If you had God's powers, how would you communicate with people?

[MrsFoundit]

Which leads us back to the topic of this thread, which I would very much like to see some answers to: if you had God's power, how would you communicate with people?

Interesting point, considering several answers have been posted by Christians.

 

[thomas_t]

Very good. In which case, God has failed. He tried to persuade people, but His message was unwelcome. Which leads us to ask, how is it possible that an entity possessing the wisdom, power and goodness of God - well, how is it possible that the message he crafted was one that people did not want to hear? [...]

God's message was not popular with many.
Bible, however, announced that this will happen: Revelation 11:10 (that's a rather drastic example of lack of popularity, I hope you won't take offence...).

Since I'm a musician and I have a genuine interest in the topic of popularity...
Do you think that popularity is a mesure for quality? Take for instance Youtube:
Is the most-viewed Youtube-video the best?

 

[Larniavc]

No, I said nothing like that.

Then how would you save the child from being all burnt up?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Interesting point, considering several answers have been posted by Christians.

Yes, but none of them really seem to address the question.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

God's message was not popular with many.
Bible, however, announced that this will happen: Revelation 11:10 (that's a rather drastic example of lack of popularity, I hope you won't take offence...).

Since I'm a musician and I have a genuine interest in the topic of popularity...
Do you think that popularity is a measure for quality? Take for instance Youtube:
Is the most-viewed Youtube-video the best?

Of course popularity is not a measure of quality. But that's beside the point. Please stay on topic.

The point is, God wants all people to be saved. But when He presented His message, they didn't want to hear it. Therefore, God has failed.

If He had presented it differently, He would have had a different reaction. So, why didn't He present His message so He had a more favourable reaction?

Now you may think I'm asking why God didn't lie, deceive, or sugar-coat His message. No such thing. Surely infinite wisdom would have found a way to deliver the real message so that everyone would want to hear it. But apparently this was beyond God.

So:

If you had God's powers, how would you communicate with people?

Still waiting for an answer.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes, but none of them really seem to address the question. If you think any of them did, please point me to the post

 

[Tom 1]

I would send messages by toast based paradolia.

That might exclude the gluten intolerant.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

That might exclude the gluten intolerant.

God would no doubt work a miracle so they could tolerate it.
Two signs for the price of one!

 

[Mark Quayle]

2 Peter 3:9
The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness; but is long suffering, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
Or, to put it another way, God is good. Of course he wants everyone to be saved, even if He understands that not all of them may be.

Going throughout the whole world spreading the gospel to everyone sounds pretty much like spreading Christianity.

I see. So you think God's happy just so long as everyone knows that a religion called Christianity exists. They don't need to know anything else, just to know that it's there.

Again, you're think that God just wants people to know that Christianity exists? Nothing more than that? Are you saying that anything more than telling people about Christianity would be unethical?

Do you know what God's plan is? If not, then how can you know if He's making a mistake or not?

Would you say the situation in the world vis-a-vis Christianity is ideal at the moment? I mean, you said yourself, everyone in the world knows what Christianity is, more or less. So is that okay? Is that the ideal state?
If your answer is yes, I'm puzzled. If the answer is no, then now you know what I mean by "our current predicament".

What is the Lord's promise --to save as many as possible? No, according to the context, he, not being willing to lose even one of those he had chosen, will keep his promise, but it will take some time. God is not a victim of time and circumstance --he causes them.

Going throughout the whole world spreading the gospel to everyone sounds pretty much like spreading the Gospel.

God happy? First Cause with Intent happy. Of course he's happy --none more. Read some of the old philosophers concerning the attributes of God, and think about it a bit. But your remark seems to me a little more snarky (I actually do like a little sarcasm, but I can do without the apparent arrogance) than reasonable. His plan is for some to be saved, and the others to reject the gospel.

If he is God, just for starters, it is impossible for him to make a mistake. Again, read the old philosophers regarding God's attributes. He needs no plan B.

As for "our current predicament" I'm not sure what you are referring to with "ideal state". Ideal according to God --according to us? Ideal for what --the dominion of Christianity? Do you suppose we are in favor of Christianity to be pervasive or even to "usher in" the kingdom of God? What is it really you think the Bible teaches that is supposed to be happening here, and what is it you think is the goal of the gospel?

FWIW absolutely and precisely everything is going exactly as planned. Not as commanded, but as planned and predestined. No, I don't know what exactly God is doing, but the Bible has a lot to say about it --more than I understand, but there is a lot that IS understandable, if you really wanted to understand.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I must congratulate @BigV on this. He has quite a talent for asking questions Christians are unable to answer.

I'm curious what questions you are referring to. Can you link a few, to save me some time?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Why would you make the leap from me saying you might benefit from reconsidering your beliefs to thinking I called you an idiot? I'm sure you wouldn't say that everyone who could benefit from rethinking their assumptions is an idiot.

What you have seen, in this thread, is that there is something strange about the way that God chose to communicate with humans. That's the whole topic of this thread, and so far I haven't seen any satisfying explanations for it.

Am I confused about something?

Funny. I hear that a lot around here.

Wow. Ok. For the purpose of making a point I took your asking if I am always right, etc, to imply I am an idiot, though of course, it was only rhetorically done. That is to say, I didn't actually think you thought I am an idiot, but that you were a bit overdoing it with your rhetorical questions there.

No, I have seen that you seem to think so, or at least want to come across that way, though I have a bit of an inkling you aren't really that ignorant, but like most other atheists I have run across, you want what is dancing on the edges of your conscience and consciousness proven to you.

Yes, if you actually and sincerely mean everything you have said as you have written them, rather than having written them AT Christians, you are confused. I could be wrong, of course, but it seems you are trying to make a point rather than asking questions.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

What is the Lord's promise --to save as many as possible? No, according to the context, he, not being willing to lose even one of those he had chosen, will keep his promise, but it will take some time. God is not a victim of time and circumstance --he causes them.

Interesting take. It sounds like you are saying that nobody will go to hell, because God has a plan to save all of us.
I don't think that's what most Christians believe, and I'm surprised to hear it from you. Perhaps you'd like to clarify your meaning.

Going throughout the whole world spreading the gospel to everyone sounds pretty much like spreading the Gospel.

Look at the facts. Less than 1/3 of the world believe the Gospel. That doesn't sound very effective to me. Are you saying that God's plan is for everyone to know about Christianity but He doesn't care if they believe it or not? Because if He does want people to believe in Him as well as know about Him, then He has failed. I know it's impossible for God to fail, but when it walks like a duck...

God happy? First Cause with Intent happy. Of course he's happy --none more. Read some of the old philosophers concerning the attributes of God, and think about it a bit. But your remark is more than a little more snarky than reasonable. His plan is for some to be saved, and the others to reject the gospel.

Try to grasp the points rather than dismissing them as snark, please. If I'm being ironic here, it's because the situation itself calls for it. What do you call a failing plan that Christians refuse to call failure?

If he is God, just for starters, it is impossible for him to make a mistake. Again, read the old philosophers regarding God's attributes. He needs no plan B.

Exactly the problem. He's God, he can't make mistakes.
So, when it's manifestly obvious that He has made a mistake, you must deny it, or use ad hoc rationalisations. Or just fall back on "there must be something we don't know", as you just did.

As for "our current predicament" I'm not sure what you are referring to with "ideal state". Ideal according to God --according to us? Ideal for what --the dominion of Christianity? Do you suppose we are in favor of Christianity to be pervasive or even to "usher in" the kingdom of God? What is it really you think the Bible teaches that is supposed to be happening here, and what is it you think is the goal of the gospel?

I think the goal of the gospel is for everyone to be a Christian.
Look, if someone isn't saved, then what happens to them? They go to hell.
That, to put it mildly, is a Bad Thing.
Presumably, since God loves us, He doesn't want Bad Things to happen to us.
However, right now, most humans are not Christians.
You should see that as a problem, but you can't unless you admit that God has problems. You are facing a logical inconsistency. Such things have caused people to re-evaluate their beliefs before now. Even the smartest of us regularly have to do this, you know.

FWIW absolutely and precisely everything is going exactly as planned. Not as commanded, but as planned and predestined. No, I don't know what exactly God is doing, but the Bible has a lot to say about it --more than I understand, but there is a lot that IS understandable, if you really wanted to understand.

If you don't know what God is doing, then you can't be sure that He is doing it right.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Wow. Ok. For the purpose of making a point I took your asking if I am always right, etc, to imply I am an idiot, though of course, it was only rhetorically done. That is to say, I didn't actually think you thought I am an idiot, but that you were a bit overdoing it with your rhetorical questions there.

I believe that the foundational beliefs of your life are wrong.
You know I do. I'm an atheist. I don't believe in God.
If God actually exists, it changes everything. If you think God exists, but He actually doesn't, it changes everything.
So why does it come as a surprise when you hear that I think you should re-evaluate your beliefs? What do you expect me to think?
I'm not calling you an idiot, and I'll thank you not to imply that I am. I'm using the arguments in this thread to point to inconsistencies in Christian thoughts about reality, and suggest that the evidence warrants reconsideration.

No, I have seen that you seem to think so, or at least want to come across that way, though I have a bit of an inkling you aren't really that ignorant, but like most other atheists I have run across, you want what is dancing on the edges of your conscience and consciousness proven to you.

Hmmm. Maybe it's you who subconsciously has doubts and wants to explore them? That is one of the things that can happen here, you know.
I have certainly heard of lots of atheists who were Christians before they learned more about their religions through online discussion, and saw the inconsistencies in them.

Yes, if you actually and sincerely mean everything you have said as you have written them, rather than having written them AT Christians, you are confused. I could be wrong, of course, but it seems you are trying to make a point rather than asking questions.

If you think I am confused, then enlighten me.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

So, we're on page 3 of the thread, and still waiting for an answer to the question. To be perfectly fair, we have had one or two, but they were very brief - and not, I think, really addressing the issue.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Interesting take. It sounds like you are saying that nobody will go to hell, because God has a plan to save all of us.
I don't think that's what most Christians believe, and I'm surprised to hear it from you. Perhaps you'd like to clarify your meaning.

Look at the facts. Less than 1/3 of the world believe the Gospel. That doesn't sound very effective to me. Are you saying that God's plan is for everyone to know about Christianity but He doesn't care if they believe it or not? Because if He does want people to believe in Him as well as know about Him, then He has failed. I know it's impossible for God to fail, but when it walks like a duck...

Try to grasp the points rather than dismissing them as snark, please. If I'm being ironic here, it's because the situation itself calls for it. What do you call a failing plan that Christians refuse to call failure?

Exactly the problem. He's God, he can't make mistakes.
So, when it's manifestly obvious that He has made a mistake, you must deny it, or use ad hoc rationalisations. Or just fall back on "there must be something we don't know", as you just did.

I think the goal of the gospel is for everyone to be a Christian.
Look, if someone isn't saved, then what happens to them? They go to hell.
That, to put it mildly, is a Bad Thing.
Presumably, since God loves us, He doesn't want Bad Things to happen to us.
However, right now, most humans are not Christians.
You should see that as a problem, but you can't unless you admit that God has problems. You are facing a logical inconsistency. Such things have caused people to re-evaluate their beliefs before now. Even the smartest of us regularly have to do this, you know.

If you don't know what God is doing, then you can't be sure that He is doing it right.

No, That's pretty much the opposite of what I'm saying --making me think you are pretending to misunderstand me. I don't think he plans to save any but those he has "chosen" from the very beginning. Many Bible versions use the word, "Elect", there. And lest you take that somewhere I had not meant, they are chosen for his own purposes, though for their own good too, but also he chose them because of no intrinsic worthiness or anything else better about them than anyone else.

I apologize for the comment re snark. I did overstep, and even as I clicked Post Reply I was regretting it. Perhaps it was from looking at your picture, lol. I have bad eyesight, and I had to look close to be sure it was not Mr. Bean!

But no, it is not a failing plan. He has not planned for all mankind to be saved. I like to back up a bit, particularly with atheists and agnostics, and call God, "First Cause" which I point out logically must be "First Cause with Intent" as any other is a logical fail (but that little tidbit is for another thread). Logically, First Cause is incapable of mistakes. In the Potter and Clay discourse (Jeremiah 18 and a couple others) referenced in Romans 9, Paul points out that the condemnation of the lost is (not at all denying that the Creator has the absolute right to do as he wishes with any of us) for the demonstrating (to the objects of his mercy) of his power and glory (not to mention his justice and purity).

I don't know of any Atheists that don't think that Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence are incompatible in the supreme being. To me they are logically both not only necessary, but demonstrative of his supremacy. The problem with the Atheistic POV, I think, is that they assume an intrinsic value of the creature at nearly the same as their Creator. To me, God is necessarily that much above us, that we cannot know enough to criticize him. It is ludicrous to do so.

Logically, since God is First Cause (or he is not God), I CAN be sure he is doing right, even if I am not privy to all his plans, nor his methods. He would have no reason to create, if he was not both capable and just. I can trust him completely --much more than I can trust myself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

If you think I am confused, then enlighten me.

Just for one, when I said that God had not planned to save everyone, you turned it around somehow to make it sound like you thought I believe God would save everyone. I really don't know how you got that.

I also believe you are confused about exactly who God is. Most true Christian believers posit something, but will admit they have much to learn. Those who have given it a lot of thought, generally, will admit to him being the theoretical "First Cause with Purpose (or "intent")", and gladly admit to his being immeasurably beyond their understanding.

I do agree with you that what is generally taught nowadays has gaps in logic, which many will simply regard as "tensions" or paradoxes. I personally don't see anything (that I can think of) about God that way.

 

[Mark Quayle]

So, we're on page 3 of the thread, and still waiting for an answer to the question. To be perfectly fair, we have had one or two, but they were very brief - and not, I think, really addressing the issue.

I thought I had answered quite at length. Maybe you didn't consider what I said in light of your question, or perhaps, I was not plain enough.

If I had God's powers, I would necessarily be God. But to your point (in your question), I am not God, so how I would communicate is irrelevant. Your question, as you have shown, is for the purpose of pointing out inconsistencies in Christian dogma, as though, since we would communicate this way or that demonstrates that God should not communicate as he is said to do.

One thing I earnestly hold to is that God is not like us; it is the other way around --we are like him, however poorly so. He is not patterned after us. Nor will we be complete until we are one with him (another Biblical promise concerning the "elect").

I do have a bad habit of assuming that what I see as necessary implications to a statement (or to the thought that produced the statement) should be plain to others. I apologize for doing that.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I thought I had answered quite at length. Maybe you didn't consider what I said in light of your question, or perhaps, I was not plain enough.

If I had God's powers, I would necessarily be God. But to your point (in your question), I am not God, so how I would communicate is irrelevant. Your question, as you have shown, is for the purpose of pointing out inconsistencies in Christian dogma, as though, since we would communicate this way or that demonstrates that God should not communicate as he is said to do.

One thing I earnestly hold to is that God is not like us; it is the other way around --we are like him, however poorly so. He is not patterned after us. Nor will we be complete until we are one with him (another Biblical promise concerning the "elect").

I do have a bad habit of assuming that what I see as necessary implications to a statement (or to the thought that produced the statement) should be plain to others. I apologize for doing that.

Mark, those three posts were very handsomely said, and I appreciate your civility.
However, those deserve a full and proper reply, and it's getting late in my time zone. So I'll have to answer tomorrow.
Goodnight!

 

[Hazelelponi]

Would you
(a) rely on ancient texts, written by unknown/anonymous sources, or
(b) find other ways to reach out to people?

I think the way God has done it is perfect... I find no fault in it.

God has done so those who want to walk and live their own life in their own interests certainly can, and those who seek Him will always and without fail find Him.

God reaches out to mankind in more than one way - as the Bible says everything must be confirmed by two or three witnesses, and knowledge of God is no different.

It's a matter of finding those witnesses, and if you truly seek you will always find.

 

[BigV]

and if you truly seek you will always find.

I'm curious, is there anything you will NOT find if you truly seek? You can find tooth fairies too, IF you seek truly.