ChristianT
Newbie Orthodox
- Nov 4, 2011
- 2,059
- 89
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
The author of the above quote escapes my mind... Is is George Lucas? ...Frank Oz? ...oh well.
A: Yoda
Upvote
0
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.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
I have news for you. That is precisely what Christian churches do. They exist to benefit off of the naivete of the followers.I didn't mean church (although, of course, there are such churches). I meant people who intend to benefit off of followers' naivete to their detriment.I don't give my money to predators - aka I don't go to church, nor have I sacrificed any of my values or life on the account of Christianity. Christians - on the other hand - have been falling for the "snake-oil salesman" techniques employed in the church. I'm just not that gullible.
You're missing the point. Let's say the sky is blue. If 99% of the people in the world say the sky is green, does that make it any less blue?Why would I tell the masses that? That seems demonstrably false.My message to God - if he exists - is show me credible and objectively measurable evidence and I'll believe. If God truly is all powerful, then doing what it would take for me to believe would be about as easy for him as it is for you or me to take a breath of air.
I didn't see him come in the flesh and neither did you. The only reason you believe that he did, is because so many masses of people have preached that to be true. Why do you accept that these people are right? Why not critically examine the situation without bias?
If you and almost everyone else told the masses over and over again that 2+2 is equal to 7, eventually almost everyone would believe that. There would be exceptions such as myself who know that just because everyone else says the sky on a clear sunny day is green doesn't mean it is any less blue.
Do you really think that Jesus being God is akin to saying that 2 + 2 = 7? You are mathematically certain that he is not?
If you tell me in secular terms what you've observed (e.g. "I've observed the Empire State building moved to a cornfield in Nebraska" and not, "God has spoken personally to me") and I'll tell you if it's something I've observed.What have I observed that you haven't observed?If it isn't subjective, then what Christians have observed is different from what I've observed. Why then if my mind, eyes and ears are all wide open have I not observed what you've observed?
Absolute 100% irrefutable evidence is one thing. What I'm talking about is different. I'm talking about enough to convince me to the point where I'd wager in favor of omnipotence rather than wager against it.What I meant was that we have different ideas of what would constitute evidence of omnipotence, and that yours was actually not evidence of that. My idea of what would constitute that is proper evidence of that because it is something that has no natural explanation.I thought you said what we need to observe is not subjective. It seems like you contradicted yourself.
If omnipotence is equal to being able to do anything, then seeing the Empire State Building moved to a cornfield in Nebraska would move me closer to wagering in favor of omnipotence being a real force. But perhaps I'm wrong about the definition of omnipotence. How would you define omnipotence?Sure there is. It isn't evidence of omnipotence. It is evidence of great power. There is a categorical difference.Christians have posited that God can do anything and knows everything. There is nothing unreasonable about my desire to see the Empire State Building being lifted up and deposited in a cornfield in Nebraska to move me forward towards believing that there is a God that can do anything.
Since I defined the being who passed on this information to you as God, then we can rule out #2. And since I said if you make a choice contrary to what God knew you would make, then God has temporarily stripped himself of his omniscience, then #1 must be correct.That would probably mean at least one of two (not mutually exclusive) possibilities:This means you believe God can do absolutely anything and knows absolutely everything. That being said, what then happens if God knows your a/b choice of tomorrow to be a, tells you it is a and you proceed to choose b?
Other than that he has chosen to relinquish his omniscience with respect to the case of your a/b choice, there cannot be an explanation.
1. The one who told me I would choose 'a' is not omnicient.
2. The one who told me I would choose 'a' is not God.
OK, I'll start a new thread on that subject. But in the meantime, tell me why you suppose most Christians have a problem with what I need to observe to be convinced that omniscience and omnipotence exist.I can't really speak for other Christians, I'm afraid. So, part of this question will have to be asked of them.Observing such a thing would move me quite a bit along in believing that a fully omnipotent power exists. Could I be 100% sure it wasn't a man-made optical illusion? No.
Why is it you and other Christians have a problem with what I need to observe to be convinced that omniscience and omnipotence exist?
That depends on your definition of God. I'm going by the definition of God in which he has fully omnipotent powers (or can do anything). Therefore, observing the Empire State Building being instantly moved to a cornfield in Nebraska, would definitely move me quite a bit toward believing that omnipotence (or the ability to do anything) is a real force present in this universe.For myself, it seems you're looking for something that is not evidence of God. Again, what is the most parsimonious explanation for the Empire State Building being lifted and deposited in Nebraska? Is God _really_ the parsimonious explanation?
Probably not. But please keep in mind that the example I cited wouldn't fully convince me that omnipotence and omniscience are real forces in this universe.If this happened, would you fault someone else for thinking you were gullible for thinking that it was evidence of God?
I don't fault them. I merely find them to be naive, gullible and stubborn.Relatedly, do you fault people for attributing things to God when they see things that, although strange, have natural explanations?
I can't speak for others, but for me, it would convince me enough that I'd believe omniscience & omnipotence are real forces present in this universe. Nothing more, nothing less.In the case of real evidence of this, what would that do to a person?I find it oddly suspicious that Christians don't expect to see such acts of omnipotence and that the God Christians talk about does absolutely no objectively measurable omnipotent or omniscient acts.
If I observed indisputable acts of omniscience & omnipotence, I would survive it. Would I remain sane? Absolutely. Would I outwardly proclaim I had observed indisputable acts of omniscience & omnipotence? Only if the acts I observed were objectively measurable and were observed by others as well.Could someone survive it? If someone did, would they be sane?
Either it's an issue of semantics and what they experienced is no different than what most people experience or they are delusional (see David Koresh or Jim Jones).Glibly, what makes you think some of the crazy people shouting in public squares about how they have met God have not?
The Bible is just a book which was written by humans. The humans who wrote the Bible could have had the prophets be happy or be unhappy when seeing those kind of things.In the Bible, when prophets see such things, they don't seem very happy about it.
I don't expect I'll ever see the things which would be enough to convince me that omniscience and omnipotence are real forces in this universe.More than being surprised that Christians do not expect to see weird and paradoxical things, I am surprised that you do.
I have news for you. That is precisely what Christian churches do. They exist to benefit off of the naivete of the followers.
I'd wager in favor of omnipotence rather than wager against it.
to be convinced that omniscience and omnipotence exist.
fully convince me that omnipotence and omniscience are real forces in this universe.
it would convince me enough that I'd believe omniscience & omnipotence are real forces present in this universe.
I don't expect I'll ever see the things which would be enough to convince me that omniscience and omnipotence are real forces in this universe.
Then allow me to reword.This is enough to get you an infraction, and your thread closed. C'mon manI have news for you. That is precisely what Christian churches do. They exist to benefit off of the naivete of the followers.
If God is omniscient & omnipotent and he wants us to believe he exists, then he is either really stupid or really stubborn. For a fully omnipotent being, it would be about as easy to get me to believe as it is for the average human being to take a breath of air.I'd wager in favor of omnipotence rather than wager against it.
to be convinced that omniscience and omnipotence exist.
fully convince me that omnipotence and omniscience are real forces in this universe.
it would convince me enough that I'd believe omniscience & omnipotence are real forces present in this universe.
I don't expect I'll ever see the things which would be enough to convince me that omniscience and omnipotence are real forces in this universe.
This is not seeking God. This is you trying to get God to climb into a box you have prepared for Him, like He was a pet dog or something. Even if you don't mean it this way, it's incredibly disrespectful, and not good for your soul.
Many Christians have maintained that God is fully omnipotent and omniscient. Even the Bible suggests this:Why the hang-up with omnipotence and omniscience? Neither word is even in the Bible.
Not all churches are equal. I have witnessed what you are describing though, in fact the majority of them are industrialized. This is what Jesus means "work hard to enter the narrow gate for wide is the path to destruction and many go that way". The lesser proportion contains those which are more integral to promoting faith. Sadly you can't identify them by denomination or the shape of their building, you actually have to visit them and interact with the people to know which ones are truly working for God. The pastors of industrialized churches are those who are choked by thorns in the parable of the sower. They are choked by the cares of this world (wealth and fame) and they never mature. Certainly if you listen to the waffle of many Christian radio and televangelist's you can see that their understanding is so mediocre. Get out and visit different churches, you will probably find one that inspires you, but you can't expect to find it unless you go shopping for it!Then allow me to reword.
I have news for you. That is precisely what it appears to me Christian churches do. They seem to exist to benefit off of the naivete of the followers
God is stubborn, He certainly isn't stupid. There must be a reason why He hasn't revealed Himself to you, have you offered to obey Him yet?If God is omniscient & omnipotent and he wants us to believe he exists, then he is either really stupid or really stubborn. For a fully omnipotent being, it would be about as easy to get me to believe as it is for the average human being to take a breath of air.
Why do you keep going on about this when on at least two occasions I have shown you the way it works? Jesus came to demonstrate God to us. The religious leaders didn't like being convicted (again, you see that they had made a lucrative industry of religion), so in their greed they had Him removed. That is why God has installed a new creed: that every disciple of Jesus is a messenger, compared to the days of old when God would pick a prophet. Nowadays God can choose to prophesy through any of His people. Anyhow, I am getting sidetracked. What I'm quoting to you for the third time I can remember is this:What am I seeking? I am seeking reality. If God is real, then I'll believe in God. If omniscience & omnipotence are real, then I'll believe in omniscience & omnipotence. If Satan is real, then I'll believe in Satan. If heaven is real, then I'll believe in heaven. But there is nothing (short of a semantic game which Christians like to play) to suggest that any of these things are real.
Is this another excuse not to take the bull by the horns? You're a heart breaker Cieza.Many Christians have maintained that God is fully omnipotent and omniscient. Even the Bible suggests this:
Proverbs 15:3:
The eyes of the LORD are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good.
However:
Genesis 18:20 clearly suggests God is not omniscient: Then the LORD said, The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous 21that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.
I have news for you. That is precisely what Christian churches do. They exist to benefit off of the naivete of the followers.
You're missing the point. Let's say the sky is blue. If 99% of the people in the world say the sky is green, does that make it any less blue?
One of the things about Christianity that turns me off the most is that it draws in the naive - or people who believe something just because a lot of other people believe it. In other words, the Christian church is like a multi-level marketing scheme that preys on the week, naive or feeble minded. I think the Christian church should encourage people to intellectually & critically investigate every aspect of Christianity. If they are right, then they would have nothing to lose. But if it is all a bunch of hogwash, then they'd have a lot to lose. And guess what? - they do very little (or nothing at all) to encourage people to intellectually & critically investigate every aspect of Christianity.
If you tell me in secular terms what you've observed (e.g. "I've observed the Empire State building moved to a cornfield in Nebraska" and not, "God has spoken personally to me") and I'll tell you if it's something I've observed.
Absolute 100% irrefutable evidence is one thing. What I'm talking about is different. I'm talking about enough to convince me to the point where I'd wager in favor of omnipotence rather than wager against it.
If omnipotence is equal to being able to do anything, then seeing the Empire State Building moved to a cornfield in Nebraska would move me closer to wagering in favor of omnipotence being a real force. But perhaps I'm wrong about the definition of omnipotence. How would you define omnipotence?
Since I defined the being who passed on this information to you as God, then we can rule out #2. And since I said if you make a choice contrary to what God knew you would make, then God has temporarily stripped himself of his omniscience, then #1 must be correct.
OK, I'll start a new thread on that subject. But in the meantime, tell me why you suppose most Christians have a problem with what I need to observe to be convinced that omniscience and omnipotence exist.
That depends on your definition of God. I'm going by the definition of God in which he has fully omnipotent powers (or can do anything). Therefore, observing the Empire State Building being instantly moved to a cornfield in Nebraska, would definitely move me quite a bit toward believing that omnipotence (or the ability to do anything) is a real force present in this universe.
Probably not. But please keep in mind that the example I cited wouldn't fully convince me that omnipotence and omniscience are real forces in this universe.
I don't fault them. I merely find them to be naive, gullible and stubborn.
I can't speak for others, but for me, it would convince me enough that I'd believe omniscience & omnipotence are real forces present in this universe. Nothing more, nothing less.
If I observed indisputable acts of omniscience & omnipotence, I would survive it. Would I remain sane? Absolutely. Would I outwardly proclaim I had observed indisputable acts of omniscience & omnipotence? Only if the acts I observed were objectively measurable and were observed by others as well.
Either it's an issue of semantics and what they experienced is no different than what most people experience or they are delusional (see David Koresh or Jim Jones).
The Bible is just a book which was written by humans. The humans who wrote the Bible could have had the prophets be happy or be unhappy when seeing those kind of things.
I don't expect I'll ever see the things which would be enough to convince me that omniscience and omnipotence are real forces in this universe.
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?