God is love, Love is not Jealous, God is a Jealous god???

[Bradskii]

4. I accept them as correct, since they are objective and from God, but sometimes wonder just what they actually mean or how they actually apply. For example, some people might consider it a sin to play "I doubt it", or to drive 56 mph. I don't, but there was a time I wondered.

That sounds like a subtle variation on 2:

2. You have accepted them as being correct with no satisfactory conclusion to the internal debate as to whether you consider them valid. God says it is so and that's good enough for me.

 

[Bradskii]

That sounds like a subtle variation on 2:

2. You have accepted them as being correct with no satisfactory conclusion to the internal debate as to whether you consider them valid. God says it is so and that's good enough for me.

So here is a moral command, you aren't sure what it actually means but you'll follow it anyway.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That sounds like a subtle variation on 2:

2. You have accepted them as being correct with no satisfactory conclusion to the internal debate as to whether you consider them valid. God says it is so and that's good enough for me.

ok

 

[Bradskii]

ok

Which kinda leads to the proposal that some people will accept any command that they think is from God.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Which kinda leads to the proposal that some people will accept any command that they think is from God.

Old news. Why would I think some command (such as in a conversation we had a while back about Abraham) are from God?

---reading from the Bible, "Judas went and hung himself." Hmmm.. ok... reading another place in the Bible, "go and do thou likewise."

 

[Bradskii]

Old news. Why would I think some command (such as in a conversation we had a while back about Abraham) are from God?

I've talked to very many people who look to God for answers to moral problems. And very many people tell me that they have received guidance from Him. That they should follow a specific path. Can you see where that may go?

 

[Kylie]

4. I accept them as correct, since they are objective and from God, but sometimes wonder just what they actually mean or how they actually apply. For example, some people might consider it a sin to play "I doubt it", or to drive 56 mph. I don't, but there was a time I wondered.

That sounds like #2 to me...

 

[Mark Quayle]

I've talked to very many people who look to God for answers to moral problems. And very many people tell me that they have received guidance from Him. That they should follow a specific path. Can you see where that may go?

Well, good for them. I'm skeptical, hope you don't mind, lol.

One guy told me once he thought God had told him something about using technology, and though it had affected him deeply, he didn't know how to stop using it. I told him if God did indeed tell him that, he'd better stop using it, lol.

 

[Bradskii]

Well, good for them. I'm skeptical, hope you don't mind, lol.

One guy told me once he thought God had told him something about using technology, and though it had affected him deeply, he didn't know how to stop using it. I told him if God did indeed tell him that, he'd better stop using it, lol.

You seriously don't think that people believed that they have received guidance from God? There are simply too many examples of people saying that they have to bother quoting them. I'm astonished that you refute that.

 

[Amoranemix]

If you are wondering what was "wrong" with God in and of the OT from the beginning, etc, He was not always fully omniscient from the very beginning, etc, and was constantly frustrated by his enemy, and not being able to overturn or reverse the effects of the fall, etc...
In the OT anyway... until we get to the New, with Jesus, and enter the next phase or part of the story, etc...

So God wasn't omniscient initially, but became omniscient ? How did that happen ?

Maybe the Bible does not use your definition consistently.

You are pretty obviously going to look for any definition you can to oppose that of your opposition. I find in the Bible no definition for God that opposes my definition. And no, that doesn't mean that I am always right in my understanding of God.

What is pretty obvious to you is not necessarily true.
Providing a definition is not a requirement for using it. The Bible may be using a definition it fails to provide.

You seem to be suggesting that claims always require to be supported. Obviously they do not.
Some claims require, in order to make a point, to be supported. You made such claim in post 257 and were unable to support it.
[28] Whether I have an explanation for the existence of existence if off topic.
[29] Are those facts or just your personal opinions ?

I don't know where you got the idea that I suggest claims always require support.[31] That sounds more like your kind of thinking. I said: <<"All claims are assertions, in the end. Those that can boast back up --the back up claims are assertions, and so on. That is what you are doing. You assert I am asserting. You try to back it up, and I can do like you do, claim those too are mere assertions. Big deal. The fact is that existence exists. You have no explanation.[28] You have no defense for your position. You refuse to consider explanations --they are assertions.[29]">>

Following is post 257. What is the claim you are referring to?

<<"Now THAT is the point.
We as humans love to take a word like 'Jealous' anthropomorphically, then we swing wide the other way: "Why would omnipotence care about insignificant idols, anyway?" So we come up with "God makes no sense."
But look how silly that is! We make him like us in our assessment and then complain because he is acting like us!">>

28. Perhaps if we had a central claim we were disputing, I could tell better what what is and isn't off topic. But that is a sweet defense when you have no answer --"That's off topic."
29. At least opinions, and pretty well guessed at too! Stalling for time, or just out of options?

[31] I assumed that your claims were relevant. So I speculated what the relevance of your claims (that you self-quoted in post 349) could be. Apparently I guessed incorrectly. Were your claims red herrings then ? If not, what is their relevance ?
Your assessment 'Big deal' suggests you didn't understand the point I was making. The point was that you failed to make a pertinent point with your claim to Paulomycin in post 257 : “But look how silly that is! We make him like us in our assessment and then complain because he is acting like us!"
[28] You can discover the topic of this thread in the original post.
“That's off topic.” is not a defense but a time-saver and, if justified, an attempt at preserving focus and pellucidity.
[29] You have provided no good reason to believe that your claims were anything more than personal opinions.
I am not stalling for time, nor am I out of options.

Usually Christians pretend they can present evidence for their claims.

Strange. Usually the accusation is that Christians eschew any need for evidence.

Then we must both be exceptions : You don't pretend to be able to present evidence for your claims and I don't accuse Christians of eschewing any need for evidence.

[26] Thank you for sharing your personal opinion with us, but skeptics prefer to believe in reality.
[27] What a surprise.

26. Haha! Can you support that statement?
27. The fact I gave no answer might have been because I was running short of time, or didn't deem the question worthy of an answer. Or I might have hit 'post reply' not realizing there was more below, out of sight, that I hadn't answered. I don't recall what this was about.

[26] Yes.
[27] But such things almost never happen to Christians. That is why I was so surprised.
You claimed in post 288 : “But beside that, he [God] owns us”.

[30] Yahweh does not appear omnipotent, but he could be faking weakness.
First Cause is a deceptive name for something omnipotent as it suggest that it was the cause of the universe, while that may not be the case. Furthermore there could be more than one omnipotent being, depending on how one defines omnipotence.

I don't see anywhere Yahweh is faking weakness, nor appearing less than omnipotent.[32] The fact First Cause doesn't behave according to your notions means only that your notions are presumptive.[33] First Cause is indeed the cause of the Universe, either directly or through means of secondary causes.[34]

There can be only one omnipotent. What definition would suggest otherwise?[35]

[32] You should read the Bible. You find him behaving the way probably primitive goat herds would imagine an allmighty deity would behave. It is easy to think of improvements to the way God handles things. I agree though that there are alternative possibilities. God could be weak, stupid or wicked.
[33] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
[34] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
[35] I am not suggesting a definition, but it should be relatively easy to modify a definition that only allows for one being such that it allows for more.

You are assuming that God only intended to address the Hebrews and out of negligence or malice ignored the fact that others would read it too. At least we can abandon the myth that the Bible is an up-to-date book.

[ . . . ]This is the framework of Christianity with a strong belief that God intentionally releases his revelations through a specific people group to prepare for an event that releases it to all people groups and first points to the second rather than the first negates the second. The Church has continued this spirit through translations and spreading this message as far and as wide as possible as the Church (or God's people) is the mechanism of spreading the message and the church becomes this living message.

That method has major drawbacks. For one thing, today many people don't trust the church to read and interpret the Bible for them. Today God has apparently even shifted to speaking through spokesmen as many of the new Christian churches in America demonstrate. A problem is that not everyone believes these people really are hotlines to God.

What are suitable means for the circumstances depends on the means available. God used the means available to humans, just like all the other non-existent gods. That behaviour is inconsistent with the image of a perfect being Christians are trying to spread. What was wrong with God I don't know, but something was wrong with him. Maybe he was wicked, maybe he was ignorant, maybe he was weak, or most likely, maybe he didn't exist.

[Closing paragraph about God's goodness]

if we know at the very least the concept of God demands goodness and perfection then it seems more beneficial to discuss God on these terms but if God is wicked... he is not God, if God is ignorant... he is not God if God is weak... he is not God, etc...[36] So I get you're greater point is probably "there is no God" I would lead with that rather than say God is limited which is a contradiction.[37] [ . . . ]

I conflated two threads. My closing paragraph should have been in www.christianforums.com/threads/how-do-you-know-god-is-good.8208052. People should debate God's goodness over there i.s.o. here.
[36] So you claim, but can you prove those ?
[37] God being a contradiction would refute his existence and since most Christians are fond of the nirvana fallacy, they tend to disbelieve God is inconsistent.

Wicked as it relates to whose concept of wickedness? Yours?

the idea of God is the idea of embodied absolute goodness where goodness is defined by God and anything for God is good and anything against God is evil. this is theists define good and evil and I get you probably reject this and subscribe to moral humanism but you can't reject that if there is a God this is the way to define good/evil. [ . . . ]

I don't know about Bradskii, but I can reject that, just as I can reject all your definitions.

Objective means without personal feelings or interpretations.
There is no objective good. It depends on the individual. If I gave you any scenario whatsoever and asked if it was 'good' then what else are you going to do except give me your personal interpretation on it? Alternatively, I guess you could look it up somewhere and see how you are supposed to respond. But one assumes that you'd have a personal opinion on whether to accept that or not.
Herein lies the problem. If there are divine instructions as to what is good and what is not, then you have personally accepted them. Which makes them subjective to your interpretation. You have read the instructions and personally decided 'Yep, I agree with that'.[38]
Failing that, there must be some things which you personally think are bad but which you define as good because that's what you believe you are supposed to do. If that is true, do you have any examples?

In the 'IF God' hypothetical, there most definitely is objective good, and your question to me about something being good or not is moot. My interpretation and opinion is irrelevant.[39]

[38] They only agree with them because they agree with their source. If the standard would come from someone or something else, they could disagree with it or if God would issue a different standard, they would still agree with it.
[39] Your interpretation is irrelevant in the sense that it is off topic. However, your personal preference for God as the source of morality determines your behaviour and thus is relevant to you and those you influence.

Just check my answer to Mark in post 359. You can respond to that.

All of this boils down to the same argument. "Is there a God?" If there is a God then it matters and if there is no God then is doesn't matter. To say objective goodness doesn't exist is tantamount to saying God doesn't exist. This is fine but it is only a product of your position not evidence of it.
Obviously if you don't believe in God then you don't believe in objective goodness but that's not the point.[40] The point is the the existence of God provides the framework for goodness so it is consistent of an atheist to reject obejctive goodness and it is consistent of a theist to accept objective goodness.
[. . . ]

[40] Not necessarily, for it depends on how objective good is defined. Obvioulsy atheists are not inclined to define good as a function of God.

My decision as to whether there is an objective good is not predicated on my lack of belief. There may be objective good without God. Or there may be objective good defined as such from within another religion's belief system. So it's not obvious 'if you don't believe in God then you don't believe in objective goodness...'. If so you are excluding every non Christian on the planet from believing it. I'm sure you don't want to go there.

Notwithstanding, your post to which I first replied was one in which you suggested it was possible to know if God was good (it's part of the op). Yet you defined God as good. It's not really a search that needs to be done if the characteristic you are looking for is the actual definition of that which might posess it.
I'm sure you'd agree.

objective goodness needs to have an objective measuring stick. God is an example of that objectivity as he would be the most objective thing in all the universe.[41] this is an inherent system of God to begin with. if we define objectivity outside of God then fine, what is the measuring stick? I'm sure there is an argument there but God being this measuring stick is not complicated as the nature of God is eternal, unchanging, preexisting our space-time continuum and creator of it, he is a prime candidate for objective truth, and virtues of this are goodness.

[41] Why would that be ? Have you tacitly redefined objective in order to make God objective by defintion ?


There appears to be no one left willing to defend the position that God is love.

 

[Neogaia777]

So God wasn't omniscient initially, but became omniscient ? How did that happen ?

Sorry, didn't realize you replied to me until just now...?

God in and of the OT both is and always was God the Spirit, or the Spirit form of God, or the Holy Spirit, and was not always fully omniscient from the very beginning, and there is still some debate as to whether He is now, or after Jesus, etc...

Jesus is God in the form of Man, or the Man form of God, or God in the flesh, or manifested physically, etc... He is "that part", etc... Only form of God that can be seen or felt or touched with our other literal physical parts, etc...

And God the Father with whom Jesus refers to apart from the Holy Spirit, etc, is God in Heaven, and was the only One always fully truly omniscient from the very beginning, and always at all points along the way, etc, and His true form is unknown, etc, other than Him being "everything and yet at the same time nothing", etc, or/and/or also "being and/or always existing beyond everything and anything and nothing", etc, in all other things (forms) and yet also existing, always existing, outside of them all always at the same time also, etc...

Jesus spells this out, but very few actually catch it, etc...

They are the Trinity, etc...

God in and/or on three different levels or forms, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Mark Quayle]

You seriously don't think that people believed that they have received guidance from God? There are simply too many examples of people saying that they have to bother quoting them. I'm astonished that you refute that.

I don't doubt God does give guidance. In fact, the Bible says as much, and I have been given guidance too. My skepticism is with the particular individual cases I hear about. When I 'receive' guidance, I almost always (if I have time) reflect before acting on it, because probably most often it is me --my mind-- not God --at least it used to be. The Christian life should not resemble divination.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So God wasn't omniscient initially, but became omniscient ? How did that happen ?

Good question. That is consistent with a heresy prohibited by the rules here, as I understand them. The logic denies omnipotence, not to mention several corollary (and necessary) attributes of God.

What is pretty obvious to you is not necessarily true.
Providing a definition is not a requirement for using it. The Bible may be using a definition it fails to provide.

So what is the problem? Is the Bible required to provide a definition?

[31] I assumed that your claims were relevant. So I speculated what the relevance of your claims (that you self-quoted in post 349) could be. Apparently I guessed incorrectly. Were your claims red herrings then ? If not, what is their relevance ?
Your assessment 'Big deal' suggests you didn't understand the point I was making. The point was that you failed to make a pertinent point with your claim to Paulomycin in post 257 : “But look how silly that is! We make him like us in our assessment and then complain because he is acting like us!"
[28] You can discover the topic of this thread in the original post.
“That's off topic.” is not a defense but a time-saver and, if justified, an attempt at preserving focus and pellucidity.
[29] You have provided no good reason to believe that your claims were anything more than personal opinions.
I am not stalling for time, nor am I out of options.

31, 28, 29 I know better than to believe that your conversations don't wander 'off topic'. The topic is not uprooted, but other matters are introduced to deal with the topic, and they take on their own course. It is the nature of normal conversation, and this format lends itself to it.

We've dealt with Posts, 249 and 257 enough. I don't care to stall here. If you wish to turn the tables on me and tell me I am the one out of answers, then ok --have at it and enjoy. I'm tired of the argument.

Then we must both be exceptions : You don't pretend to be able to present evidence for your claims and I don't accuse Christians of eschewing any need for evidence.

Haha, clever. Your debating skills, I see, include in the ability to disorient the opponent by feint and dodge.

[26] Yes.
[27] But such things almost never happen to Christians. That is why I was so surprised.
You claimed in post 288 : “But beside that, he [God] owns us”.

27 ok

What was your objection to that from 288? (I expect you meant 290) Sorry for asking but it was a long time ago for me.

[32] You should read the Bible. You find him behaving the way probably primitive goat herds would imagine an allmighty deity would behave. It is easy to think of improvements to the way God handles things. I agree though that there are alternative possibilities. God could be weak, stupid or wicked.
[33] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
[34] So you claim, but can you prove that ?
[35] I am not suggesting a definition, but it should be relatively easy to modify a definition that only allows for one being such that it allows for more.

32 Implying I don't read the Bible? I find it rather amazing that unbelievers generally require God to act supernatural and then mock him when he does. There really isn't any need to get ugly here. God would not be God, if he is weak or stupid. Your words mock you.
33 Here we go again. I could say that for every assertion you make.
34 Ditto
35 Why do so? If God is God, First Cause is not a modification, but not omniscient, as though god must learn something --that's plain dead wrong, or one is no longer talking about God, but some supernatural being.

That method has major drawbacks. For one thing, today many people don't trust the church to read and interpret the Bible for them. Today God has apparently even shifted to speaking through spokesmen as many of the new Christian churches in America demonstrate. A problem is that not everyone believes these people really are hotlines to God.

Why do you call it a problem? I have never considered spokesmen as hotlines to God. That is not Scriptural, not sensible.

There appears to be no one left willing to defend the position that God is love.

When you require 'love' to fit your thoughts on the matter, and do not allow the notion of 'God' to fit mine, what do you expect? I have defended the position that God is love, perhaps poorly, but it is ludicrous to suppose that mere humans can do a better job of defining 'love' than the Creator of all things can do.

 

[Neogaia777]

Hebrews 4:8-9- "Though he were a Son, yet he (Jesus) learned obedience by the things which he suffered (went through); And being made perfect, he became the author (source) of eternal salvation (life) unto all them that (would choose to) obey him."

And God in the OT changed His mind (as He did many times in the OT) after Moses had a talk with Him, and did not do the evil or calamity that He swore to do with certain people, and had to grow and/or learn/develop along the way as well, etc...

Exodus 32:11-14- "And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. (and did not do it, etc) (but was going to, etc)...

God in the OT also went through a whole slew of more human like behavior and emotions that just is not at all even possible for a God who always knew/knows all from the very, very beginning, etc... He was also at times shocked, or taken aback, and "hurt", etc, which is also just not not possible for a God who always knew/knows all from the very, very beginning, etc...

But I guess I don't expect you to understand "logic" though...

Either way, the purpose for the other two was to show us God the Father who could not show Himself to us otherwise, because that is/was the one thing His full omniscience from the very beginning, or from before even making anything, or creating anything or anyone, etc, just prevents absolutely, etc...

But I guess I don't expect you to understand that "logic" either, etc...

Where the two meet or are reconciled (Jesus Christ, or the God-Man, and God in the OT, or God the Spirit) where their two ways are fully reconciled/rejoined, there, in that middle, is where we will see God the Father, etc...

And we will also understand what that One (God the Father) might have been like if He were in time with us also, etc...

Which is just not at all even possible for Him to ever do without the other two, etc...

Who also just could not be made fully omniscient from the very beginning (those other two), or none of this would have been/would be even possible, etc...

They are pretty much omnipotent in this world though, the other two are/always were, etc, and God the Spirit, or God in the OT, who either became or always was, etc, the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ in the NT, etc, is omnipresent inside the heart/being/soul/spirit of every new born again person or true believer, etc...

Satan is on the outside, etc, but that's another topic/story, etc...

And they are/always were "partially omniscient" also, (the other two, etc), as we see some of that in scripture, etc, just not all the way until maybe later on maybe, etc... "Maybe", etc...

That part is still up for debate, etc...

But not the rest of it, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Hebrews 4:8-9- "Though he were a Son, yet he (Jesus) learned obedience by the things which he suffered (went through); And being made perfect, he became the author (source) of eternal salvation (life) unto all them that (would choose to) obey him."

And God in the OT changed His mind (as He did many times in the OT) after Moses had a talk with Him, and did not do the evil or calamity that He swore to do with certain people, and had to grow and/or learn/develop along the way as well, etc...

Exodus 32:11-14- "And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. (and did not do it, etc) (but was going to, etc)...

God in the OT also went through a whole slew of more human like behavior and emotions that just is not at all even possible for a God who always knew/knows all from the very, very beginning, etc... He was also at times shocked, or taken aback, and "hurt", etc, which is also just not not possible for a God who always knew/knows all from the very, very beginning, etc...

But I guess I don't expect you to understand "logic" though...

Either way, the purpose for the other two was to show us God the Father who could not show Himself to us otherwise, because that is/was the one thing His full omniscience from the very beginning, or from before even making anything, or creating anything or anyone, etc, just prevents absolutely, etc...

But I guess I don't expect you to understand that "logic" either, etc...

Where the two meet or are reconciled (Jesus Christ, or the God-Man, and God in the OT, or God the Spirit) where their two ways are fully reconciled/rejoined, there, in that middle, is where we will see God the Father, etc...

And we will also understand what that One (God the Father) might have been like if He were in time with us also, etc...

Which is just not at all even possible for Him to ever do without the other two, etc...

Who also just could not be made fully omniscient from the very beginning (those other two), or none of this would have been/would be even possible, etc...

They are pretty much omnipotent in this world though, the other two are/always were, etc, and God the Spirit, or God in the OT, who either became or always was, etc, the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ in the NT, etc, is omnipresent inside the heart/being/soul/spirit of every new born again person or true believer, etc...

Satan is on the outside, etc, but that's another topic/story, etc...

And they are/always were "partially omniscient" also, (the other two, etc), as we see some of that in scripture, etc, just not all the way until maybe later on maybe, etc... "Maybe", etc...

That part is still up for debate, etc...

But not the rest of it, etc...

God Bless!

The Great "I AM" is/always was, etc, what He always will, or was to become, etc...

Which is/was God the Father "in time", etc...

But Jesus was also very crucial in this for that One also, etc...

Very, very crucial/key in that/this for that One also, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Bradskii]

I don't doubt God does give guidance. In fact, the Bible says as much, and I have been given guidance too. My skepticism is with the particular individual cases I hear about. When I 'receive' guidance, I almost always (if I have time) reflect before acting on it, because probably most often it is me --my mind-- not God --at least it used to be. The Christian life should not resemble divination.

But what you are effectively saying here is that guidance that you get is trustworthy but for others...not so much. They may well be mistaken. As a disinterested observer, how do I tell who is getting the correct guidance?

 

[Neogaia777]

Hebrews 4:8-9- "Though he were a Son, yet he (Jesus) learned obedience by the things which he suffered (went through); And being made perfect, he became the author (source) of eternal salvation (life) unto all them that (would choose to) obey him."

And God in the OT changed His mind (as He did many times in the OT) after Moses had a talk with Him, and did not do the evil or calamity that He swore to do with certain people, and had to grow and/or learn/develop along the way as well, etc...

Exodus 32:11-14- "And Moses besought the LORD his God, and said, LORD, why doth thy wrath wax hot against thy people, which thou hast brought forth out of the land of Egypt with great power, and with a mighty hand? Wherefore should the Egyptians speak, and say, For mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth? Turn from thy fierce wrath, and repent of this evil against thy people. Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. (and did not do it, etc) (but was going to, etc)...

God in the OT also went through a whole slew of more human like behavior and emotions that just is not at all even possible for a God who always knew/knows all from the very, very beginning, etc... He was also at times shocked, or taken aback, and "hurt", etc, which is also just not not possible for a God who always knew/knows all from the very, very beginning, etc...

But I guess I don't expect you to understand "logic" though...

Either way, the purpose for the other two was to show us God the Father who could not show Himself to us otherwise, because that is/was the one thing His full omniscience from the very beginning, or from before even making anything, or creating anything or anyone, etc, just prevents absolutely, etc...

But I guess I don't expect you to understand that "logic" either, etc...

Where the two meet or are reconciled (Jesus Christ, or the God-Man, and God in the OT, or God the Spirit) where their two ways are fully reconciled/rejoined, there, in that middle, is where we will see God the Father, etc...

And we will also understand what that One (God the Father) might have been like if He were in time with us also, etc...

Which is just not at all even possible for Him to ever do without the other two, etc...

Who also just could not be made fully omniscient from the very beginning (those other two), or none of this would have been/would be even possible, etc...

They are pretty much omnipotent in this world though, the other two are/always were, etc, and God the Spirit, or God in the OT, who either became or always was, etc, the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ in the NT, etc, is omnipresent inside the heart/being/soul/spirit of every new born again person or true believer, etc...

Satan is on the outside, etc, but that's another topic/story, etc...

And they are/always were "partially omniscient" also, (the other two, etc), as we see some of that in scripture, etc, just not all the way until maybe later on maybe, etc... "Maybe", etc...

That part is still up for debate, etc...

But not the rest of it, etc...

God Bless!

The Holy Spirit, or what used to be God in and of the OT, etc, used to be on the outside also, in the OT, etc, but He is now on the inside of every born again believer now that started with and/or changed, or began to change, with Jesus, etc...

Just thought I should also mention that part also, etc...

One of the things that changed with Him (God the Spirit) with Jesus, or starting with Jesus, etc, that continued on after Jesus, etc... We are the Holy Temples now, etc...

Just thought I should mention that, as I didn't put it into (the above) before...

God Bless!

 

[Mark Quayle]

But what you are effectively saying here is that guidance that you get is trustworthy but for others...not so much. They may well be mistaken. As a disinterested observer, how do I tell who is getting the correct guidance?

I thought what I said was that what at one point usually may have seemed to me to be guidance was not, because it was from myself, not from God.. But oh well.

One thing that always helps is to consider if the guidance opposes Scripture. Another is to see whether it makes sense. For some, like Abraham, there is also a time for 'guidance' that doesn't seem immediately to make sense, but is nevertheless overwhelmingly compelling. Upon, reflection, he may have seen that God was testing his trust, obedience and faithfulness. I'm thinking Abraham learned a lesson that day, too.

Over the years, I have noticed that often Christians (and others) love what is flashy, like children. They like loud, effective things, and supposing something is a revelation from God is among those kinds of things. But less imposing, yet more effective, are the 'small' things that God does, the reminding of conscience, the stopping of the mouth, the compelling to help someone or to pray, and the joy and satisfaction at hearing or reading something that feels like eating food, and the heart tearing or melting into repentance and the comfort and restored communion that follows.

 

[Bradskii]

I thought what I said was that what at one point usually may have seemed to me to be guidance was not, because it was from myself, not from God.. But oh well.

One thing that always helps is to consider if the guidance opposes Scripture. Another is to see whether it makes sense. For some, like Abraham, there is also a time for 'guidance' that doesn't seem immediately to make sense, but is nevertheless overwhelmingly compelling. Upon, reflection, he may have seen that God was testing his trust, obedience and faithfulness. I'm thinking Abraham learned a lesson that day, too.

Over the years, I have noticed that often Christians (and others) love what is flashy, like children. They like loud, effective things, and supposing something is a revelation from God is among those kinds of things. But less imposing, yet more effective, are the 'small' things that God does, the reminding of conscience, the stopping of the mouth, the compelling to help someone or to pray, and the joy and satisfaction at hearing or reading something that feels like eating food, and the heart tearing or melting into repentance and the comfort and restored communion that follows.

There are examples of God commanding violence in scripture that we might say didn't really happen and we can ignore them. Or we can agree that God wouldn't order something that heinous. But so many people have played the Who Can Know The Mind Of God card when He appears to have done something which we would normally define as immoral. Effectively saying that it certainly looks wrong, but if God commanded it, then it must be right.

Which kills any notion of us as individulas being able to determine what is right or wrong. God pricking our conscience now and then is fine. Feeling that God wants you to help someone is great. But...if the results of what we might think is guidance from God are a lot more consequential and that guidance is used as the basis for action, then it concerns me.

For example (from 2005): 'George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.' George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'

 

[Mark Quayle]

There are examples of God commanding violence in scripture that we might say didn't really happen and we can ignore them. Or we can agree that God wouldn't order something that heinous. But so many people have played the Who Can Know The Mind Of God card when He appears to have done something which we would normally define as immoral. Effectively saying that it certainly looks wrong, but if God commanded it, then it must be right.

I'm not sure I understand. You seem to be saying that ignoring or denying what God said is equivalent with saying we cannot know the mind of God. Or are you saying the Mind of God card is a third option people use?

You say, "...when He appears to have done something which we would normally define as immoral." --We who? and immoral for who to do? You include God with his creatures in this? It would be immoral for us to decide to wipe out another nation, but not for God to do so. Remember, he is God, and he has so far wiped out everyone who ever lived, not counting anyone less than say, 140 years old and still living at present. And it isn't looking too good for them, either, along those lines.

Which kills any notion of us as individulas being able to determine what is right or wrong. God pricking our conscience now and then is fine. Feeling that God wants you to help someone is great. But...if the results of what we might think is guidance from God are a lot more consequential and that guidance is used as the basis for action, then it concerns me.

But even as unbelievers we know right from wrong. How does that kill any notion of us as individuals being able to determine what is right or wrong? (By 'determine what is right or wrong', I expect you mean something like, 'decide what is right or wrong', or, 'judge right from wrong' --not, 'cause a thing to be right vs wrong'.)

FWIW I agree with you about consequential actions --it concerns me, too, when people do that.

For example (from 2005): 'George Bush has claimed he was on a mission from God when he launched the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, according to a senior Palestinian politician in an interview to be broadcast by the BBC later this month.' George Bush: 'God told me to end the tyranny in Iraq'

I wouldn't be surprised if you automatically believe that George Bush indeed thought God had told him to end the tyranny in Iraq. I am skeptical, not only of the notion that God had told him to do so, but that Bush claimed (or at least, thought) God had told him to do so. (Which wasn't a bad idea, btw. They should have done it old-war style, though. Go in, get the job done, get out. Quit playing 'rules of engagement'. But I digress.)