A Christian perspective of understanding

realitykeeper

In the book of Revelations, it says let he who has understanding count the number of the beast. This statement suggests that he/she who does not have understanding will not count the number of the beast.

By contrast: Corinthians 14:33 says: For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. So Satan strives to cause confusion.

I think human striving to understand God and other people is where the focus of humanity should be. This striving is valuable and necessary in and of itself. In Timothy 2:7 it says Think over what I say, for the Lord will give you understanding in everything. I have found several new perspectives simply by reciting the Rosary.

Or to put it another way: Seek and you will find.

In Mathew 27:46 it says Jesus cried out: My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? These were his last words and they were shouted out so that people would mull over the answer. Having done so, I believe God did not save Christ because if he had, people would have said it was grand for him, what about the rest of us.

Atheists often ask Christians questions in rapid fire succession but as Christ said to the Apostles: If you do not understand the things of this world, how do you expect to understand the Kingdom of Heaven. So again, striving to understand the word of God is necessary.

The prophets in the old Testament were uncannily accurate and if these are the end of days, then so is Timothy 3:1 -17

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.

I believe we are again living in Biblical times in that the prophecy's of old are coming true.

The scandals in the Church are not a reason for the faithful to abandon their faith because as Christ said: Do as the high Priests say, do not as the high Priests do. So God is good despite the shortcomings of his Church.

looksee

What you have typed there is so much irrelevant gobbledigook imo. However we aim to please so I will not close the thread, just let it die the lingering death that I think it deserves, in this forum anyway. Others may disagree so please take it on if you wish.

In the meantime realitykeeper how about finishing the discussion you started in the other thread, which you so inconsiderately abandoned, and us trying to have a discussion with you?

realitykeeper

looksee wrote: »

What you have typed there is so much irrelevant gobbledigook imo. However we aim to please so I will not close the thread, just let it die the lingering death that I think it deserves, in this forum anyway. Others may disagree so please take it on if you wish.

In the meantime realitykeeper how about finishing the discussion you started in the other thread, which you so inconsiderately abandoned, and us trying to have a discussion with you?

That was on a different topic but yes, I shall get back to it.

robindch

realitykeeper wrote: »

Seek and you will find.

As with looksee, I asked you a few questions in the other thread, but you didn't answer them.

Would you care to answer them now?

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

I believe we are again living in Biblical times in that the prophecy's of old are coming true.

This has been said of literally every single period of time between the 1st century and now. Every single claim was supported by "prophecy" and sure signs. Every single time it was wrong.

So why do you believe you are right this time?
Why were all other people who believed the previous predictions wrong? How do you avoid the same trap they fell into?

The reason atheists ask questions is not because we don't understand, it's because we know YOU don't understand the things you are claiming.
We're pretty confident that the answers to the questions all point towards there being no god and religious thought being flawed. However rather than getting straight direct answers that are just as valid of an answer, folks like you dodge and ignore these uncomfortable questions so you don't have to admit that you cannot answer them. Just as I suspect you will do with my questions.

Peregrinus

I'm puzzled as to why this thread was opened in the A&A forum, to be honest, since the OP reasons from premises which atheists and agnostics wouldn't accept. There might or might not be an interesting discussion to be had in the Christianity forum, but here the forseeable outcome of this thread is a bunch of people asserting opinions which they know to be unacceptable to one another.

yoke

Fine, I'll bite.

1. Is god all powerful? The book says yes.
2. Do I have free will? The book says yes.

If I have free will, then he doesnt have the power to make me worship him, and he never will, therefore he is not all powerful.

So the book is wrong.

Peregrinus

yoke wrote: »

Fine, I'll bite.

1. Is god all powerful? The book says yes.
2. Do I have free will? The book says yes.

If I have free will, then he doesnt have the power to make me worship him, and he never will, therefore he is not all powerful.

So the book is wrong.

Actually, we could leave you out of it altogether. As it happens, the way in which it is postulated that God has limited his power is by creating you with free will, but any limitation at all that God might place on his own power will work just as well for the purposes of the conundrum. We can just ask: does being "all-powerful" mean that you cannot limit your own power?

You can argue this one both ways. On the one hand, if there's anything you can't do, then you're not "all-powerful", so an all-powerful being must be able to limit its own power. On the other hand, power which has been limited or even can be limited is not consistent with being "all-powerful".

But all we're really doing here is attempting to define "all-powerful". We can define is so that an all-powerful being can limit its own power or so that it cannot and, either way, we can justify the definition we have chosen. But, however we define it, our definition is important to us but it won't affect reality. There either exists or there does not exist a being such as we have defined, but the framing of our definition will not affect that.

yoke

There are various other points which make a mockery of the whole thing and show it up for the authoritarian bullsh!t it all is:

Why is god allowed to "test" mortals all the time, but mortals arent allowed to "test" other mortals? Because he's god? Thats the definition of authoritarianism, which also goes against "free will" - so this god gives people "free will", and then demands that they dont use it, and instead do as he says? Is he stupid?

Does he reward other forms of stupidity as well, because at present people who ignore what their senses tell them and blindly follow what some guy wrote down in a book instead, are supposed to be rewarded by going to heaven, while people who dont do that end up in hell?

If I'm a textbook "good person", and I get some disease which destroys some of my brain cells and I become a murderous lunatic for the next 40 years, is it my fault or not? This goes back to causality and the illusion of free will, ie. at what point are my decisions considered a product of my environment or chemical decisions in my brain, rather than due to my "free will"?

Is it OK to kill things in general? Every time you take a step you kill some bacteria or plants under your foot, and you cant claim ignorance as an excuse anymore because you've just read this and I've told you that you're doing it, so from now on if you dont want to needlessly kill living things and go to hell, you're going to have to never walk again...

Samaris

Atheists often ask Christians questions in rapid fire succession but as Christ said to the Apostles: If you do not understand the things of this world, how do you expect to understand the Kingdom of Heaven. So again, striving to understand the word of God is necessary.

So why is it so darned hard to get certain Christians to understand other human beings, not to mention those that insist on as much ignorance as possible regarding "the world", i.e. that it's 6,000 years old, despite all the evidence that apparently God left to the contrary. Or how people procreate and how not to procreate accidentally. Or how disease works for those with that particular bee in the bonnet. Or evolution and all the God-given evidence there.

Maybe the Church and proselytisers would be removing the log from their own eyes and actually follow the Bible they want everyone else to obey.

The prophets in the old Testament were uncannily accurate and if these are the end of days, then so is Timothy 3:1 -17

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.

Yeees, that does sound rather like the Church, doesn't it. Which do you reckon God would have the problem with - people that do not follow him being like that (as was always the case in Biblical stories - so why is He getting upset at it now) or His own Church and those that profess to speak for Him acting like that and turning people away from Him?

As Mahatma Ghandi said 'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'

Maybe various sects of Christianity, particularly the proselytising bits of them, would do better to clean out their own Augean Stables before demanding that everyone a) listen and obey and b) argue on their parameters regardless of their own position. Even in a forum dedicated to atheism and agnosticism rather than Christianity. It's like moths to a flame.

yoke wrote: »

Is it OK to kill things in general? Every time you take a step you kill some bacteria or plants under your foot, and you cant claim ignorance as an excuse anymore because you've just read this and I've told you that you're doing it, so from now on if you dont want to needlessly kill living things and go to hell, you're going to have to never walk again...

Very Buddhist (Rohingya don't count ofc).

Peregrinus

Bit of a spray, there, yoke. You ask some good question, but they're mainly questions about free will, about whether our perception of our own freedom to make choices is illusory, and about the implications this might have for moral responsibility/accountability. But those questions are equally problematic whether you believe in god or not, and they are just as awkward for secular viewpoints as for religious viewpoints. For example, how can we assert that a woman has a right to choose if in fact her "choice" is a product of her environment or chemical reactions in her brain? What does "right" mean in this context, and does her environmentally-and-chemically driven "choice" have any greater claim to our respect than the environmentally-and-chemically driven "choice" of those who would restrict her "freedom" in this regard? Indeed, is there any point in even asking the question, since we have no "choice" about how to answer it?

Peatys

Get to the gates, 'what's the story with childhood cancer?'
'part of my plan'
'you're grand, think I'll leave it'

yoke

Peregrinus wrote: »

Bit of a spray, there, yoke. You ask some good question, but they're mainly questions about free will, about whether our perception of our own freedom to make choices is illusory, and about the implications this might have for moral responsibility/accountability. But those questions are equally problematic whether you believe in god or not, and they are just as awkward for secular viewpoints as for religious viewpoints. For example, how can we assert that a woman has a right to choose if in fact her "choice" is a product of her environment or chemical reactions in her brain? What does "right" mean in this context, and does her environmentally-and-chemically driven "choice" have any greater claim to our respect than the environmentally-and-chemically driven "choice" of those who would restrict her "freedom" in this regard? Indeed, is there any point in even asking the question, since we have no "choice" about how to answer it?

Not really in my opinion - we're a society of humans and we're basically doing whatever it takes to keep this society going, because it gives us (individuals) protection and we're programmed by instinct to try and survive.
Once you keep that in mind, it becomes quite easy - its quite impractical to try and remove a "woman's right to choose" as it would alienate and strongly p!ss off an existing contributing member of society (the woman) in favour of a not-yet-born future possible member - who is going to be dependant on that same woman anyway for quite some time.
Based on that it's a no-brainer - let the woman do whatever she wants, although we can inform her it was an awful waste of resources, we cant stop her. Feel sad for the possible future member that we have lost as per the womans decision, accept it was necessary to keep the woman on our (society's) side, and move on, secure in the knowledge that it doesnt really matter in the grand scheme of things, society will survive even if the baby does not.

It's the same logic which allows us to live with ourselves even after we commit genocide against (for example) smallpox - we're looking out for ourselves and our interests conflict with smallpox, so we needed to eradicate it.

Same reason as to why it's OK to farm animals, or indeed plants. Or we could choose to starve, but we are programmed not to allow ourselves to starve

Peregrinus

But if you're going to cut yourself that kind of logical ethical slack, yokes, you can hardly criticise the religious for doing the same. The fact is that we do treat ourselves as having the capacity to make and implement choices because (a) that is consistent with how we experience the world, and our existence in it, and (b) life becomes pretty impossible if we don't. But you can't suddenly carve our religion and say that it this area of human thought/activity acceptance of the reality of choice is preposterous, but it's fine everywhere else.

yoke

No, the difference is that I'm aware of what i'm doing and my logic is there for everyone to see, whereas theirs isnt.

Since I'm aware of what I'm doing, my method of thinking usually results in decisions which work well towards my goals (which generally coincide with societys goals).

Since the religious crowd have no idea what theyre doing, they do random things, which randomly benefit and randomly hold back society, and usually end up holding society back more often than not.

I didnt say religion was "preposterous", just that I believe its very stupid and we shouldnt support it. There's no two ways about this IMO, I dont see any benefit in having religion around.

On a base level you could ask "why do I follow my programming/instinct?", and I do acknowledge that my logic falls apart at that level because I do not know the reason why I was programmed with these instincts. In that way you could argue that I am exhibiting the same flaws as the religious people.

But I dont claim to represent some higher power while I'm at it, and I dont claim to always be right, and my mistakes are a product of my circumstances

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

We can just ask: does being "all-powerful" mean that you cannot limit your own power?

Certain religious writers have attempted to deal with definitional issues like that by asserting the existence of various degrees of omnipotence - perhaps a little like Cantor when he demonstrated the existence of various degrees of infinity, or Russel when he came up with his paradox.

If memory serves, and I'm quite willing to be proved wrong here, the degrees essentially break down into things that make sense and things which don't make sense - or self-contradictory acts and non-self-contradictory acts - the simplest example being the question of whether an omnipotent deity could create a rock so heavy that he then was unable to lift it.

I don't know whether any of these questions were ever answered to the satisfaction of any senior religious authorities though and one suspects that in the main, the questions, the wrinkles which arise, as well as the various answers proposed, have been gently, but firmly, swept under the carpet.

Peregrinus

Again, the logical conundrum isn't a problem exclusive to religious philosophy. Can the universe contain both an irresistible force and an immovable object? You don't have to be a theist to ask that question, and to conclude that it has no satisfactory answer. What happened before the Big Bang? Discussions of this question rapidly get to a disquisition on whether the word "before" can have any meaning in that sentence and, if so, what meaning? Is time an illusion? If not, what is it?

The list of Questions That Make Your Head Hurt is a long one, and most of them are not particularly religious questions.

robindch

Peregrinus wrote: »

The list of Questions That Make Your Head Hurt is a long one, and most of them are not particularly religious questions.

Indeed, but the religious don't do themselves any favours by endowing their respective deities with self-contradictory qualities which don't pass elementary muster - let alone anything deeper.

Sesame

yoke wrote: »

If I'm a textbook "good person", and I get some disease which destroys some of my brain cells and I become a murderous lunatic for the next 40 years, is it my fault or not? This goes back to causality and the illusion of free will, ie. at what point are my decisions considered a product of my environment or chemical decisions in my brain, rather than due to my "free will"?

But it doesn't matter anyway if break any of the ten commandments because if you ask that god for forgiveness all is forgiven and you get to go to heaven. So commit away. Just don't forget to ask him for forgiveness after.

conditioned games

As a former atheist and now believer, we all have our day of judgment. Life is one big test and experiment wrapped in one.

The bible speaks alot of truth today. As we have abandoned god in favor of immoral behaviours, are we a content people? The world is controlled by evil who wish to have a one world government controlled by an anti Christ. Why do the council of 13 worship Lucifer and try to corrupt the world through music, film, mainstream media etc by trying to counter the teachings of Christ?

Look at the world we live in, is the bull**** from Hollywood making us happy, subliminal satanic messages in music giving guidance to the youth, pornography industry giving us honest expectations, financial system taking wealth from the bottom to the top. Society today is so anti christian thanks to our Luciferian worshiping controllers that we have lost sight of the difference between good and bad.

looksee

conditioned games wrote: »

As a former atheist and now believer, we all have our day of judgment. Life is one big test and experiment wrapped in one.

The bible speaks alot of truth today. As we have abandoned god in favor of immoral behaviours, are we a content people? The world is controlled by evil who wish to have a one world government controlled by an anti Christ. Why do the council of 13 worship Lucifer and try to corrupt the world through music, film, mainstream media etc by trying to counter the teachings of Christ?

Look at the world we live in, is the bull**** from Hollywood making us happy, subliminal satanic messages in music giving guidance to the youth, pornography industry giving us honest expectations, financial system taking wealth from the bottom to the top. Society today is so anti christian thanks to our Luciferian worshiping controllers that we have lost sight of the difference between good and bad.

Wow! You are a believer? What exactly do you believe in? Are you sure you are not mixing it up with conspiracy theorist?

conditioned games

conditioned games wrote: »

subliminal satanic messages in music giving guidance to the youth

Would love to see some evidence for this.

Previously I have seen one of these videos claiming the exact same thing based on the complex, deep and esoteric lyrics of Michael Jackson's "Beat It".

Apparently that song was a secret Satanist plot to turn children gay...

yoke

conditioned games - whether we are a content people or not has absolutely nothing to do with understanding the nature of life.

A small child might be contented with an explanation that Santa Claus employs elves to make christmas gifts, but an adult will see too many holes in that story and not be content.

Unfortunately religion stays alive because people are unhappy with knowing that they don't know a lot of things, so they make up a make-believe world where they do know the answers to all the questions that can be asked.

It's still make-believe, even if it gives you comfort, it's false comfort.

Unfortunately I can't give you comfort since I don't know all the answers either, but I can definitely say the answers peddled by religion are the wrong ones as there are too many holes in their logic.
It's similar to the way I can say that I'm not totally sure how life started on earth, but it definitely wasn't Adam and Eve appearing out of thin air 6000 years ago.

conditioned games

Big assumption to make that God doesn't exist and when the spirit leaves the body that it goes no where else.

The bible has proved to be accurate over the years through the book of revelations. Its up to us individually to seek him out or deny his existence.

People that listen to the teachings of Christ and self reflect have a greater purpose in life compared to those that put too much attention on money, beauty and products advertised to them.

The world has become very anti Christian especially so in the last 30yrs as those that control the mainstream media and music have got the upper hand.

smacl

conditioned games wrote: »

Big assumption to make that God doesn't exist and when the spirit leaves the body that it goes no where else.

Exactly same size assumption that Allah doesn't exist, or Kali, or Quetzalcoatl, or any one of huge number of contradictory mythologies that exist now, in the past or at any time in the future. Considerably smaller assumption is that they are all equally bogus.

The bible has proved to be accurate over the years through the book of revelations. Its up to us individually to seek him out or deny his existence.

Don't think so. Perhaps you'd care to share a single specific broadly accepted case of this.

People that listen to the teachings of Christ and self reflect have a greater purpose in life compared to those that put too much attention on money, beauty and products advertised to them.

Both a false dichotomy and clearly untrue. The Catholic church in particular has been particularly good at gathering and hoarding wealth for itself. Christians are as avaricious and susceptible to marketing as everyone else, more so when you look at the money lashed out on communions and the like.

The world has become very anti Christian especially so in the last 30yrs as those that control the mainstream media and music have got the upper hand.

The first world has become less religious over time as people have become more educated and realise it is a load of bunk. Religion is still thriving in the third world where hope is cheaper than food and more easily distributed.

nozzferrahhtoo

conditioned games wrote: »

Big assumption to make that God doesn't exist and when the spirit leaves the body that it goes no where else.

There is no such "assumption" in play. It is merely the most likely position given the current evidence and data set. The position may of course be wrong, but there is no reason at this time to suspect that.

Our knowledge of the workings of consciousness and sentience is not complete, that is clear. But complete or not, one thing that is clear is that 100% of that data set indicates consciousness and sentience being linked to a working brain. 0% of the data set suggest a possible disconnection between the two, let alone to the point of one surviving the death of the other.

These are all facts, not assumptions. That these facts go against your personal world view or fantasy of choice is not my problem, or the facts problem. If it is anyone's problem at all, then it is yours.

conditioned games wrote: »

People that listen to the teachings of Christ and self reflect have a greater purpose in life compared to those that put too much attention on money, beauty and products advertised to them.

The word for that is hubris. When judging one's own "purpose in life" as being superior or "greater" you are doing so by adopting measures of superiority that are commensurate with it being superior.

It would be like putting a muscle bound idiot in a room with a wimpy genius. The former will think himself superior most likely because he judges superiority by strength. The latter will likely consider himself superior because he values intelligence over all things, and the other guy is as thick as two planks.

Similarly you think your "purpose" is "greater" solely because you are selecting a measure that elevates it as you want it elevated. But I see nothing about you, or that world view, that is superior or "greater" at all. Nor, I note, have you offered any such reasons here.

conditioned games wrote: »

The world has become very anti Christian especially so in the last 30yrs

I am not sure it has become anti-christian so much as it has become anti-other things that Christianity is merely an instance of.

For example maybe people are becoming more intolerant of others espousing unsubstantiated nonsense as true, or claiming to know things they simply can not know. Practices that all too often theists do in droves.

There is a difference between being specifically anti-christian, and being anti unsubstantiated nonsense. I, for one, am the latter.

And Christianity, and more specifically the claim that our universe and/or life within it was created and/or is being maintained by a non-human intelligent and intentional agent......... is such a claim.

It is being made without any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to support it. Least of all from you or the other two theists posting on this particular thread.

In fact to my knowledge the more coherent of the two other theists on the thread has not ever been drawn into even making a paltry ATTEMPT to substantiate the existence of the deity he claims to believe in.

nozzferrahhtoo

realitykeeper wrote: »

Or to put it another way: Seek and you will find.

Alas this is a way of thinking that works for just about anything, not just your personal fantasy that there is a god. Basically it is a phrase that elevates "Confirmation Bias" to being a world view.

For example take the 23ists, a group of people represented in a Jim Carey movies but who actually exist. They think the number 23 is indicative of a control over all things.

There is no substantiation for anything they believe about 23, but if you "seek you will find". If you start looking for the number 23 every where you will find it. A lot. Thing is if you try it with any number it works too, especially (I have been told) prime numbers.

Confirmation Bias comes when you start to parse evidence for something being true, through the lens of assuming it is true. That is, your evidence only works IF you assume the truth of the thing it is evidence for.

Prayer for some theists is a great example of this. They pray for something to happen. If it does, this validates their idea there is a god. However if the prayer does not come true, this is called "unanswered prayer" and it validates that god exists and knows better than to give the person what they prayed for.

When any result from an experiment validates the hypothesis.... then you have confirmation bias in play.

So yes....... I agree.......... seek and you will find. Assume there is a god, and go looking for things to validate that assumption and you will find it. Loads of it.

But confirmation bias aside, you have been asked in the past for ANY arguments, evidence, data or reasoning you may have access to to validate the claim that the universe and/or life within it was the result of the actions of a non-human intentional and intelligent agent. You have to date provided exactly NONE in response. And this thread is no different.

realitykeeper wrote: »

The scandals in the Church are not a reason for the faithful to abandon their faith

I am not sure I have met a single person who suggest that the scandals of the Church should motivate them to abandon their faith. I have met many people however who suggest that the scandals of the church should make them abandon that church.

Which is an entirely separate thing to suggest, doncha think?

PopePalpatine

King Mob wrote: »

Would love to see some evidence for this.

Previously I have seen one of these videos claiming the exact same thing based on the complex, deep and esoteric lyrics of Michael Jackson's "Beat It".

Apparently that song was a secret Satanist plot to turn children gay...

Nah, just the frogs if Alex Jones is to be believed.

conditioned games

conditioned games wrote: »

The bible has proved to be accurate over the years through the book of revelations. Its up to us individually to seek him out or deny his existence.

Again people have claimed this about every single period in history and claimed they were living in the end times.

They were all wrong.

Why were they wrong, but you are right?

conditioned games wrote: »

The world has become very anti Christian especially so in the last 30yrs as those that control the mainstream media and music have got the upper hand.

Bit of a big assumption there on your part, no?
What leads you to believe the media is controlled and by who?

Is the only evidence you have crappy youtube videos by people who can't understand the meaning of "Beat It"?

Samaris

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Nah, just the frogs if Alex Jones is to be believed.

Just for once, he's nearly kinda right on the frogs. It's not music or malevolently plotting gay people sending out gay pheromones (or whatever Jones reckons it is though). There is a problem with waste laws on pharmaceutical companies being weak enough that they can dispose of chemical soup into the environment, including hormones that cause gender switches in frogs. I don't know all the details, but that's the gist of it as I understand it.

Stopped clock and all.

Also, I've lost my bingo card, did this conversation already loop through "use of half-understood conceptions of the start of the universe to prove/disprove God" yet? Prophecies of Revelations = proof I did spot (definite tick when no evidence given). I should probably also tick off "I'm better than you due to my belief/lack thereof" square as well. (See, I'm fair, most of my squares can be contravened by either side of the argument!)

Since the square's already ticked off - what about the conceptual centre of the Big Bang for the immovable object (with, presumably, equal force going in all directions away from it) and the force of expansion as the unstoppable force? Both in the same universe, dependent on each other.

kylith

conditioned games wrote: »

The bible has proved to be accurate over the years through the book of revelations.

That's very interesting. Could you provide some examples please?

goose2005

yoke wrote: »

Fine, I'll bite.

1. Is god all powerful? The book says yes.
2. Do I have free will? The book says yes.

If I have free will, then he doesnt have the power to make me worship him, and he never will, therefore he is not all powerful.

So the book is wrong.

God isn't all-powerful in the Bible though. He creates the universe, but seems to have a limited capacity to influence it

smacl

goose2005 wrote: »

God isn't all-powerful in the Bible though. He creates the universe, but seems to have a limited capacity to influence it

Omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent seems to cover most bases. Maybe he has free will too and simply chooses not to intervene? Y'know Godly game of thrones on the God box so couldn't be arsed dealing with the latest crisis with the little mud men

conditioned games

kylith wrote: »

That's very interesting. Could you provide some examples please?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mnhcZ5sK9tU

The above has 25 examples of predictions in the bible coming true

conditioned games

smacl wrote: »

Omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent seems to cover most bases. Maybe he has free will too and simply chooses not to intervene? Y'know Godly game of thrones on the God box so couldn't be arsed dealing with the latest crisis with the little mud men

Why should he constantly intervene. Everyone would be on their best behaviour rather than showing their true colours. The world we were born in to is full of deception, it is up to us to seek out God among all the noise and propaganda we have to deal with. From what I gathered by those that control this world and their allegiance to Lucifer, it is something I want no part of.

Samaris

conditioned games wrote: »

Why should he constantly intervene. Everyone would be on their best behaviour rather than showing their true colours. The world we were born in to is full of deception, it is up to us to seek out God among all the noise and propaganda we have to deal with. From what I gathered by those that control this world and their allegiance to Lucifer, it is something I want no part of.

Youtube is always the place to start..

Although if everyone was on their best behavior, you'd have a virtuous circle of people being decent to each other, no? Other humans don't have to see each other's "true colours"; since God can see everything, there's no need, he can punish them anyway.

So that plan was a bit short-sighted really.

robindch

realitykeeper wrote: »

[...] I shall get back to it.

Any idea of when?

Asking for a friend.

realitykeeper

yoke wrote: »

Fine, I'll bite.

1. Is god all powerful? The book says yes.
2. Do I have free will? The book says yes.

If I have free will, then he doesnt have the power to make me worship him, and he never will, therefore he is not all powerful.

So the book is wrong.

God is good, so he would never use his power to make you worship him.

Hotblack Desiato

...and threats of hell don't count?

realitykeeper

yoke wrote: »

There are various other points which make a mockery of the whole thing and show it up for the authoritarian bullsh!t it all is:

Why is god allowed to "test" mortals all the time, but mortals arent allowed to "test" other mortals? Because he's god? Thats the definition of authoritarianism, which also goes against "free will" - so this god gives people "free will", and then demands that they dont use it, and instead do as he says? Is he stupid?

Does he reward other forms of stupidity as well, because at present people who ignore what their senses tell them and blindly follow what some guy wrote down in a book instead, are supposed to be rewarded by going to heaven, while people who dont do that end up in hell?

If I'm a textbook "good person", and I get some disease which destroys some of my brain cells and I become a murderous lunatic for the next 40 years, is it my fault or not? This goes back to causality and the illusion of free will, ie. at what point are my decisions considered a product of my environment or chemical decisions in my brain, rather than due to my "free will"?

Is it OK to kill things in general? Every time you take a step you kill some bacteria or plants under your foot, and you cant claim ignorance as an excuse anymore because you've just read this and I've told you that you're doing it, so from now on if you dont want to needlessly kill living things and go to hell, you're going to have to never walk again...

Mortals have an immortal soul. Mortals are free to choose between good and evil. To know God is to love him because he has given humanity everything he has to give.

realitykeeper

Samaris wrote: »

So why is it so darned hard to get certain Christians to understand other human beings, not to mention those that insist on as much ignorance as possible regarding "the world", i.e. that it's 6,000 years old, despite all the evidence that apparently God left to the contrary. Or how people procreate and how not to procreate accidentally. Or how disease works for those with that particular bee in the bonnet. Or evolution and all the God-given evidence there.

Maybe the Church and proselytisers would be removing the log from their own eyes and actually follow the Bible they want everyone else to obey.

By striving to understand, you will gain an understanding to all the above worldly questions.

Rather than concerning yourself with the sins of the Church and the proselytizers, I would urge you to read the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18:9-14

Samaris

realitykeeper wrote: »

By striving to understand, you will gain an understanding to all the above worldly questions.

Rather than concerning yourself with the sins of the Church and the proselytizers, I would urge you to read the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector. https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+18:9-14

Ah, the old "do as I say, not as I do" ploy.

I have seen it done more subtly before, but full marks for getting straight to the point.

Maybe we heathens wouldn't have to focus on the sins of your church if the proselytisers would do a bit of house-cleaning before attempting to convert more people.

realitykeeper

Peatys wrote: »

Get to the gates, 'what's the story with childhood cancer?'
'part of my plan'
'you're grand, think I'll leave it'

This is just purgatory but forever is a long time.

realitykeeper

Samaris wrote: »

Ah, the old "do as I say, not as I do" ploy.

I have seen it done more subtly before, but full marks for getting straight to the point.

Maybe we heathens wouldn't have to focus on the sins of your church if the proselytisers would do a bit of house-cleaning before attempting to convert more people.

You didn`t read the parable, did you?

realitykeeper

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

...and threats of hell don't count?

I think it is a simple choice. You soul goes where you want it to go. If you reject the will of God, that is one choice. If you accept the will of God, that is another.

21:28 "A man had two sons. He went to the first and said, ‘Son, go and work in the vineyard today.’ 21:29 The boy answered, ‘I will not.’ But later he had a change of heart and went. 21:30 The father went to the other son and said the same thing. This boy answered, ‘I will, sir,’ but did not go. 21:31 Which of the two did his father’s will?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “I tell you the truth, tax collectors and prostitutes will go ahead of you into the kingdom of God! 21:32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him. But the tax collectors and prostitutes believed him. Although you saw this, you did not later change your minds and believe him.”

People condemn their own souls to hell.

Samaris

I know the parable. My lack of response is not due to being overwhelmed by the relevance, but actually, I was overwhelmed by the hypocrisy of your usage of it. Slows things up when one has to keep deleting incendiary language.

Self-righteousness can be rather in the eyes of the beholder. To me, the Church is sickening, hypocritical, self-righteous and has the absolute nerve to teach others about how to live their lives when it covered up crimes amongst its own. You came to a place for people not of your religion and told bare-faced lies, and merely that the "no priest can be a paedophile" is so bat**** crazy in the face of all available evidence that no-one would believe it is no excuse for the intention. Given the Church then moved them around when they knew about it, thus deliberately moving these "fake priests" about to teach and give false sacraments, surely that's even more condemnable. (It was quite good sophistry that was used on your behalf, but the Church itself organising the cover-ups rather makes it pointless. Apparently the Church didn't consider them "no longer priests", so unless you're the Pope, you don't get to make that decision. Therefore, it was a deliberate untruth, aka, a lie.)

To you, anyone judging the Church is self-righteous, particularly if they are not believers, or so is the impression I get.

So be it. Of those two options, I'd take the second one a thousand times over the first. My original complaint was that the persistent proselytisers just cannot leave people who want nothing to do with their church or faith alone. Yis can have it. Yis can practice it. Yis can pray standing on your heads if you like, just don't shove it at me and don't make laws of the country that I too live in based on it. Oh, and preferably don't lie about science either, that's really annoying.

You countered that with, irony of ironies, proselytising at me. Superb dodge on coming up with a way to not condemn child molestation by holy men of the Church though. Even the Church didn't have the chutzpah to use the "you are a sinner too" argument (much).

yoke

realitykeeper wrote: »

God is good, so he would never use his power to make you worship him.

Why does he want me to worship him?

Anyway if my "free will" can be overruled by this god, then he has the power to stop me from doing wrong, but does not use this power - thus, through inaction, he is complicit in my wrong-doing.

If I am walking down the street and I see someone getting mugged, and I walk on without helping in any way while I easily had the power to help (even if its indirectly by calling the police), then I cant claim to be a helpful person.
The same way, if this god has the power to do "good" in the universe and he doesnt do it, then he can't claim to be "all good".

nozzferrahhtoo

Since you have decided, seemingly, to wholesale skip and ignore and dodge my last response I can jump to this post and simply ask.....

realitykeeper wrote: »

Mortals have an immortal soul.

........ if you could define exactly what you mean by "soul" and what argument, evidence, data and reasoning you have to offer to support your outright assertion as to it being immortal.

realitykeeper wrote: »

I think it is a simple choice. You soul goes where you want it to go.

I have always wished muggers would use this approach in their "work". Rather than say "If you do not give me your money I will stab you with this knife" they should instead say "If you do not give me your money, then you are choosing to accept this knife between your ribs".

Alas a threat remains a threat, no matter how much you try to dress it up to look pretty.

MrPudding

conditioned games wrote: »

Why should he constantly intervene. Everyone would be on their best behaviour rather than showing their true colours. The world we were born in to is full of deception, it is up to us to seek out God among all the noise and propaganda we have to deal with. From what I gathered by those that control this world and their allegiance to Lucifer, it is something I want no part of.

When you were an unbeliever and are now a believer, what exactly did you mean? Is it you were raised a a catholic, rebelled a little as a teenager and stopped going to mass, perhaps told a few people that you were an atheist now, so you looked cool, but secretly wondered what it all meant, and then magically became a believer again?

The reason I ask is because I am an unbeliever, and I really, really unbelieve. I unbeleive to the extent that the only conceivable way I could ever be a believer is a brain tumour or other severe trauma to the brain. And for the avoidance of doubt, that isn't because having cancer or a massive trauma would make me question my life and bring me closer to god, it is because the only thing that would make me believe the utter nonsense you believe is if my brain was so damaged and compromised that it wasn't actually functioning properly.

So my suggestion to you is this, if you are the first type of unbeliever i talk about, the "not really an unbeliever", then be a little more honest and don't try to pretend that you finding god was a big deal. Your "conversion" is not really a conversion and signifies nothing of note. If you genuinely were the other type of unbeliever, one that actually, genuinely did not believe, like i am, then do yourself a favour and go to the doctor and maybe get a brain scan.

MrP

MrPudding

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have always wished muggers would use this approach in their "work". Rather than say "If you do not give me your money I will stab you with this knife" they should instead say "If you do not give me your money, then you are choosing to accept this knife between your ribs".

Alas a threat remains a threat, no matter how much you try to dress it up to look pretty.

I wonder could this be used in court as a defence... I guess it is just another form of victim blaming.

MrP

LeinsterDub

conditioned games wrote: »

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mnhcZ5sK9tU

The above has 25 examples of predictions in the bible coming true

Postdictions don't count as predictions nor do 'predictions' so vague that over a long enough period of time they are bound to happen.

'It will snow is Dublin' is a prediction but it's so vague as to be meaningless and over all long enough timeline it will snow everywhere on this planet.