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

[Neogaia777]

So tell me, if your now-adult children started neglecting things, stopped doing the things they needed to do in order to remain healthy, wouldn't you step in?

I'm going to reply to only this part since I just now mentioned adult children, etc...

This is a very poor example I think, because how many adult children, percentage wise, really do this in their adult years in life, etc...? With they're most basic health I mean, etc...?

And/or because I also need to know what you also mean about "stopped doing the things they need to do to be healthy" also, etc...?

Cause that could mean a lot of things, etc, and where do you, @Kylie, draw the line with your older children, etc, to the point of starting trying to literally "force them" at that age, etc...?

Where do you draw that line, etc...?

God Bless!

 

[Mark Quayle]

So if God planned for me to do it, if it was predestined since before I was born, then tell me: How could I possibly have done anything different?

The question isn't whether (or how) could you have done anything different, but who did it.

 

[Neogaia777]

And about my older children as well also, beyond not forcing them at all ever, I'm very, very careful to not even manipulate them even, in even the slightest way at all ever, etc... (unlike their mother, etc)... Anyway, I do not even try to manipulate them in any kind of way, etc, and beyond that, I also do not try to get them to be in contact with me if they don't truly want to (yet), or force, even my presence upon them, etc, having faith, that if I do all of this right, that they will eventually come back around to me in their own due time, etc...

My daughter, for example, she's going in a way that I would not prefer right now, etc, well some of it, but not all of it, etc, she's doing some things well, etc, but she's also a very busy girl at this age, and not much time for the old man, etc, so when we do talk, or she does contact me about something, which doesn't happen as much as I'd maybe like but it does happen, etc, I try to make the most of it with her, by being the highest and best form of myself I can be with her, etc, but then we stop talking, she goes back to her life, and I may not hear back from her again for a while, maybe a long while sometimes, etc, but I am not hurt by it because I understand it, etc, and just am having faith that she might want to be around me or have more contact with me, maybe when she's a bit older and in her later years more maybe, etc...

But I let her be a completely free adult for the most part, etc, but when she does reach out to me, I try to maximize it, etc, be the very best version of myself I can with her/to her, etc, and I think she sees that maybe, etc, so maybe in her later years maybe...?

Anyway, who knows, right...?

But my point is I do not try to force anything with her or upon her, etc, giving her almost complete and total freedom, etc, very, very little of even any kind of even "interference" at all, etc, and my other point is, why would not God kind of be like the same with His "older children" maybe, etc...?

Like the story of the prodigal son with his father, etc...

What could his father do but just wait for his son to, well, get done, and then come back to him at some point again for the most part with him, etc...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Kylie]

Are you an "adult", or a "child"...?

Because I have "older children", and parenting them, is very, very much more different, etc...

I certainly don't try to "force" them to do or choose anything one way or the other anymore, etc...

But I will try to "counsel them" and/or console them sometimes, etc, or try to teach or impart wisdom to them very, very gently sometimes, etc, but making them do anything, or choose anything, one way or the other anymore, is a little bit beyond their age now, etc...

And at their age now, they would probably greatly resent me, and possibly even hate me, for even trying, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

Your analogy doesn't work.

When your children become adults, then they are of equal standing to you yourself. Until they are of such equal standing, then you consider them children.

Now, are we of equal standing to God? I doubt there's a believer alive who would say yes. So, in God's eyes, were are but babies still. So my point still stands.

 

[Kylie]

No I don't really...?

How patronizing do I come across as, etc...?

Anyway,

God Bless!

Extremely.

 

[Kylie]

The question isn't whether (or how) could you have done anything different, but who did it.

Stop trying to change the subject.

I'm pointing out how, if I am predestined to do a particular thing and can't avoid it, I cannot be held responsible for it.

Who it is that predestined it is unimportant. Because, regardless of who did it, I can not change it. And thus I can't be held responsible for it.

 

[Neogaia777]

Your analogy doesn't work.

When your children become adults, then they are of equal standing to you yourself. Until they are of such equal standing, then you consider them children.

Now, are we of equal standing to God? I doubt there's a believer alive who would say yes. So, in God's eyes, were are but babies still. So my point still stands.

Except God let's you choose how you will stand before him in the judgment, and if you don't have a good advocate/lawyer, and you refuse to be a child before Him, then you will be an adult representing yourself against Him, etc...

And what will you say, etc...?

What I have told you might be able to help, "maybe", etc, but for me personally I am going to be like a humble child before Him, and if I still don't represent myself accurately or correctly, (100% completely honestly, etc), then I am hoping I will have a good advocate/lawyer in my corner helping me out when and where I might make mistakes, or be shown to be in error, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Extremely.

Sorry, I will try to do better.

I'm really not here to fight or argue.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Stop trying to change the subject.

I'm pointing out how, if I am predestined to do a particular thing and can't avoid it, I cannot be held responsible for it.

Who it is that predestined it is unimportant. Because, regardless of who did it, I can not change it. And thus I can't be held responsible for it.

You also cannot be held responsible for any kind of good either, so why should He choose you to go beyond this, or just not only just more of this, etc...?

 

[Neogaia777]

Stop trying to change the subject.

I'm pointing out how, if I am predestined to do a particular thing and can't avoid it, I cannot be held responsible for it.

Who it is that predestined it is unimportant. Because, regardless of who did it, I can not change it. And thus I can't be held responsible for it.

You also cannot be held responsible for any kind of good either, so why should He choose you to go beyond this, or just not more of this, etc...?

I 100% guarantee you, you will not be able to judge God evil, etc.

He owes us nothing, etc.

And unless you begin to see everything as a gift, then I fear for you, etc.

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

And, I know, what about all the people who had a lot of bad in their life, etc...?

Well, they had some good things happen too, it's just many people just only want to focus on and remember only just all the negative only, etc...

And beyond that, it can actually qualify you for next life, help you in the judgement (for some) to be able to go beyond this, or only more of just only this, at the end of this, etc...

Also, everybody knows with the right attitude/outlook/perspective it can actually very much greatly, and very much quickly, rapidly refine your character in leaps and bounds, etc... With the right attitude, etc... (And help qualify you for the next "beyond this" life, etc)...

And some go through a lot of bad things, only to have a very, very good and highly blessed life later on in life here also, etc, and part of what caused them to have it/that, later on in life, was all the bad they went through prior, etc...

But there are some of them who go out and do ten times much more damage then they ever received also, etc, and unless these people change at some point or before the end, then they probably won't ever be going beyond this life ever, etc...

But then again, some might say, well they didn't choose, but God made them that way, etc... And this is true, etc, but as I said, "He owes us nothing", etc, and they just "are what they are", and their one and only purpose just "is what is", and is only just for this life, and just only more of this life only, etc, and God will personally show us why these ones are what they are, and why they cannot ever go beyond just more of this, because they just have no higher or further purpose beyond any more than just more of just this at all ever, forever, etc... And, like I said, they're only purpose in all the extreme damage they do or have done, etc, is only to make others qualify to go beyond this life to the next life at all ever, in any kind of life, etc, which is just only more of just this life for them, etc...

Some are just like that, and they just "are what they are", and it just "is what it is", etc, God "owes us nothing", and "never did", etc, but made some (had to make some) only for the very limited and temporary purpose of bad and/or evil in this life, that just cannot ever go beyond this into the next life ever, etc, because it/they were just never meant to ever go beyond any more than just more of this into the/their next life ever, etc...

He had to make at least some like this to grow the others, etc, and they just "are what they are", and "it is what it is", etc, this is why when questions like "consciousness" and "sentience" come up, then I honesty wonder if they ever are, or ever truly had any, etc, or were even ever considered even ever truly "alive" even, etc... Temporary programs/people/constructs, etc... Only meant for the one and only sole purpose of only causing others to grow to be able to go beyond this life, and beyond that have no other purpose at all ever, etc... So how could they ever go beyond this life, etc...

Anyway,

Oh, and, lastly, if anyone ever got a "truly raw deal", etc, and I mean a "truly truly raw deal truly", etc, then I am fully confident that they will have a very, very good chance at going beyond this life when this life had ended and/or was over/done, etc, and of that I am fully confident, etc... But this a is a great minority of cases most of the time or in most cases, etc...

Anyway,

God Bless!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
The question isn't whether (or how) could you have done anything different, but who did it.

Stop trying to change the subject.

I'm pointing out how, if I am predestined to do a particular thing and can't avoid it, I cannot be held responsible for it.

Who it is that predestined it is unimportant. Because, regardless of who did it, I can not change it. And thus I can't be held responsible for it.

Lolol, my response was to the point. To accept your narrative, in which to argue, is to accept your [false] presuppositions.

You, like the Arminian, love self-determination. This has been a semi-joke since Adam and Eve left the Garden, I bet. Whole stories are about it. (Read Shakespeare's MacBeth, where he learns what 'The Fates' predict, and by his very efforts in reacting to what he heard them say, their predictions come to pass). Those who want to ignore the notion of God come up with Fate. Either way, only what will happen ever happens.

Funny how the Arminian likes to say God looks into the future to decide what to predestine. But if God is timeless, it makes more sense to say he caused the future. Regardless, you CAN choose as you wish, and YOU WILL always choose as you wish. God does not force you to choose against your will. It IS your choice.

Maybe look at each choice something like this: You have three doors in front of you to choose from. Two of them are locked, one is not. You don't know which is locked, yet God has unlocked only the one he knows you will choose. How does he know which one you will choose? The Arminian says, because he looks into the future to see which one. The Calvinist says, he causes you to choose the one he unlocked. In my opinion, God sees no difference between his knowing and causing. He is first cause.

The fact that your choice is predestined doesn't imply there is no choosing. To term, 'forcing', is a moral reference, not merely technical, implying "against someone's will", as most use it in these contexts. Causing doesn't say "against one's will". God doesn't force decisions against the will. Whatever a person wants, even if just for that instant of decision, they always choose what they want.

The future is not in your purvue. But, if it comforts you however, think of yourself like you think about choices, (that any of the three doors are options), as though you are thus the hinge upon which predestination turns (you are in good company). You choose as you will —shazzam! Fate has been decided by YOU!

 

[Kylie]

Except God let's you choose how you will stand before him in the judgment, and if you don't have a good advocate/lawyer, and you refuse to be a child before Him, then you will be an adult representing yourself against Him, etc...

And what will you say, etc...?

What I have told you might be able to help, "maybe", etc, but for me personally I am going to be like a humble child before Him, and if I still don't represent myself accurately or correctly, (100% completely honestly, etc), then I am hoping I will have a good advocate/lawyer in my corner helping me out when and where I might make mistakes, or be shown to be in error, etc...

God Bless!

You missed my point entirely.

 

[Neogaia777]

In the Judgment, when all will get to speak and have their say, God will look at us others, and say, "Do you see now...?" "Do you see how they cannot go beyond here (from earth and into Heaven like the rest of us, etc) and how they were just not made for anything more than just more of here?" (Earth(s) in a fallen state only, for forever only, etc), and the rest of us will say, "We see now", and "We see very, very clearly now", etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

In the Judgment, when all will get to speak and have their say, God will look at us others, and say, "Do you see now...?" "Do you see how they cannot go beyond here (from earth and into Heaven like the rest of us, etc) and how they were just not made for anything more than just more of here?" (Earth(s) in a fallen state only, for forever only, etc), and the rest of us will say, "We see now", and "We see very, very clearly now", etc...

God Bless!

One trick ponies who were never meant to be anything more or different at all ever, etc, angry and very very mean and cruel and hateful people who murder in their hearts, emotional manipulators and abusers, and physical manipulators and abusers, etc, people who like to play the victim, but who have victimized so very much more so than anyone else, or way much more so than they had ever received in their hearts, etc, and the very sexually deviant and perverse, who never changed, and how with all of these people, it's all they ever were and all they ever came to know, etc...

Do you see now...?

We see now, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

One trick ponies who were never meant to be anything more or different at all ever, etc, angry and very very mean and cruel and hateful people who murder in their hearts, emotional manipulators and abusers, and physical manipulators and abusers, etc, people who like to play the victim, but who have victimized so very much more so than anyone else, or way much more so than they had ever received in their hearts, etc, and the very sexually deviant and perverse, who never changed, and how with all of these people, it's all they ever were and all they ever came to know, etc...

Do you see now...?

We see now, etc...

God Bless!

People who just flat out refused to humble themselves, nor ever came to see "all" always as a "gift", and a "gift only", etc, nor ever had an honest evaluation/opinion of themselves, etc, most especially in their relation to me, etc...

Anyway, Do you see (it) now, etc...?

We see (it) now, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Amoranemix]

In conclusion, like for good, God being love or loving is not evidence based. It is definition based.

Mine is evidence based, etc, and if God in and/of the OT is the Holy Spirit like I believe He is, etc, then I would be very, very careful if I were you in your summary judgments against Him, etc, for this scripture (below), spoken by Jesus in regards to Him (I believe) comes to mind, etc...

Matthew 12:31-32- "Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come."

You claim to have evidence that God is loving (se – standard English), but I don't recall you providing any. On the other hand, you have provided evidence that he is not loving (se), namely Matthew 12:31-32.

God made a mess of it because he was incompetent [*], but that is off topic. What is relevant is that trying to re-establish God's kingdom is not loving.[**] The means to establish that Kingdom were on the other hand hateful.[***] I am using standard English, where words mean what the dictionary says.

[*] I'd be very careful and watch what I say if I were you...
[**] How is taking us back to where none ever suffered or died anymore ever again "not loving", etc...?
[***] He (God the Spirit) had to learn just like everyone else, etc, and in this case, with trial and error in being a God, or with given God-like power and authority and abilities, etc...

[**] Though your version of God may merely be clumsy, most versions are selfish and usually re-establishing God's Kingdom is about God's selfish desires, not about removing suffering or death.
[***] You missed the point. I have not disputed God's incompetence. I branded his behaviour as hateful. Needing to learn does not imply needing to command killing and violence.

Your allegedly loving God doesn't care enough to do something about it, or maybe he is unable.

What else is He supposed to do or be doing beyond what He already did or tried, etc...?[56]
In either case, or in any case, Jesus put and end to it at a certain time, until a set future date and time, etc...

[56] He could make it clear which commands come from him and which do not.

God is like a tyrant or congress who is not accountable to anyone, i.e. not loving, but tyrannical, at least if we can believe the dictionary.

God was not tyrannical either, He was just a being that maybe lacked a little bit of experience at first, and that had nigh all power over this world, etc...

Except power over human choices, etc...

Which was something He had to "learn" also, etc...

And who was a young male and in love, like I tried to describe to you just before this a minute ago earlier, etc... And/or also again also, etc, if you've ever been a young male and in love, but with a very very unfaithful wife, then you know what it can do to you, especially at first, or at the start, etc...[57]
But that is not a sin or crime, etc...

I was describing Mark Quayle's God, a version based on the Bible.
[57] You are assuming without justification that your analogy is good. That I decide someone to be my wife doesn't make her so.

[48] No. In his mind, rules are meant for others. He does as he pleases. I wish I could do that.
[49] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?
[50] He is too mighty for us to make him answer for his crimes.
[51] If God is omniscient, then he keeps records of the wrongs done to him.

[48] And are you jealous of Him because you can't, etc...?
Anyway, He tries to do that which would/will bring us all to place where none would ever have to ever suffer and die anymore, etc...[48']
But needed help from a Man in the end to finally do and/or accomplish it, etc...
Another thing He had to also learn in time, etc...

[50] And your going to be the very one personally, to see to it your own self personally, that God answers for all His supposed "crimes", etc...?

[48] No.
[48'] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?
[50] No.

[53] My personal opinion is that everyone owns God.

Nobody truly owns anything nor anybody else, except only God the Father from the very beginning, etc...

So you claim, but can you prove that ?

[48] No. In his mind, rules are meant for others. He does as he pleases. I wish I could do that.
[49] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?
[50] He is too mighty for us to make him answer for his crimes.
[51] If God is omniscient, then he keeps records of the wrongs done to him.

[no response]

[49] Exactly. Skeptics base their beliefs on evidence. Christians base them on faith and definitions.

[52] Is that a fact or just your personal opinion ?
[53] My personal opinion is that everyone owns God.
[54] Or so you baldly assert. Asserting something does not make it true. Assertions must be supported. Go ahead!

[no response]

[52] Thank you for sharing your personal opinions with us, but skeptics prefer to believe in reality.
[54] Of course, if you know your assertions to be false, it is understandable that you don't try supporting them.

[55] How is that supposed to free God from blame ?

[no response]

You forgot to answer my question.

Your reality would be similar to that of the New Testament stories, where blind would see, amputees would regrow limbs, dead would rise to live, etc... But you have none of this. You point to the same reality we all share, where yes, there is universe, logic, math, art, love, etc... BUT, where dead do not rise, amputees do not regrow limbs, Down's syndrome is not curable, and mountains are not movable.

Ha! As far as you can tell, anyway. I'm wondering two things: 1. Why would he care to show you evidence YOU demand? Do you want a heart conversion, or an intellect conversion? [ . . . ]

Allegedly God wants people to worship him. That is more likely to happen if those people believe he exists. Some people base their beliefs on evidence. Hence, with such evidence those people would be more likely to believe God exists and thus more likely to worship him.

Is God bound and/or limited by logic?

Lol, "I'm so glad you brought up this question." (Actually, it does please me you did. Seems nobody asks questions like that when they come to my mind all the time.)

No. If he is bound by anything, it is by himself, or by his own doing, or by his own nature.

That is to say, he is not bound by any fact external to himself; if he is bound by logic, it is because he is logical. Logic derives from him —he is not logical because it is good or logical to be so, but logic is what it is, because he is logical.

The questions of what constrains God are generally human-derived, and not quite valid, as they assume some degree of anthropomorphism.

Is God's relation with logic different than that relation of other things ? I am not bound by logic either. I am merely logical. Logic is part of my nature.
How does that work, logic deriving from something ?

There was a sweet little 9 or 10 year old girl at my church who said during a discussion that most would have considered over her head, "Of course you can't see God! If you could see him, he wouldn't be God!" She was right. And evidence will not convince you to have faith.

To account for lack of evidence for a fictional being one can adapt the definition of the being such that no evidence for its existence is to be expected. Again, Christianity is definition based, not evidence based.

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.

Science can't predict what Hulk is going to do either. Or the spirits of my ancestors. Or the Smurfs. Or Brahma. Or the ghost of flight 401.
Why might that be ?

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.

Those assumptions stem from Bible reading and listening to Christians. They failed to mention that God started a club and what the purpose of that club was other than God-worship.

Then why do we not see non-believers such as myself being converted into believers with a snap of God's fingers? An omipotent being should be able to do this, yes?

Sorry for butting in, but I think it's common for us to imagine what an omnipotent being might be and then compare that being to the Bible. We Christians do things like that all the time; it's called eisegesis[55], or bringing our theology to the Bible. It's one of the reasons we have so many denominations. What we Christians are supposed to do is exegesis, or getting our theology from the Bible.[56]

So while I believe God could convert unbelievers into believers with a snap of his fingers, when I read the scriptures I see that, in general, he chooses not to force his will on us.[57] What I read is that he created us as free-will beings. It's part of us being made in his image: he has intelligence, free will, and creativity, and he's shared those things with us for us to enjoy.

[55] No, that is not eisegesis. 'Imagining what an omnipotent being might be and compare it with the being from the Bible' and 'bringing our theology to the Bible' are not the same activities.
[56] No one is disputing that Christians make mistakes.
[57] You say that as if converting unbelievers would be forcing his will on them. However, you have given no reason to believe so.

Able to? Sure, he could if that was his plan.

Notice that you ask the question from YOUR point of view. It seems to me that from HIS non-time-dependent point of view the elect are converted, redeemed and have lived their lives out and are the completed product in Heaven 'as soon as' he spoke them into existence.

Indeed, from God's point of view. It is all about him. The point of view others don't matter to him. That is only loving by appropriate definition. Similarly, Bashar Al Assad and Kim Jong-Un could be loving. It is just a matter of choosing the right definition.

And you will be "recycled", "forever", etc, if not in this creation, then in the ones after it, and maybe you already were in the ones preceding it, and that is forever, and is (your existence) just for the ones going beyond this after, etc.

And whether you are truly here for any more than that/this, might be up to you, or it might not, but is for you to seek to find out and ask, etc.

Seriously dude. What the heck?

Can you not see how this comes across to other people?

Neogaia777 believes in an evil god and contrary to other Christians he is honest about it. Honesty does not make one popular.

And yet he doesn't. Why not?

I thought I told you, but maybe not. He doesn't because you're not one of the elect, (i.e. he never planned to save you), or you are one of the elect, but his plan is not to save you just yet.

So Christians who told me the Jezus Christ died for me on the cross are wrong.

Oh, so God never planned on saving me? Does that mean he planned for me to go to Hell then? How delightful. I'm doomed to an eternity of suffering in Hell, and it's not even my fault!

Ha! Not your fault?? You've never done anything wrong??

If you did wrong, YOU did wrong. He planned for you to do exactly what you have, are, and will be, doing. And you are doing it. Including trying to get out of the blame for your own choices.

God never does that, trying to get out of the blame for his own choices. His followers do that for him. How honourable of him.

You mentioned hell. People don't go to hell because they sin. We know that because everybody sins, but not everybody goes to hell. People go to hell because their sins aren't forgiven. I'm not sure you grasp the gospel. It isn't about us, or what we should do. The gospel is about what Jesus has already done for us. He has taken our sins upon himself so that we can live in an age where "everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved". Forgiveness is there for the asking. By everyone. Because God is love.

God blames everyone and forgives some.

So if God planned for me to do it, if it was predestined since before I was born, then tell me: How could I possibly have done anything different?

The question isn't whether (or how) could you have done anything different, but who did it.

You are mistaken. The question is : Who is responsible ?

So if God planned for me to do it, if it was predestined since before I was born, then tell me: How could I possibly have done anything different?

I'm going to reply to only this part since I just now mentioned adult children, etc...

This is a very poor example I think, because how many adult children, percentage wise, really do this in their adult years in life, etc...? With they're most basic health I mean, etc...?

God failed to convert most non-Christians even when they were children.

Maybe look at each choice something like this: You have three doors in front of you to choose from. Two of them are locked, one is not. You don't know which is locked, yet God has unlocked only the one he knows you will choose. How does he know which one you will choose? The Arminian says, because he looks into the future to see which one. The Calvinist says, he causes you to choose the one he unlocked. In my opinion, God sees no difference between his knowing and causing. He is first cause.

God chould have chosen to unlock another door in stead.

 

[Neogaia777]

You claim to have evidence that God is loving (se – standard English), but I don't recall you providing any. On the other hand, you have provided evidence that he is not loving (se), namely Matthew 12:31-32.

God the Father is just "God", etc, and God the Spirit had to learn about Love, and Jesus, or God the Son, or God in the flesh, may or may have not learned about Love, but by the time He appears to us He apparently does or is or did, etc...

[**] Though your version of God may merely be clumsy, most versions are selfish and usually re-establishing God's Kingdom is about God's selfish desires, not about removing suffering or death.

See this thread: To the thread that just disappeared here, can't remember who by, here is/was my reply, etc...?

[***] You missed the point. I have not disputed God's incompetence.

He was not "incompetent", and I never said He was, but you did, and just said it again (and may God forgive you for that, etc) (but I don't know that He is going to, etc)...

I branded his behaviour as hateful.

Your one to talk about "hate", Lol...

But, anyway, sometimes hate is on the other side of the coin of love, etc...

Needing to learn does not imply needing to command killing and violence.

Actually, in a "Gods" case, who is still learning, it apparently does, etc...

[56] He could make it clear which commands come from him and which do not.

Jesus did, and did so very, very clearly, etc...

[57] You are assuming without justification that your analogy is good. That I decide someone to be my wife doesn't make her so.

God the Father decided that we would be the Holy Spirits/Spirit of Christ's bride, etc, and any true relationship with Him/Them, is likened unto that of a man and his wife, etc...

[48'] What evidence can you present to support that claim ?

Jesus became His "minister" for a while at or during a certain point in time, etc...

So you claim, but can you prove that ?

You want me to prove that everybody and all things belong to God, etc...?

Or more specifically, God the Father, etc...?

Or that He is the ultimate source of "all", etc...?

[49] Exactly. Skeptics base their beliefs on evidence. Christians base them on faith and definitions.

I base mine on evidence and logic, etc...

But probably not of any kind you would accept though, etc...

You forgot to answer my question.

God the Father is ultimately responsible for everyone else and everything, etc, and you can feel 100% completely free to go ahead and try to "blame" Him for it on Judgment Day, OK...

Allegedly God wants people to worship him. That is more likely to happen if those people believe he exists. Some people base their beliefs on evidence. Hence, with such evidence those people would be more likely to believe God exists and thus more likely to worship him.

What would or might qualify as "evidence", or "evident enough" for you...?

Because because of creation alone, the Bible says people like you have "no excuse", etc, which means you are just choosing to stubbornly not believe no matter what, etc, and therefore you have already been judged, so good luck on judgement day, etc...

Is God's relation with logic different than that relation of other things ? I am not bound by logic either. I am merely logical. Logic is part of my nature.
How does that work, logic deriving from something ?

What logic would suffice...?

See this thread to start: Omniscience and God, or God and Omniscience...?

To account for lack of evidence for a fictional being one can adapt the definition of the being such that no evidence for its existence is to be expected. Again, Christianity is definition based, not evidence based.

And what is it you require for a thing to be "evident", etc...?

Because my guess it nothing will ever be good enough or will ever suffice, etc...

Neogaia777 believes in an evil god

His name is "I AM", and He is, however you choose to see Him, or were already predestined to see Him, etc...

And why is He, or what makes Him (God the omniscient Father here) "evil" exactly...?

Creating and giving everything (including you and me) "life"...? Was that His "great and evil and most wicked crime", etc...?

But and/or because, I just think you were just designed to be rebellious and unbelieving, etc...

But and/or at any rate, etc, if He chose you just to be a temporary program (one trick pony) that never goes beyond here or this life ever, and just repeats these kinds of lives/existences over and over again, but has no conscious memory of it each time, for eternity or for forever, etc, then that is His choice, etc, and He has every right to do what He whatever He wants, or whatever He will with His own things, etc, and that does not make Him "evil" either, but just makes Him "God", etc, and He has "every single right" to do "whatever He will", with all of "His own things", etc...

and contrary to other Christians he is honest about it. Honesty does not make one popular.

No it doesn't, but that does not make it any less true, etc, because truth, just simply is, etc...

And I'm not here to try and win any kind of "popularity contests" also, etc...

God never does that, trying to get out of the blame for his own choices. His followers do that for him. How honourable of him.

Funny how you have so much hate for a being that you say "doesn't exist", etc...?

And where oh where is the "logic" in that, etc...?

Because that alone, might just be "proof enough" alone maybe, for His existence right there, etc...

(Although there is a lot more "proof" than just that, etc) (But not that you'd believe or accept though)...

God blames everyone and forgives some.

And why are you even on here (again) protesting with so much hate (again) over a supposed "fictional being" that you say "doesn't exist", etc...?

And again, and again, where oh where is the "logic" in that, etc...?

But to try and answer your question, God the Spirit went through a period of time where He was learning how and where to place the "blame", and "all the blame", etc...

You are mistaken. The question is : Who is responsible ?

God the omniscient Father is the source of all, etc..

God failed to convert most non-Christians even when they were children.

Some were never meant to come to believe, etc...

And I'm not even going to bother answering any more "super long posts" from you either, because in my mind, your mind is already made up, or it was already made up for you, and your never going to change, etc, and you seem very, very much like only a very limited "on trick pony" to me also, etc, and that "one trick" seems to be only living a life hating people who are followers of a being, and hating a/that being, or set of beings, etc, that you say supposedly doesn't even exist, so...?

And that's your "one trick", and your "one trick pony", that I don't think is ever going change, etc...

But for the record, I do feel very sorry for you, as I do think it is kind of very pathetic and very sad, etc...

And may not even be worth my even replying to you anymore also, etc...

But, anyway...

Oh, but, thanks for "bumping" the thread though, as I was thinking of doing it anyway...

But, anyway...

God Bless!

 

[Mark Quayle]

Oh boy. I hit post reply again.

 

[Mark Quayle]

[49] Exactly. Skeptics base their beliefs on evidence. Christians base them on faith and definitions.

Haha, ok, then, I invoke further definition here —Hebrews 11:1 "Faith ...is the evidence." Objective fact. Sorry, no, you are not privy.

As for evidence, I don't recall you answering the logic of first cause.

(see 54 below) If I was to draw conclusions from my opponent's silence the way you do, I would have to conclude that you didn't want me looking up the conversation before post and your response to it, by the fact you failed to provide a link in each instance.

[52] Thank you for sharing your personal opinions with us, but skeptics prefer to believe in reality.
[54] Of course, if you know your assertions to be false, it is understandable that you don't try supporting them.

52. Skeptics are no better than anyone else. They also prefer to believe in their brand of reality.

54. Here and above, you seem to draw a conclusion of lack of ability or lack of a wish to answer your assertions, objections or claims, from the fact I did not respond. The fact I did not respond doesn't mean I could not or didn't mean to. It happens that I sometimes hit Post Reply without meaning to, or without realizing that there was more to respond to, and it posts it, with me thinking I was done.

Your snide remarks are a bit over the top, I think. One might even be led to think that you are a bit arrogant.

You forgot to answer my question.

See above, re 54

Allegedly God wants people to worship him. That is more likely to happen if those people believe he exists. Some people base their beliefs on evidence. Hence, with such evidence those people would be more likely to believe God exists and thus more likely to worship him.

What people allege is less important and relevant to debates concerning God and the Bible than what God's Word, the Bible, says.

Btw, the Bible says people suppress evidence.

Is God's relation with logic different than that relation of other things ? I am not bound by logic either. I am merely logical. Logic is part of my nature.
How does that work, logic deriving from something ?

Not sure I follow your question, with its use of the word 'of'. Do you mean, "Is God's relation to logic different than logic's relation to other things?"? Or maybe you mean, "Is God's relation to logic, different than his relation to other things?"

As First Cause, he is, of course, absolute first cause. There can be only one. This necessarily implies then, that he cannot be subject to any principle in and of itself. Also implied is the fact that he, (as first cause), is the source of all fact, including the structure we refer to as reality, or the principle we refer to as existence, along with what we call reason and logic. The fact that he appears to us to answer to logic and existence, doesn't mean he is subject to them. Reality, fact and principle are what they are because they are from him (and are not, in the same way, to him, i.e. he is not subject to them in the same way as they are his.)

To account for lack of evidence for a fictional being one can adapt the definition of the being such that no evidence for its existence is to be expected. Again, Christianity is definition based, not evidence based.

Ah this wonderful love of empiricism! So a line of reasoning, logic, doesn't serve for evidence, if the presupposition is valid and the logic true?

Science can't predict what Hulk is going to do either. Or the spirits of my ancestors. Or the Smurfs. Or Brahma. Or the ghost of flight 401.
Why might that be ?

So you equate First Cause with finite foolishness? God, by definition is Omnipotent, and not limited to form nor answerable to human concept.

Those assumptions stem from Bible reading and listening to Christians. They failed to mention that God started a club and what the purpose of that club was other than God-worship.

'They', who? Christians failed to mention the club was other than God-worship? I can't answer for them, nor for their vagueness, though to be honest, I'm skeptical of your apparent trust in what you took them to be saying.

Indeed, from God's point of view. It is all about him. The point of view others don't matter to him. That is only loving by appropriate definition. Similarly, Bashar Al Assad and Kim Jong-Un could be loving. It is just a matter of choosing the right definition.

God is not like Kim, supreme ruler and god or whatever he may be called, nor any other creature. Not only does he have the right by ownership, but the status by his own being (first cause), and ability, to do actual, real, consistent, unfitful, solid LOVE, because he is Love. It gets both its definition and its reality from him. No human nor angel nor any other being or fact, but God, can be the definition of love.

As for the POV of any or all humans, they can only go by what they see or know, which is necessarily less than the full fact.

Neogaia777 believes in an evil god and contrary to other Christians he is honest about it. Honesty does not make one popular.

Good for him. Because, semi-honest but very mistaken seems to be very popular. BTW, Neogaia777, while I'll grant he seems to think for himself, does so by rank rejection of what has been orthodox Christian thinking for a long time (or maybe he is simply ignorant of it). That isn't a good method though it is popular and seductive. The trust in one's own thinking is treacherous, though hardly avoidable.

It pleases me that you don't claim here that I believe in an evil God, though I have been accused of that by many, believers, skeptics, agnostics and atheists, because I would hope you can see past the notion that what is hard to handle doesn't imply malevolence. Well, that, and I don't particularly want to be identified with N777, as he reasons more from his own precepts and concepts than from Scripture or even valid tradition.

So Christians who told me the Jezus Christ died for me on the cross are wrong.

I have no way to ascertain, at present, whether you are of the elect or not.

God never does that, trying to get out of the blame for his own choices. His followers do that for him. How honourable of him.

Why should he defend himself from false claims by those ignorant of his plans and of his majesty —specially when those very claims serve his purposes and plans for the moment?

Yes, Christians have a bad habit of assuming validity to the logic of unbelievers concerning the visible state of things, and feel compelled to come up with something to defend God, which God does not ask for nor does he need. This, they call, 'defending the faith', since defending the faith is a noble Biblical more.

God blames everyone and forgives some.

Yes. Problem?

Notice, before you scream, "injustice", that not only will God be just, whatever he chooses to do, but that those who are ultimately condemned, are condemned by what they of their own will chose to do. It is mere grace that not only forgives and makes legally righteous those to whom he has chosen to show mercy, but laid their just condemnation on Christ, who indeed bore it.

////////////////////////////////////////////
Kylie 568 to Mark Quayle said:
So if God planned for me to do it, if it was predestined since before I was born, then tell me: How could I possibly have done anything different?

Mark Quayle 582 to Kylie said:
The question isn't whether (or how) could you have done anything different, but who did it.

You are mistaken. The question is : Who is responsible ?

If you want to go there, then the real question I think you vaguely want to claim needs answered is, "Who is to blame?" 'Responsible' is a good word to use to transfer illogically from one use to another. "Cause", does not of itself mean, "Blame". Whether or not God actually causes, man, as is admitted by almost everyone, wills and chooses according to his own will.

God chould have chosen to unlock another door in stead.

Sure, if he wanted. So what? He didn't, and had no reason to do so.

Do you suppose God has to reason and emote his way to his decisions, as we do?