Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
You do appear to speak for this hypothetical god. Did you not say that this god hates religion?Wow... you have to be doing this on purpose. There is no way possible someone is this belligerent out of ignorance.
It has come to the point it is not worth speaking to you. I concede nothing. Bye Bye.
Yet another issue with using the bible as "evidence": aside from the circular reasoning, everyone can point the finger at each other and claim their interpretation is the correct one. Cherry pick, move goalposts, argue from ignorance, look for Scotsman, confirm their biases ... claim "semantics". I've tried to speak with you and not tear you down, rather I've tried to speak to you respectfully and even on your level of referring to scripture once, which is something I tend to avoid for a variety of reasons.Semantics. This is also why I term myself as a non-denominational follower of Jesus, but most people do not understand that. So it's easier to be identified as Christian.
I'm sorry for the mishap. I'm not aggravated. Nor was I when I posted that. My intentions were to point out how this is not a discussion, and some chose not to try and hear what is presented, and by what methods are being used. I have done this in the past, and it tends to bring out the more intellectual crowed. I do apologize.Yes, but you need to breathe and assess the problem and attempt to resolve it. Don't get all like this, frustrated because that makes you fun.
What word do you use to desribe Christianity then, if you would rather not use the word "religion" when "religion" is the contextually correct word to use?
I do apologize. In my haste to go to wI answered you quite idiotically now that I reread my post.Yet another issue with using the bible as "evidence": aside from the circular reasoning, everyone can point the finger at each other and claim their interpretation is the correct one. Cherry pick, move goalposts, argue from ignorance, look for Scotsman, confirm their biases ... claim "semantics". I've tried to speak with you and not tear you down, rather I've tried to speak to you respectfully and even on your level of referring to scripture once, which is something I tend to avoid for a variety of reasons.
Anyways, moving on ...
I have made a post on this.You do appear to speak for this hypothetical god. Did you not say that this god hates religion?
Christianity is a religion.
Therefore, this god hates Christianity.
Perhaps you would like to clarify, if that is not accurate.
I know what I think, but I am more interested at this, to know what you think. Can you please describe what you think this says about His character?
I don't think so, when you translate this into the real situation that the parable is describing. In the real situation, you have people that are wheat and people that are weeds sharing the same world, living alongside each other. Often there is weeds and wheat within the same family. Imagine the situation, if God is to come along and pluck out those who were not of suitable character. Do you think it is possible, given what you know about human attitudes, that He could do this without causing some of the wheat to lose confidence or faith or love for Him?
If he did know then he can't have "fallen asleep," as in the parable. He could have acted to prevent it.I expect that He probably did know, but I am also certain that He knows others would not believe Him if He made such an accusation without evidence. If He was to do that, to charge His enemy without evidence, surely you would expect Him to lose the support of some who have a greater sense of justice than those who follow in blind faith. I do believe He has followers who respect Him for His just rulership as evidenced and not just through trusting in blind faith, the sort of attitude I am sure comes to mind quite readily as I say this (if you have been following the thread).
Hey good on you, it is good to repent and do right. But this still leaves the problem unresolved though, that you seem to be saying that Christianity is not a religion. But the definition of a religion does describe Christianity. People are right to tell you that you are misusing that word. But I also know what you are describing, I think you need to object to more specific aspects of the religious activity. However, I did also ask you to suggest what word you would rather use to describe Christianity that "religion" when "religion" is the correct word to use in that specific context. An example might be "donations to religions are exempt from tax" - I wonder if you would like to offer a different version of that expression. Alternatively you might rather rephrase the expression you made in the first place, that rather than saying God is against all religion, He is against something more specific and descriptive. FYI, it is said well by the prophet Isaiah:I'm sorry for the mishap. I'm not aggravated. Nor was I when I posted that. My intentions were to point out how this is not a discussion, and some chose not to try and hear what is presented, and by what methods are being used. I have done this in the past, and it tends to bring out the more intellectual crowed. I do apologize.
The no true Scotsman is an attempt to hold an unreasonable view. By him saying this, I took it I was being unreasonable because I could not reason my argument using his parameters. So I said what I said. Not to be dismissive, but to reassert my position of using the word to define the word.
As far as Christianity goes, this became a complete train wreck misunderstanding. I had to go to work so I have been offline, and just now got on to my own horror of seeing how I presented myself, and how it could be perceived. It wasn't my intention, but I own it.
I do not care how you term Christianity. I'am not a semantics person for the most part. But "religion" is one word I do get into biblical semantics over. Religion is viewed in the bible, by God, as a horrible thing God cannot stand, Because religion is mans belief systems imposed onto Gods word. The denominational differences are all over who is right in their own belief rather than what does God say. Now mind you, I am not saying they are evil or even bad. What I am saying is I do not rely on religion to base my belief. I pray, read, and ask.
You seem to be implying something but not wanting to say it. I insist, please go ahead and say it, otherwise I could guess wrong and make an assumption that isn't right. To answer this question too, I would need to know the person's reason for not intervening, because intention is a key factor in determining whether someone's action is right or wrong.I already have, more or less. What would you think of someone who deliberately refused to intervene when he or she could easily do so at little or no cost to themselves?
Do you suggest that every child that would not honor God would be stillborn or something? I don't know how you think that satisfies the requirement for evidence of guilt. And I am sure you are not thinking properly about the way wheat would respond if God was to take away the weeds. I am pretty sure that you are just making up an alternative reality. So if you are serious, please go ahead and describe how you think it would be possible.It wouldn't be possible for us to do this, given our limitations. But we would expect an omnipotent being to be able to do so without inflicting any harm on the wheat. Moreover, an omniscient being would be able to foresee exactly where weeds would spring forth, allowing him to intervene before the weeds even begin to grow.
But the enemy would have only waited for another opportunity. That would not have solved the problem. I said this previously, which maybe you didn't read as being so important as it was intended to be:If he did know then he can't have "fallen asleep," as in the parable. He could have acted to prevent it.
Why does that make it a problem though?Yet another issue with using the bible as "evidence": aside from the circular reasoning, everyone can point the finger at each other and claim their interpretation is the correct one. Cherry pick, move goalposts, argue from ignorance, look for Scotsman, confirm their biases ... claim "semantics".
I do not recall asking that.Thing that is wrong is that Davian has asked whether he can change LostMarbel's words to something that LostMarbel's has not said,
No, I would have quoted his actual words. It would be intellectually dishonest to misrepresent someone else's postion.and then asked whether he can offer this as a quote of what LostMarbel's has said.
Could you possibly be projecting here?But he also says this in a mocking fashion,
How are are either of us able to know 'full well' what LostMarbels intended to say? Can you read minds?knowing full well that LostMarbels will object to it and that what Davian has paraphrased does not represent what LostMarbels would want to say.
Dear Mr Mian Reeder, you are quick the play the victim card. It may be that of these two people in this exchange you are commenting on, one individual is a n00b with some questions, and the other considers himself infallible and to have two-way relationship with an all-powerful, all-knowing deity riding shotgun in his life. The latter individual comes in here swinging, but fails to come up with more than unevidenced, unfalsifiable, and untestable religious rhetoric. When called out on this unevidenced, unfalsifiable, and untestable religious rhetoric, you jump to his defence, making this personal, implying that he is the injured party. Did I miss anything?So Davian is not really asking a question, but taking a contentious jab at LostMarbels because he likes to make fun of, and have fun making fun of, religious people.
Not really.Does this help you to see what is wrong with the question?
Suppose that the person tells you that they refuse to intervene out of respect for the assailant's "free will." Is that a good reason?You seem to be implying something but not wanting to say it. I insist, please go ahead and say it, otherwise I could guess wrong and make an assumption that isn't right. To answer this question too, I would need to know the person's reason for not intervening, because intention is a key factor in determining whether someone's action is right or wrong.
The wheat wouldn't need to respond in any way to the absence of the weeds because the wheat would have grown in their absence from the very beginning.Do you suggest that every child that would not honor God would be stillborn or something? I don't know how you think that satisfies the requirement for evidence of guilt. And I am sure you are not thinking properly about the way wheat would respond if God was to take away the weeds. I am pretty sure that you are just making up an alternative reality. So if you are serious, please go ahead and describe how you think it would be possible.
The enemy would be waiting forever then.But the enemy would have only waited for another opportunity. That would not have solved the problem. I said this previously, which maybe you didn't read as being so important as it was intended to be:
Rest easy? Why would he need to "rest" at all? You keep talking about God as though he were a human being. Humans are concerned about damaging the wheat while removing weeds; humans are concerned by risk and worry whether they can rest easy. An omnipotent and omniscient being need not share any of these concerns.I can imagine though, that God would like the freedom to rest easy, knowing that there was no risk in turning His back.
Cute.I do not recall asking that.
No, I would have quoted his actual words. It would be intellectually dishonest to misrepresent someone else's postion.
Could you possibly be projecting here?
How are are either of us able to know 'full well' what LostMarbels intended to say? Can you read minds?
Dear Mr Mian Reeder, you are quick the play the victim card. It may be that of these two people in this exchange you are commenting on, one individual is a n00b with some questions, and the other considers himself infallible and to have two-way relationship with an all-powerful, all-knowing deity riding shotgun in his life. The latter individual comes in here swinging, but fails to come up with more than unevidenced, unfalsifiable, and untestable religious rhetoric. When called out on this unevidenced, unfalsifiable, and untestable religious rhetoric, you jump to his defence, making this personal, implying that he is the injured party. Did I miss anything?
Not really.
One does not need to have an alternative argument to expose the flaws in others' arguments.It's simple alright...... Don't you ever feel bad that you actually cant come up with a good argument?
Sarcasm is only one tool with which to critique other's ideas.It's gotta suck to have to rely on sarcasm,
I am not here to make a case. I am here to see if you have one.and twisting facts instead of actually having facts that can make a case.
That would be inappropriate for this venue.Maybe you should come back at me and call me a meanie butt head,
The burden is on you to demonstrate that your god is real.or tell me my God is false..... That will show me!
Sarcasm must carefully and sparingly applied, or it may backfire on you.Flick boogers or whatever it is that you do. It sure makes me look stupid.
Certainly not, IMO.Suppose that the person tells you that they refuse to intervene out of respect for the assailant's "free will." Is that a good reason?
Yup. This is an alternative reality. How about when you apply that same question to the real situation? You know, where weeds and wheat are married and some are mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, friends etc.The wheat wouldn't need to respond in any way to the absence of the weeds because the wheat would have grown in their absence from the very beginning.
What kind of life would that be for God, if He was always watching out for enemies?The enemy would be waiting forever then.
Don't you like to rest?Rest easy? Why would he need to "rest" at all?
What if He wants to though? What if He genuinely cares about the wheat? You can make up an image of God that isn't consistent with the way He presents Himself, but you are not then discussing God in any real sense.You keep talking about God as though he were a human being. Humans are concerned about damaging the wheat while removing weeds; humans are concerned by risk and worry whether they can rest easy. An omnipotent and omniscient being need not share any of these concerns.
If I am not mistaken, was not that character on the right alleged to have been all-powerful and all-knowing? What was his excuse?Time for a repost:
View attachment 158899
I don't mean this disrespectfully whatsoever, however I could see why you may take it that way. But as I said, I don't mean it to be disrespectful.Why does that make it a problem though?
What would you say about the character of someone who offered this as their reason for not intervening?Certainly not, IMO.
As I said earlier, there would be no weeds from the beginning.Yup. This is an alternative reality. How about when you apply that same question to the real situation? You know, where weeds and wheat are married and some are mothers, fathers, daughters, sons, friends etc.
Are you suggesting that it would be onerous for him? Why? He is omnipotent; nothing can exhaust his limitless resources.What kind of life would that be for God, if He was always watching out for enemies?
Yes. But I'm not omnipotent. If I were, why would I need to rest?Don't you like to rest?
You are talking about God as if he had the same limitations as human beings.What if He wants to though? What if He genuinely cares about the wheat? You can make up an image of God that isn't consistent with the way He presents Himself, but you are not then discussing God in any real sense.
This might help you, but it is up to you of course.If I am not mistaken, was not that character on the right alleged to have been all-powerful and all-knowing? What was his excuse?
Do you speak for all atheists? I prefer to be ignostic on this topic. The burden of defining whatever they claim to believe in should be left to the religionist.Atheists have this idea of what God should be if there were a God,
Since none of the religionists I have met have been able to demonstrate that their "god" exists in reality, I tentatively conclude that their god is a character in a book.since the purported God doesn't live up to their concept then they conclude no God exists.
At a base level, I would say that an atheist would think that a "god" should be able to be shown to exist... hence their disbelief. Not in all cases, of course.I think the problem with Atheist is their conceptual limitation of what God is supposed to be.
What would that be?One the one hand they want and enjoy the liberty of free will but complain about what freewill-ness means for an evolutionary world.
God is not a big fluffy teddy bear that is all sugar coated rainbows and hugs. There are some Christians that might preach this, but then they're changing the Bible to fit them instead of changing themselves to fit the Bible. God is just like an earthly parent who wants His children to obey. Just like a parent has a need for discipline when it comes to a child's obedience, the same applies to the big picture. We are children of God regardless of your belief, and you are not exempt from making mistakes regardless of how 'good' you think you are. If you screw up as a kid, do you not ask your parents for forgiveness? When they forgive you, do you then not except it? What causes you such heart hardheartedness that you are unwilling to treat your Heavenly Father the same?
God's wrath is real, and it will pour out on those who refuse to accept his forgiveness. God is a jealous God, and He does not want us worshiping anything over Him. If you do not believe in Him, than you believe in something else. A false idol. The new false idols of this world are money, property, self, food, celebrities, etc. When we love something worldly more than God we are living in sin. We must love God, each other, and put our faith in Him. He has chosen us, and we should be thankful. Follow the rules of the loving parent who created us, and remain obedient to the Word of God. "For this is the will of God, that by doing good you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish people. Live as people who are free, not using your freedom as a cover-up for evil, but living as servants of God." (1 Peter 2:15-16)
I don't know, TBH. I am curious now, what do you say of those who watch predators hunt their prey without intervening? Like those photographers for the Nature Channel? (BTW, I should remind you sooner than later to consider this is a strawman, because God does call us to judgement for our actions).What would you say about the character of someone who offered this as their reason for not intervening?
I told you, that is an alternative reality. It's ok if you don't want to think about the real world, just I think you should not go thinking that you have a case to blame God before you have really thought it through.As I said earlier, there would be no weeds from the beginning.
You are making an assumption though that He doesn't enjoy resting. It is clear in scriptural descriptions that He does.Are you suggesting that it would be onerous for him? Why? He is omnipotent; nothing can exhaust his limitless resources.
It is relaxing, rejuvenating, gives you a chance to enjoy life without needing to concentrate on daily demands. Don't you know how good it is to rest?Yes. But I'm not omnipotent. If I were, why would I need to rest?
I am only picturing Him as a person. Limitations are a different topic.You are talking about God as if he had the same limitations as human beings.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?