you meant that you believed in God's ability to make the message clear.  Which means that God makes it clear to you as well because you have:



hummerpoo said:


> Experience.



Which is exactly what I was getting to when you agreed with me by saying this:



hummerpoo said:


> How could anyone know another’s experience to that degree?



Then you say this:



hummerpoo said:


> But we don’t have to claim control of it.



Which still requires you to be able to determine if YOU are interpreting the message correctly





hummerpoo said:


> **”you are making it up as you go along”
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=854246&page=4   #99
> “Believers talk out of both sides of their mouths …”
> (what follows does not conflict)
> ...



I'm not sure I understand your point here.  I work in construction.  It's obvious if a tradesman knows what he's talking about or not.  If they're just a bunch of show and no go, they have to leave my job site.  I carry a level around and I will check their work and I don't care if they get offended (they don't because I cut the checks).  So, what is your point?  

It feels like tough guy bluster to me.  Are you "Bucking Up" for Jesus?


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 2, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> When you say you said: "I support his confidence, but it's not his abilities that inspire my support. " I assumed you meant that you believed in God's ability to make the message clear.  Which means that God makes it clear to you as well because you have:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Two points:
1) Civil discourse is more prominent on construction sites than on the AAA.
2) You don't cut my check.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 2, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Two points:
> 1) Civil discourse is more prominent on construction sites than on the AAA.
> 2) You don't cut my check.



What part do you think is uncivil?  The part where I said that you're making stuff up as you go along or the part where I said believers talk out of both sides of their mouths?  Can you explain why those statements aren't true or are uncivil?  I've heard MUCH harsher discourse used on job sites.

I might not cut your check but if you present a case here in public you're subject to having a level put on your work.


----------



## Israel (Nov 2, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What part do you think is uncivil?  The part where I said that you're making stuff up as you go along or the part where I said believers talk out of both sides of their mouths?  Can you explain why those statements aren't true or are uncivil?  I've heard MUCH harsher discourse used on job sites.
> 
> I might not cut your check but if you present a case here in public you're subject to having a level put on your work.


Indeed.

Therefore thus says the Lord GOD, "Behold, I am laying in Zion a stone, a tested stone, A costly cornerstone for the foundation, firmly placed. He who believes in it will not be disturbed. "I will make justice the measuring line And righteousness the level; Then hail will sweep away the refuge of lies And the waters will overflow the secret place.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 2, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> How do you know what God wants?
> 
> I'm guessing it would require some interpretation of scripture on your part or some kind of revelation.  Do you see how that demands that YOU are the agent of God's message?  The message comes through YOU.  You have to able to declare with certainty that you have heard what God said or you have interpreted scripture correctly.  Are you that confident in your abilities?



Because of God's omnipotence I'm pretty sure of what God wants. I can be an agent of God's message but that's not important in knowing that what is happening is what God wants. 
I only have to be confident in knowing God gets what he wants. Therefore my abilities are actually traits of God's abilities.
If you remember Jesus did nothing of his own accord but everything through the power(omnipotence) of his Father.

Jesus was just better at acknowledging his abilities were his Fathers than us other humans are at acknowledging our abilities are from our adopted Father.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 2, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> What part do you think is uncivil?  The part where I said that you're making stuff up as you go along or the part where I said believers talk out of both sides of their mouths?  Can you explain why those statements aren't true or are uncivil?



Both statements were introduced as illustrations of what I thought would be without benefit; in the former “you’re” doesn’t seem to apply as it wasn’t directed to me; as to the latter, I’ve given a general rebuttal; the statement is yours to prove.

The euphemisms are obvious and I would prefer not to expand. 



> I've heard MUCH harsher discourse used on job sites.



As have I, but that’s not what I said.



> I might not cut your check but if you present a case here in public you're subject to having a level put on your work.



The only case I have presented lately on this sub-form was 
http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=854246&page=4   #100
and, judging from the small portion I have seen, it seems to be doing pretty well without further support.

Wait; it could be said that I was making a case on the incivility thing, although I didn’t think of it as making a case.  If you think we have a different perception of what is civil and what is not, I can go with that.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 3, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Both statements were introduced as illustrations of what I thought would be without benefit; in the former “you’re” doesn’t seem to apply as it wasn’t directed to me; as to the latter, I’ve given a general rebuttal; the statement is yours to prove.
> 
> The euphemisms are obvious and I would prefer not to expand.



To the part where I said "believers talk out both sides of their mouths" I was referring to the fact that believers say "no one can TRULY understand God's motives" then two sentences later say "God wants you to do 'this'".  Is that accurate? 





hummerpoo said:


> As have I, but that’s not what I said.



You said "1) Civil discourse is more prominent on construction sites than on the AAA."

I have heard enough malicious and obscene language from the plumber to get 5 of us banned just this morning and he was just unloading tools.





hummerpoo said:


> The only case I have presented lately on this sub-form was
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=854246&page=4   #100
> and, judging from the small portion I have seen, it seems to be doing pretty well without further support.
> 
> Wait; it could be said that I was making a case on the incivility thing, although I didn’t think of it as making a case.  If you think we have a different perception of what is civil and what is not, I can go with that.



“… I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.” 

I believe no one responded to this because it clearly illustrates the weakness of the believers position.  You did my work for me.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 3, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> To the part where I said "believers talk out both sides of their mouths" I was referring to the fact that believers say "no one can TRULY understand God's motives" then two sentences later say "God wants you to do 'this'".  Is that accurate?



Yes, that is mostly accurate (mostly, because God has revealed His motives through scripture in some things).  However, there is no conflict in these two ascribed statements nor was there conflict in the two completely different statements that you ascribed to believers when you originally made the accusation.

I feel like I’m dove hunting on the 4th Saturday of the season here.




> You said "1) Civil discourse is more prominent on construction sites than on the AAA."
> 
> I have heard enough malicious and obscene language from the plumber to get 5 of us banned just this morning and he was just unloading tools.



“more prominent”, pervasive, likely to occur; but it is obvious that we see civility differently.  I’m talking about attitude toward the other person conveyed by the words, not the sort of words, or vocal amplitude, used to convey the attitude.




> “… I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know.”
> 
> I believe no one responded to this because it clearly illustrates the weakness of the believers position.  You did my work for me.



And by choosing to highlight a relatively insignificant caveat (that only by the power of God, will any of this change) and ignore that which is the true foundation of this sub-forum (people who do not, and possibly can not, understand one another because of circumstances they may, or may not, control), you have once again proven my contention, (It ain’t goin’ nowhere).

What am I doing here?  I've been asking myself that question.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Nov 3, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Because of God's omnipotence I'm pretty sure of what God wants. I can be an agent of God's message but that's not important in knowing that what is happening is what God wants.
> I only have to be confident in knowing God gets what he wants. Therefore my abilities are actually traits of God's abilities.
> If you remember Jesus did nothing of his own accord but everything through the power(omnipotence) of his Father.
> 
> Jesus was just better at acknowledging his abilities were his Fathers than us other humans are at acknowledging our abilities are from our adopted Father.



Why does evil exist if god is omnipotent and everything we are is a result of his choices? Is your God concept omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent? Do you believe in the theological argument of 'free-will'?

That's not even to question why an omnipotent god would have a compulsion to commit filicide to forgive people for crimes they were pre-destined to commit by the very act of creation.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 3, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> What am I doing here?  I've been asking myself that question.




Proverbs 27:17New International Version (NIV)

17 
As iron sharpens iron,
    so one person sharpens another.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 3, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> Why does evil exist if god is omnipotent and everything we are is a result of his choices? Is your God concept omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent? Do you believe in the theological argument of 'free-will'?
> 
> That's not even to question why an omnipotent god would have a compulsion to commit filicide to forgive people for crimes they were pre-destined to commit by the very act of creation.



I've grown up believing in man's free will. Now I can't even see how an omnipotent, omniscient God can have free will.
God can't make any choices using his omnipotence because his omniscience prevents him from doing so.
Everything is predestined so therefore not even God can change. The Bible says God never changes.
God being perfect doesn't need free will.

I don't really understand the concept of some lost sinners never being given the eye opening Holy Spirit to be of the Elect. Even with free will man can't use his free will to seek out God's grace. His heart must be pricked. Then he can use his free will to accept or reject Jesus. Therefore even with free will man doesn't control his own salvation destiny. Man may have a choice but only after God "calls." God doesn't call everyone or does he? If he "calls" everyone and his call is "irresistible," then everyone will be saved. That would be the most benevolent thing for God to do but we don't believe God will do this.

Man's free will isn't of much use if God never "calls."
God can't call based on current events because of his omniscience. He has to follow the predestined order he predestined for himself.

We know that Jesus has always been a part of God's plan as was Adam's sin and Satan's fall. The Jews killing Jesus with the help of the Romans was God's plan (and we know that it was), because Jesus dying on a cross was the Word from the beginning. If all of those events from the beginning of time to the time of the Cross was God's plan, why wouldn't everything else be? Satan's fall, Adam's sin, the Jews killing Jesus? How could the Cross be God's plan A if everything else wasn't God's plan A. God didn't have a plan B because of his omnipotence. He didn't need one. God doesn't change his plan as we change as he already knows. Therefore nothing can change the destiny of anything.
Especially if the "end" will be left up to God. Then not even God has the free will to change anything.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Nov 3, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> I've grown up believing in man's free will. Now I can't even see how an omnipotent, omniscient God can have free will.
> God can't make any choices using his omnipotence because his omniscience prevents him from doing so.
> Everything is predestined so therefore not even God can change. The Bible says God never changes.
> God being perfect doesn't need free will.
> ...



To keep myself clear I will split a few points up with numbers:

1) Isn't this all completely incompatible with free-will for men? In your version of events God created us with perfect knowledge himself of everything that will occur as the result of his actions because he is omniscient. This alone isn't problematic until you claim that we aren't pre-destined, because clearly from what you have said we are since God already knows how all of history including the 'afterlife' will play out. Pre-destination is incompatible with free-will.

2) You are making conflicting claims when you say that God is omnipotent AND cannot change. Either God is omnipotent and can do absolutely anything he wants including rolling back creation to make changes as he pleases, or changing the course of history on a whim, or he is not omnipotent.

3) Even if we assume there is no contradiction in the concepts of free-will and pre-destination existing at the same time, it doesn't explain why we need this (to me) illogical and unlikely tautology to explain our existence.

How could my entire path have already been laid out from the beginning of what we know as time if I have free-will? It just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't claim to understand why I am here or what it is or means to be alive, but I don't think miraculous assertions with no proof are a good way to discover truths about our existence in this universe.


----------



## hummerpoo (Nov 3, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Proverbs 27:17New International Version (NIV)
> 
> 17
> As iron sharpens iron,
> so one person sharpens another.



Probably a good answer;
I'll pray on it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 3, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> 2) You are making conflicting claims when you say that God is omnipotent AND cannot change. Either God is omnipotent and can do absolutely anything he wants including rolling back creation to make changes as he pleases, or changing the course of history on a whim, or he is not omnipotent.


Categorical error.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 3, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> How could my entire path have already been laid out from the beginning of what we know as time if I have free-will? It just doesn't make any sense to me. I don't claim to understand why I am here or what it is or means to be alive, but I don't think miraculous assertions with no proof are a good way to discover truths about our existence in this universe.



Just so I know where you stand, do you believe, you as an individual, possess free will? From there what about natural events such as rain, weather, evolution, life, and death?
Does all of that happen at random and you then use your free will to make choices based on these random occurrences?
Since you don't know why your are here, does that mean you were predestined to appear or just randomly showed up? Do you believe in fate and Karma or is life just a big box of randomness?

I will agree that if your life's path was already laid out, you have no free will.
If your life was already laid out by God, he has no free will unless he decided your destiny after the beginning. In other words God decided to form your destiny using time restraints instead of always knowing your destiny. 
God would have to existed, for a little while in time and then chose your destiny for him to have free will. If he always knew your destiny then he didn't have a choice as your destiny was always.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 3, 2015)

hummerpoo said:


> Probably a good answer;
> I'll pray on it.



Make sure the answer is from Him and not from you.  Good luck.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Nov 3, 2015)

Artfuldodger said:


> Just so I know where you stand, do you believe, you as an individual, possess free will? From there what about natural events such as rain, weather, evolution, life, and death?
> Does all of that happen at random and you then use your free will to make choices based on these random occurrences?
> Since you don't know why your are here, does that mean you were predestined to appear or just randomly showed up? Do you believe in fate and Karma or is life just a big box of randomness?
> 
> ...



I believe I possess an illusion of free-will brought about by the incredible complexity of the factors that lead to my existence. I can and do make determinations about what to do, so in that sense I have free will, but in spite all of the randomness and complexity we experience, I think if the universe started again in exactly the same way that it did, everything would play out exactly the same. A change of even a single atom from its place in the origin of the universe could potentially drastically change the course of history.

In short, I think where we are at this moment in time was an inevitable result of the rules and structure of our universe, but the complexity of this is so great that we don't realize it. I could very easily have never written this post, or used a different word somewhere in the writing. But I have, and always would have. I do not believe in fate or karma, I think the 'big box of randomness' assessment is likely =).


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Nov 3, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Categorical error.



I'm not sure what you mean.

Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything.

A) God is omnipotent
B) God cannot change

These two statements are incompatible aren't they? If you are saying that God is illogical by definition then I would agree with you, but I don't think that helps the case for believing a god exists.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 4, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I'm not sure what you mean.
> 
> Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything.
> 
> ...


They are meaningless. God is much more than omnipotent.


MiGGeLLo said:


> If you are saying that God is illogical by definition then I would agree with you, but I don't think that helps the case for believing a god exists.


I am saying that you are illogical. Your statements are my evidence. The God of the Bible describes what he is. He also describes what you are and why you would think this way. He also tells us that no human can fix your condition. A miracle is required.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Nov 4, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> They are meaningless. God is much more than omnipotent.
> 
> I am saying that you are illogical. Your statements are my evidence. The God of the Bible describes what he is. He also describes what you are and why you would think this way. He also tells us that no human can fix your condition. A miracle is required.



I think I've mentioned before here, but I'll mention it again, maybe even add it to my signature. If you want me (or any skeptic) to believe what the bible says, you are going to have to prove that there is good reason to believe the Bible is anything more than fiction. There are plenty of religious texts around the world that claim their God is the right one, what makes yours any different?

If I were charismatic enough and going to try to start a religion to enforce my version of morality on the world, I would make sure to make the God of my religion as inaccessible to logic as possible too. "He doesn't have to make sense he's God, have faith, it's a virtue" is too perfect a defense to any critics to pass up. It seems to be one more strike against the likelihood of the God of christianity being a real entity, very similar to the very carrot-and-stick promise of heaven and CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, which are similarly unfalsifiable. It's extremely convenient to have your punishments and rewards offloaded into a time that no-one knows even exists, that way the lack of punishments and rewards on this earth aren't a challenge to the faith don't you think? It's all about shutting down dissent.

Unfortunately for the God experts, we live in a society that is increasingly acknowledging the validity and usefulness of science, and science has a general disdain for unfalsifiable claims. If there is nothing that would invalidate the hypothesis, it isn't a very useful hypothesis. I've found the 'God' hypothesis to be unfalsifiable, self-contradictory, and unpalatable (for the christian version at least).

You can claim whatever you want to about your God, but until you can show more evidence for him than I have for the flying spaghetti monster and his meatbally greatness, I am sticking to my pasta. R'amen.

Check out http://www.venganza.org/ if you hadn't heard of the FSM =D. It's pretty hilarious if you can get over the fact that its a parody of organized religion.


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 4, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I think I've mentioned before here, but I'll mention it again, maybe even add it to my signature. If you want me (or any skeptic) to believe what the bible says, you are going to have to prove that there is good reason to believe the Bible is anything more than fiction. There are plenty of religious texts around the world that claim their God is the right one, what makes yours any different?
> 
> If I were charismatic enough and going to try to start a religion to enforce my version of morality on the world, I would make sure to make the God of my religion as inaccessible to logic as possible too. "He doesn't have to make sense he's God, have faith, it's a virtue" is too perfect a defense to any critics to pass up. It seems to be one more strike against the likelihood of the God of christianity being a real entity, very similar to the very carrot-and-stick promise of heaven and CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, which are similarly unfalsifiable. It's extremely convenient to have your punishments and rewards offloaded into a time that no-one knows even exists, that way the lack of punishments and rewards on this earth aren't a challenge to the faith don't you think? It's all about shutting down dissent.
> 
> ...



This won't happen.


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 4, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I think I've mentioned before here, but I'll mention it again, maybe even add it to my signature. If you want me (or any skeptic) to believe what the bible says, you are going to have to prove that there is good reason to believe the Bible is anything more than fiction. There are plenty of religious texts around the world that claim their God is the right one, what makes yours any different?
> 
> If I were charismatic enough and going to try to start a religion to enforce my version of morality on the world, I would make sure to make the God of my religion as inaccessible to logic as possible too. "He doesn't have to make sense he's God, have faith, it's a virtue" is too perfect a defense to any critics to pass up. It seems to be one more strike against the likelihood of the God of christianity being a real entity, very similar to the very carrot-and-stick promise of heaven and CensoredCensoredCensoredCensored, which are similarly unfalsifiable. It's extremely convenient to have your punishments and rewards offloaded into a time that no-one knows even exists, that way the lack of punishments and rewards on this earth aren't a challenge to the faith don't you think? It's all about shutting down dissent.
> 
> ...



I'm on your side here,(go team), but isn't the Big Bang also an 'unfalsifiable claim'?

Something else I wondered from the video, How do the scientists know the microwaves they intercepted are from the beginning?


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Nov 4, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I'm on your side here,(go team), but isn't the Big Bang also an 'unfalsifiable claim'?
> 
> Something else I wondered from the video, How do the scientists know the microwaves they intercepted are from the beginning?



Ahh I didn't even see the video. Take anything they say with a grain of salt, it doesn't really have to be scientifically sound, they are making it up mostly and don't expect it to be taken seriously other than as a mirror to hold to organized religion =D.

To address the question about the 'big bang' however:

I'm not a physicist, so I can't adequately answer, but from my understanding we have a _theory_ that the big bang is how things occured based on what we observe of the universe. The major piece of evidences I know of are the fact that the observable universe is expanding, and the background radiation we find everywhere.

The major difference between the big bang theory and religion is that it _is_ falsifiable. If the scientific community found evidence that is contradictory to the possibility, it would be accepted and our model of how the universe may have begun would be revised. Our scientific theories are derived from observations and evidence. New evidence or finding that previous evidence was non-credible would change our positions.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 4, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I think I've mentioned before here, but I'll mention it again, maybe even add it to my signature. If you want me (or any skeptic) to believe what the bible says, you are going to have to prove that there is good reason to believe the Bible is anything more than fiction.


And my sig line would say this, "I have no desire for a non-Christian to believe what the Bible says".


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Nov 4, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> And my sig line would say this, "I have no desire for a non-Christian to believe what the Bible says".



That's hard to believe given that you are using it as a basis for the claims you make. Correct me if I'm wrong:

1) You claim my argument is illegitimate because of a 'categorical error'. 

2)Your evidence for this being a 'categorical error' is the biblical definition of god as completely beyond our understanding, and therefore (presumably) not subject to abstract logical concepts such as omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence.

3)When asked why someone should consider what the Bible claims about a God without presenting credible proof, you claim that you don't want non-christians to believe what the bible says. 

4) Gloat in your presumably superior but completely unsubstantiated knowledge?

I'm not sure what to think of this one... 

On a separate note the church I was raised in placed a pretty heavy emphasis on bringing people to Jesus. Is this not true in the christian community you are part of? I could see this being slightly different for atheists who are well aware of the claims the Bible makes and have rejected them, but if is the case I'm not sure why you would bother to call my interpretation a 'categorical error'?


----------



## Madman (Nov 4, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> I'm not sure what you mean.
> 
> Omnipotent: having unlimited power; able to do anything.
> 
> ...



If I am reading this correctly you have presented a false dichotomy.

Are you saying: If God were all powerful then He would have the ability to change, and If He can't change then He is not all powerful?  

There are more than those two options.

There are Biblical statements about what God cannot do, He cannot lie, He cannot deny Himself, He cannot contradict His character.

What the Bible claims is that God can do anything that can be done, he is all powerful.


----------



## Israel (Nov 4, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> That's hard to believe given that you are using it as a basis for the claims you make. Correct me if I'm wrong:
> 
> 1) You claim my argument is illegitimate because of a 'categorical error'.
> 
> ...



I am thinking, if you grew up in some form of a Christian community, that you may not be unfamiliar with some of the things Jesus said, and prayed.
You may recall this?

"I pray for them: I pray not for the world, but for them which thou hast given me; for they are thine."

Jesus has all that belongs to the Father. And has full confidence in the Father's recognition of His children.

The preaching of the message is not "an attempt" to "try" to bring people to the Lord. It is the clarion call to children that it is safe to come home. And home is where they are being told (Or, if you prefer, commanded) to come. Now.


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 4, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> That's hard to believe given that you are using it as a basis for the claims you make. Correct me if I'm wrong:
> 
> 1) You claim my argument is illegitimate because of a 'categorical error'.
> 
> ...



Same reason any of us tell each other they're mistaken or wrong: EGO.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 4, 2015)

God usually doesn't work outside the confines of his laws of nature. He keeps in the boundaries of the science he created. Gravity is gravity and even things on other planets are made of atoms amd molecules of elements.
He works within the confines of hydraulics, circulation, and cell division. He planned for plants and animals to evolve.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Nov 4, 2015)

It appears free will is limited, for God and us. God can't do certain tasks and man only has reactions to actions. Man can't choose God until God chooses him. God can't choose someone he didn't elect at the foundation of the world.

Man doesn't use logic to understand God. He uses faith which comes with grace. This is why there is no way a non-Christian can believe the Bible. They're called non-believers for a reason.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 4, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> That's hard to believe given that you are using it as a basis for the claims you make. Correct me if I'm wrong:
> 
> 1) You claim my argument is illegitimate because of a 'categorical error'.


Yes


MiGGeLLo said:


> 2)Your evidence for this being a 'categorical error' is the biblical definition of god as completely beyond our understanding, and therefore (presumably) not subject to abstract logical concepts such as omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence.


What is an "abstract logical concept"? You have something particular in mind here. Something so particular in fact, that one word by itself was not sufficient to describe it. Would it be legitimate for me to single out one of the words in order to better attack it?


MiGGeLLo said:


> 3)When asked why someone should consider what the Bible claims about a God without presenting credible proof, you claim that you don't want non-christians to believe what the bible says.


Yes. I reject your contradiction.


MiGGeLLo said:


> 4) Gloat in your presumably superior but completely unsubstantiated knowledge?
> 
> I'm not sure what to think of this one...


Please present what I said that would indicate gloating.


MiGGeLLo said:


> On a separate note the church I was raised in placed a pretty heavy emphasis on bringing people to Jesus.


It sounds as if we attended the same church.


MiGGeLLo said:


> Is this not true in the christian community you are part of?


It is not true.


MiGGeLLo said:


> I could see this being slightly different for atheists who are well aware of the claims the Bible makes and have rejected them, but if is the case I'm not sure why you would bother to call my interpretation a 'categorical error'?


By "categorical error", I mean that it is not a question that would apply to God's ability.


----------



## Israel (Nov 5, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Same reason any of us tell each other they're mistaken or wrong: EGO.



There are times this may be true. You do, of course, know of times it is not.


----------



## MiGGeLLo (Nov 5, 2015)

Madman said:


> If I am reading this correctly you have presented a false dichotomy.
> 
> Are you saying: If God were all powerful then He would have the ability to change, and If He can't change then He is not all powerful?
> 
> ...



I can lie, I can deny myself, and I can contradict my character. There are many things I cannot practically do, but these are within my power. There are many other things that I cannot do, such as ignore the laws of gravity and float off as I please, and as such I am not omnipotent. 

Why do you say an entity is omnipotent if there are things they cannot do, doesn't it go against the very definition of the word? When I cannot fly due to the fact that I cannot contradict gravity, I'm not omnipotent. But if God cannot lie because of some other seemingly absolute law, he is still omnipotent?

I don't see why it is a false dichotomy.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 5, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> Same reason any of us tell each other they're mistaken or wrong: EGO.



More often I think people want to know what's true.  Sometimes people want to expose thing that are clearly not true.



Israel said:


> There are times this may be true. You do, of course, know of times it is not.



You've made alot of truth claims about how Jesus talks to you or that Jesus has taken away our sins with his sacrifice or that he has risen from the dead but I find it odd that you're reluctant to say something like "I know because he and I had brunch and he told me all these things are true".

You say thing like "He has never let me down" but you don't give any examples.  You should have TONS of examples.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 6, 2015)

MiGGeLLo said:


> But if God cannot lie because of some other seemingly absolute law, he is still omnipotent?
> 
> I don't see why it is a false dichotomy.


Do you believe that just because you can say "If God is omnipotent, he should be able to lie" makes it logical? Lying goes against righteousness, not omnipotence.

Categorical error.


----------



## bigreddwon (Nov 6, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Do you believe that just because you can say "If God is omnipotent, he should be able to lie" makes it logical? Lying goes against righteousness, not omnipotence.
> 
> Categorical error.



Your god does many things that go against 'righteousness', some would say genocide isn't exactly righteous, neither was raping Josephs wife,nor killing Jobs whole family for sport. Sadly, I could go on. The books littered with the atrocities of your righteous god. He was invented as an insecure, needy, murderous egomaniac, and that's his good qualities... why would lying be outside his wheelhouse?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 6, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> Your god does many things that go against 'righteousness', some would say genocide isn't exactly righteous, neither was raping Josephs wife,nor killing Jobs whole family for sport. Sadly, I could go on. The books littered with the atrocities of your righteous god. He was invented as an insecure, needy, murderous egomaniac, and that's his good qualities... why would lying be outside his wheelhouse?



God is careful not to speak.


----------



## bigreddwon (Nov 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> God is careful not to speak.



Only to the sane. He yapps constantly to the insane.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 6, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Do you believe that just because you can say "If God is omnipotent, he should be able to lie" makes it logical? Lying goes against righteousness, not omnipotence.
> 
> Categorical error.



Sounds like you've abandoned Webster for your own definition of things.  And by "your own" I mean whatever it says in the Bible filtered through your now esoteric reasoning process and the aid of supernatural inspiration.  Is that an accurate assessment?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 6, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> Only to the sane. He yapps constantly to the insane.



So do dogs. David Berkowitz and a few others have killed because a dog told them to.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 6, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> Your god does many things that go against 'righteousness', some would say genocide isn't exactly righteous, neither was raping Josephs wife,nor killing Jobs whole family for sport. Sadly, I could go on. The books littered with the atrocities of your righteous god. He was invented as an insecure, needy, murderous egomaniac, and that's his good qualities... why would lying be outside his wheelhouse?



You've got to think of it this way:

1. God is always righteous.

That's all you need to know.  No matter what he does,  Lie, murder, rape, cheat on his taxes, all righteous.  

You don't use OUR definitions of right and wrong when it comes to Him.

It makes sense in a terrible way.


----------



## bigreddwon (Nov 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> So do dogs. David Berkowitz and a few others have killed because a dog told them to.




Slightly different flavors from the same fruit...


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> So do dogs. David Berkowitz and a few others have killed because a dog told them to.



Maybe they were dyslexic.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 6, 2015)

Today we are all one day closer to meeting our Maker than we were yesterday.
The question is does that make you glad or mad?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Today we are all one day closer to meeting our Maker than we were yesterday.
> The question is does that make you glad or mad?



That is a "do you still beat your wife?" question.

Today, we are one day closer to death. The end.
Whether or not one believes there is a 'Maker' to meet is up to the individual.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> That is a "do you still beat your wife?" question.
> 
> Today, we are one day closer to death. The end.
> Whether or not one believes there is a 'Maker' to meet is up to the individual.



So,are you saying that simply choosing not to believe something makes it "poof"...disappear from existence?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> So,are you saying that simply choosing not to believe something makes it "poof"...disappear from existence?



No. I am saying believing in something doesn't make it "poof" exist.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 6, 2015)

660griz said:


> No. I am saying believing in something doesn't make it "poof" exist.



So which is it , glad or mad?


----------



## drippin' rock (Nov 6, 2015)

welderguy said:


> So,are you saying that simply choosing not to believe something makes it "poof"...disappear from existence?



I just ran an experiment.  I just looked at my cat asleep on the sofa and decided to quit believing in it's existence.

I gave it a few minutes, but it never disappeared... So you must be right.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 6, 2015)

drippin' rock said:


> I just ran an experiment.  I just looked at my cat asleep on the sofa and decided to quit believing in it's existence.
> 
> I gave it a few minutes, but it never disappeared... So you must be right.



Bingo.  Same with God.
You can stop believing He exists all you want,but it doesn't make Him cease to exist.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 6, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> Sounds like you've abandoned Webster for your own definition of things.  And by "your own" I mean whatever it says in the Bible filtered through your now esoteric reasoning process and the aid of supernatural inspiration.  Is that an accurate assessment?


I had to read one of his books in high school, probably 1979 or 1980. I read it as an atheist, but I remember him saying that the Bible is the rule and that other books related to it may be helpful. He said that to know the Bible is by God's revelation.

I am glad that you brought this up. I would like to read it again with a better understanding of what he meant. Now I have to find it.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 6, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> I had to read one of his books in high school, probably 1979 or 1980. I read it as an atheist, but I remember him saying that the Bible is the rule and that other books related to it may be helpful. He said that to know the Bible is by God's revelation.
> 
> I am glad that you brought this up. I would like to read it again with a better understanding of what he meant. Now I have to find it.



I was talking about the dictionary but I'm sure you knew that.

As to revelation, It might be different to everyone.  It might be big enough to include me.  Wouldn't that be somethin'?  And I didn't even have to do anything that didn't make sense to me.


----------



## Madman (Nov 9, 2015)

bigreddwon said:


> Your god does many things that go against 'righteousness', some would say genocide isn't exactly righteous, neither was raping Josephs wife,nor killing Jobs whole family for sport. Sadly, I could go on. The books littered with the atrocities of your righteous god. He was invented as an insecure, needy, murderous egomaniac, and that's his good qualities... why would lying be outside his wheelhouse?



Hence the reason for not discussing Holy Scripture with a non-believer.

""I am the Lord's servant," Mary answered. "May your word to me be fulfilled." Then the angel left her."
Luke 1:38


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> I was talking about the dictionary but I'm sure you knew that.


Yes, but only because I am not limited by the dictionary.


ambush80 said:


> As to revelation, It might be different to everyone.  It might be big enough to include me.  Wouldn't that be somethin'?


I would say that it does include you.


ambush80 said:


> And I didn't even have to do anything that didn't make sense to me.


You will always do according to the strongest influence upon your mind. Does the strongest influence have to make sense?


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 9, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Yes, but only because I am not limited by the dictionary.
> 
> I would say that it does include you.



It doesn't end well for me personally but it brings glory to God.  Maybe I get a special place on the shelf, maybe my own drawer, like for Forstner bits.  



gemcgrew said:


> You will always do according to the strongest influence upon your mind. Does the strongest influence have to make sense?



Hopefully I'll notice the signs of insanity before it completely overcomes me and I'll ask for help.  If I act on my crazy thoughts I might get locked up or executed, at very least persecuted, which would be just like they said would happen.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 9, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It doesn't end well for me personally but it brings glory to God.  Maybe I get a special place on the shelf, maybe my own drawer, like for Forstner bits.


Or a place at a table.


ambush80 said:


> Hopefully I'll notice the signs of insanity before it completely overcomes me and I'll ask for help.


The senses are not reliable in the matter.

"I don't remember loving you
I absolutely positively
Know that can't be true
But everyone I know here in this place
Is very strange

If you'll hand me my crayons
I'll be glad to take your name
In case I run across that guy you knew
But I don't remember loving you" John Conlee


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 9, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Or a place at a table.
> 
> The senses are not reliable in the matter.
> 
> ...



It would be awesome if people acted on that, unless they don't understand it correctly.


----------



## Israel (Nov 10, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Or a place at a table.
> 
> The senses are not reliable in the matter.
> 
> ...



yeah...

what is love except the being moved by something that "doesn't make sense to one's self?"

A brother once wrote:

For if we are beside ourselves, it is for God; if we are of sound mind, it is for you.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 10, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It would be awesome if people acted on that, unless they don't understand it correctly.


Yes, but right understanding is always opposed by self-contradictory skepticism.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 10, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> Yes, but right understanding is always opposed by self-contradictory skepticism.



It's subjective.


----------



## gemcgrew (Nov 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It's subjective.


That makes it meaningless. I rely upon God to resolve this.


----------



## ambush80 (Nov 11, 2015)

gemcgrew said:


> That makes it meaningless. I rely upon God to resolve this.



It's meaningful to you (infinitive).

You'll have to trust that the revelation you receive is accurate and from God, the right God, and not from yourself or from something you heard as a child.

How do you do it?  What kind of signals let you know that you are receiving loud and clear?

I know about the internal dialogue in my head.  I can't imagine trying to determine which of it to attribute to God.


----------



## Israel (Nov 11, 2015)

ambush80 said:


> It's meaningful to you (infinitive).
> 
> You'll have to trust that the revelation you receive is accurate and from God, the right God, and not from yourself or from something you heard as a child.
> 
> ...


When I am talking to a man about my need to confess I am not "above" seeking to take advantage in a situation for my own aggrandizement, and a little cartoon shows up on my FB page reminding me that the disciples  (who we have come to know as apostles) dealt with the same matter (in the midst of that very conversation)...well, I understand it's easily written off to coincidence. It matters not at all how anyone else may "see it". But, since I have been persuaded of my constant need of guidance, such a thing means a little more to me than to another, I suppose.
Yes, I could have been completely in error in sharing that cartoon with you, you who asked "well how does Jesus look when he shows up, does he pick up the bill, do other people see him?" But, as I drank my coffee that morning in front of my little box linking me to...what? (the "out there"?) I discovered a thing seemingly coming from that "out there" that I couldn't deny, at that particular moment, in our particular engagement, had a deep resonating with me in the "in here". Who knows...maybe it was a further rebuke of me...and not a seemingly (perhaps to you) simply serendipitous, coincidental non event.
But, I have come to know and believe of the One who "causes all things to "work together" for good...(I would say, "coincide" is not a bad application in that instance) to those who love God and are called according to his purpose."
Now here I recognize the real matter at hand, of which our brother GEM posted in his quote. I can easily be deceived as to my "love" of God...except for his admonition and instruction to me through Jesus Christ which I now here (open to reproof and correction as He sees fit) see...regardless of how enraptured I may be inclined to convince myself I am of this Savior, and that is this...my love is not judged by my imaginings...but how I really treat what I may find as "the least of his brethren".

Now, how funny a place I find myself if I judge a man and say "OK Jesus, I'll really love "that one" that I find the least of yours!" Do you see? Can you see the hilarity of it? I do. And I know it is only One who could lead me to such a place.
I remember my "lame" response to you...and yet...how perfectly sensible it is to me now. 
"How does that prove God?"
Because without all the "yous" ...in the "out there" I begin to apprehend "it is not good for the man to be alone"...and the gift, in contentions, in temporary disagreements, in wrestlings with what I say "Lord, this doesn't look like you" I hear..."look again".
Repent.
And...repentance is good...for someone who lives in this house...so sure always...that what he first sees is true. But isn't.


Do you know, care to know something in the scriptures that always piqued my interest, as dreadful as it appeared?


----------



## 660griz (Nov 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> So which is it , glad or mad?



Neither. No maker to meet. Just life...then death.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 12, 2015)

660griz said:


> Neither. No maker to meet. Just life...then death.



Not mad.Not glad...but without hope?

Then I totally understand why you're not glad.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> Not mad.Not glad...but without hope?


 I prefer to set my sights on goals, hopes and dreams,  in the current life. 


> Then I totally understand why you're not glad.



Not glad about what? I thought your question was around meeting your maker. Nothing to be glad or mad about. 

Not glad about just dying? Everything just dies. Leave it to humans to be so arrogant as to think we can be immortal. Silly.


----------



## welderguy (Nov 12, 2015)

660griz said:


> I prefer to set my sights on goals, hopes and dreams,  in the current life.
> 
> 
> Not glad about what? I thought your question was around meeting your maker. Nothing to be glad or mad about.
> ...



We are not immortal.But there is life after death,if thats what you mean.I don't see why its arrogant to believe that though,because wedid nothing to get it.Its a free gift.


----------



## 660griz (Nov 12, 2015)

welderguy said:


> We are not immortal.But there is life after death,if thats what you mean.I don't see why its arrogant to believe that though,because wedid nothing to get it.Its a free gift.



Whatever gets you through the day.
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.


----------

