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

[Mark Quayle]

This sounds like nothing but a justification after the fact...

How so? I don't understand what you are saying/ referring to.

 

[Mark Quayle]

There's that arrogant position again. Assuming that I haven't prayed to God for the truth. I did and still got nothing. Apparently I was indeed "cast out," despite your claims that I wouldn't.

In spite of evidence to the contrary, I may know a little what you mean. I prayed for years for what I thought was simple promised 'freedom from sin', and (as I think of it) God took me through 50 years or better of 'you don't know what you are talking about' slowly making me realize this life is not about me, and that he does what he does according to his own timeline (or plan) and purposes, and not mine (think, book of Job).

To put it crassly, maybe you didn't actually "come to God". Or maybe you only feel cast out because the answer wasn't according to your assumptions about it.

— "I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean?" CS Lewis — Till We Have Faces, A Fable Retold.

 

[Kylie]

How so? I don't understand what you are saying/ referring to.

I mean that it sounds like an explanation that you came up with in order to explain what's already happened.

However, any explanation that's got any value will allow you to make predictions about the future. Scientific explanations allow us to do that. But I can't see how yours could let us make predictions at all.

 

[Kylie]

In spite of evidence to the contrary, I may know a little what you mean. I prayed for years for what I thought was simple promised 'freedom from sin', and (as I think of it) God took me through 50 years or better of 'you don't know what you are talking about' slowly making me realize this life is not about me, and that he does what he does according to his own timeline (or plan) and purposes, and not mine (think, book of Job).

To put it crassly, maybe you didn't actually "come to God". Or maybe you only feel cast out because the answer wasn't according to your assumptions about it.

— "I saw well why the gods do not speak to us openly, nor let us answer. Till that word can be dug out of us, why should they hear the babble that we think we mean?" CS Lewis — Till We Have Faces, A Fable Retold.

I hope you understand, I don't feel cast out. To me, God is a fictional character. I feel no more cast out by God for him not giving me faith in him than I feel cast out by Hogwarts for not getting a letter via owl telling me to go and study there.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I mean that it sounds like an explanation that you came up with in order to explain what's already happened.

However, any explanation that's got any value will allow you to make predictions about the future. Scientific explanations allow us to do that. But I can't see how yours could let us make predictions at all.

Scientific explanations can't predict what God is going to do. But it seems to me a bit odd that anyone would expect them to.

I mean, sure, it is me trying to explain, by what little I know, why God would not make you a believer, as you asked. It also allowed that he might, whenever the time was right. And what little I know is by Bible, by reason, and by experience.

If all you were talking about is what I said about me, and not its relevance to your situation, then ok, yeah, it is me trying to come up with an explanation for what happened in my situation. That, according to Bible, reason, experience.

Are you saying my reasoning is therefore not sound? Or at least reasonable? or what? Not reliable? Who can know why God does what he does? Or are you saying that attributing any of this to God is not good reason. To me it is very good reason, based on the fact that I see more reason to believe that God should exist than that I should. If there is existence at all, there is First Cause.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I hope you understand, I don't feel cast out. To me, God is a fictional character. I feel no more cast out by God for him not giving me faith in him than I feel cast out by Hogwarts for not getting a letter via owl telling me to go and study there.

lol, ok.

 

[Kylie]

Scientific explanations can't predict what God is going to do. But it seems to me a bit odd that anyone would expect them to.

I mean, sure, it is me trying to explain, by what little I know, why God would not make you a believer, as you asked. It also allowed that he might, whenever the time was right. And what little I know is by Bible, by reason, and by experience.

If all you were talking about is what I said about me, and not its relevance to your situation, then ok, yeah, it is me trying to come up with an explanation for what happened in my situation. That, according to Bible, reason, experience.

Are you saying my reasoning is therefore not sound? Or at least reasonable? or what? Not reliable? Who can know why God does what he does? Or are you saying that attributing any of this to God is not good reason. To me it is very good reason, based on the fact that I see more reason to believe that God should exist than that I should. If there is existence at all, there is First Cause.

The thing is, though, that your position is that God will either make me a believer or he won't. Since that covers literally any possible result, it tells me nothing useful at all. If your reasoning is unable to eliminate anything at all, then I'd suggest that it isn't very useful.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The thing is, though, that your position is that God will either make me a believer or he won't. Since that covers literally any possible result, it tells me nothing useful at all. If your reasoning is unable to eliminate anything at all, then I'd suggest that it isn't very useful.

Sure it tells you something useful. It tells you that this is up to God. And along with other things you have heard, it also adds to them to tell you not to reject him. Along with other, other things you have heard, it tells you not to expect him to make things look like what you expect. For all I know, he may already have regenerated you, and you are struggling against what you know internally.

About that, the one coming to him will not be cast out, the statement was said with context: Those that the Father gives him are the ones who will come to him. Also, in another place, "Without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Happily, that last does not mean that there must be NO doubt on the part of the diligent seeker, because saving faith is the work of the Spirit of God, who does, of course, not doubt. It doesn't have to be a large amount of faith, but true faith. Even as in, "Lord, help my unbelief."

As in, "A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out."

 

[Kylie]

Sure it tells you something useful. It tells you that this is up to God. And along with other things you have heard, it also adds to them to tell you not to reject him. Along with other, other things you have heard, it tells you not to expect him to make things look like what you expect. For all I know, he may already have regenerated you, and you are struggling against what you know internally.

About that, the one coming to him will not be cast out, the statement was said with context: Those that the Father gives him are the ones who will come to him. Also, in another place, "Without faith it is impossible to please God, for he who comes to God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him." Happily, that last does not mean that there must be NO doubt on the part of the diligent seeker, because saving faith is the work of the Spirit of God, who does, of course, not doubt. It doesn't have to be a large amount of faith, but true faith. Even as in, "Lord, help my unbelief."

As in, "A bruised reed he will not break, and a smoldering wick he will not snuff out."

People have been making that same claim about their particular faiths and deities for centuries. When you understand why you dismiss it when it comes to faiths other than your own, you'll understand why I dismiss it when you say it.

 

[Mark Quayle]

People have been making that same claim about their particular faiths and deities for centuries. When you understand why you dismiss it when it comes to faiths other than your own, you'll understand why I dismiss it when you say it.

Already done. Years ago, actually.

But your implication here is that my religion is similar to theirs, and my reasons to believe what I do is the same as theirs. It is not. My 'faith' (belief) is of a different source than myself, and my God is absolutely Omnipotent, First Cause, self-existent, not subject to universal principle.

 

[Kylie]

Already done. Years ago, actually.

But your implication here is that my religion is similar to theirs, and my reasons to believe what I do is the same as theirs. It is not. My 'faith' (belief) is of a different source than myself, and my God is absolutely Omnipotent, First Cause, self-existent, not subject to universal principle.

And they would claim that their faith is special and thus is different. Your claims that your religion is different and therefore special are no different to claims made by religious people throughout history.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And they would claim that their faith is special and thus is different. Your claims that your religion is different and therefore special are no different to claims made by religious people throughout history.

When you say, "they would claim that their faith is special and thus is different.", do you mean by 'faith' the particular religion, or do you mean the trust in their god?

My claim is that the source of the particular faith through which the redeemed are saved, is different, not being the act of the believer, but the work of God. 'Special' doesn't rate.

 

[Kylie]

When you say, "they would claim that their faith is special and thus is different.", do you mean by 'faith' the particular religion, or do you mean the trust in their god?

My claim is that the source of the particular faith through which the redeemed are saved, is different, not being the act of the believer, but the work of God. 'Special' doesn't rate.

Both work.

Your religious beliefs aren't as unique as you think they are. People of all faiths believe, like you, that their faith is different to other faiths, and they have the truth.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Both work.

Your religious beliefs aren't as unique as you think they are. People of all faiths believe, like you, that their faith is different to other faiths, and they have the truth.

Of course they do. But uniqueness isn't the point, really so much as what it is that is unique about it.

First, it is obvious that Omnipotence outranks every other supposed god. Corollary to that is the notion of the inability of the creature to apprehend the divine, except through the substitution by the divine —i.e. the love of God for the totally unworthy. Do you notice the field getting smaller yet? The logical implications of Omnipotence continue a long way, until Christianity is the only one left.

 

[Kylie]

Of course they do. But uniqueness isn't the point, really so much as what it is that is unique about it.

First, it is obvious that Omnipotence outranks every other supposed god. Corollary to that is the notion of the inability of the creature to apprehend the divine, except through the substitution by the divine —i.e. the love of God for the totally unworthy. Do you notice the field getting smaller yet? The logical implications of Omnipotence continue a long way, until Christianity is the only one left.

The logical implications of omnipotence don't match what we see in reality.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The logical implications of omnipotence don't match what we see in reality.

Sure they do. It is just that we assume a direction to omnipotence that omnipotence does not have.

 

[Kylie]

Sure they do. It is just that we assume a direction to omnipotence that omnipotence does not have.

That sounds like just a fancy way of saying it means whatever you want it to mean.

 

[Mark Quayle]

That sounds like just a fancy way of saying it means whatever you want it to mean.

Let me restate it then.
Kylie said: ↑
The logical implications of omnipotence don't match what we see in reality.
That is because we assume omnipotence has in mind to accomplish things that it does not have in mind to accomplish. What we consider to be logical assumptions of omnipotence aren't actually logical, so what we consider to be logical implications are also not actually logical. For example, many times now, I have been told that Christianity believes God's purpose for us is to help him accumulate as many believers as possible —that God 'wants all to come to repentance'. That's a false assumption. That's like saying that the purpose of this club is to get more people to join the club. They tell me he could have done a much better job of that. Well, no doubt, but that isn't what he is doing.

 

[Kylie]

Let me restate it then.
Kylie said: ↑
The logical implications of omnipotence don't match what we see in reality.
That is because we assume omnipotence has in mind to accomplish things that it does not have in mind to accomplish. What we consider to be logical assumptions of omnipotence aren't actually logical, so what we consider to be logical implications are also not actually logical. For example, many times now, I have been told that Christianity believes God's purpose for us is to help him accumulate as many believers as possible —that God 'wants all to come to repentance'. That's a false assumption. That's like saying that the purpose of this club is to get more people to join the club. They tell me he could have done a much better job of that. Well, no doubt, but that isn't what he is doing.

I don't see anything there that renders my original response invalid.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't see anything there that renders my original response invalid.

You said, "The logical implications of omnipotence don't match what we see in reality." You don't see that you have declared by your own authority, just what the logical implications of omnipotence are? Nor do you admit to a biased, not to mention incomplete, concept of reality, nor a biased view of what see in that reality?