Thanks Kelly, I think this could be a fairly comprehensive answer.
I knew of the concept of God I was not raised in a vacuum; however, no one I
knew was a Christian except a few people that were not a large part of my life.
I don't know what your issue is with what I'm telling you, I grew up in a home that
was not Christian, none of my friends were, none of the people I hung out were
there were no major religious people in my life until I got into the Navy. When I
got out of the Navy I'd say less than a year after that I got saved. Then I knew
a lot of Christians I sought them out, and some of the people I knew that were not
Christian got saved.
Ok so you were exposed to Christianity mainly while you in the Navy but were not being heavily exposed to it when you 'got saved'. Fair enough. I still maintain though that you are Christian because it is the only religion you had any significant exposure to. What were the chances that you would have become a Hindu? About the same as the chances of someone, exposed primarily to Hinduism, becoming Christian. I realise you have tried to address this below though.
We go back the the question why do some people find God and others do not, some
people answer God's call others do not my answer remains the same. With those
that do not acknownledge God, to accept that He is real would turn their lives on
its head, so they love their lives more than they want the truth, because the cost
would be very high and they are not willing to pay it.
Would it not be possible though for him to reveal himself in such a way that we were in no doubt of his existence. We can still choose to ignore him. I am aware that traffic police exist but that does not mean I can't choose to break the laws of the highway. I realise this is not a very good analogy though since if I was fully aware of the existence of God, I would also presumably be fully aware of the inevitability of punishment for sins, whereas I might get away with speeding. I still don't think it would remove my free will though. I am aware of the consequences of jumping off a 12-story building and I'm not going to do it but does that imply my free will is compromised in that situation?
Now, your point about other people with other gods is a different one than the one
we are talking about. There are more forces at work in this world than just us and
God, and it matters not to them how much people are pushed/lead away from God
to go to other gods or to go keep us away from God by any means necessary once
they know about Him.
Ah, right, I think I see. So other religions (and atheism) are effectively 'the devils work'. I think this raises serious questions about the power and influence that God is able to exert.
Why would God want to use us to help restore our relationship with Him with others?
I imagine it is because we are a family and He is asking us to help our brothers and
sisters out, because they are beloved and that is what family does, take care of
its own. We are asked to put others before ourselves, help save the powerless,
restore that which is lost.
Ok, so he wants us to help each other find him. I fail to see why this is required though.
Why is it a struggle, why not just drop out on to a mountain top and make Himself known, again I go back to would it be real?
Well yes, it would be 'real'. Why would it not be 'real'?
I think you have answered the questions to the best of your ability. I have significant reservations about them though I don't have the time to critique them. I think they deserve a more considered response than I have been able to give today.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by karoly aczelLet’s settle a few things.
You are wrong to call It "Him" in the first place, since God is pre-manifestation.
Secondly you are wrong to say "He" is a separate entity from the rest of [His] creation.
God is not provable. God is not seaparate from "His" creation.
God is just a word invented by man to express ideas that need faith and forsight to undrestand.
God is just a word ...[text shortened]... ll It "God". Athiests call it "reality". Lets not get hung up on linguistics here.
I'm talking about God, the God of the Bible.
The One that does present Himself as a Father so male in my opinion is valid.
Granted there are some references to female traits too, but more times than not
scripture portrays God as male, and when I am speaking about God I’m doing so
with my understanding, your agreement is not required.
With respect to provable, never once said He was, as a matter of fact I have been
saying time after time telling everyone here that it is FAITH, but still that does not
mean God is real or not, but it does for the sake of argument mean God could very
well be real! My inability to prove that does not add to or take away from that one
way or another.
If you believe god is reality and is not apart of creation or the universe we are
than talking about two different beings. If you view reality the universe around as
all there is, fine by me, no need to try to connect to something that you are
already apart of and those that agree with you can accept that too. Not the God
of scripture so it isn’t one I’m talking about, and you telling me your beliefs about
your god does not mean I’m wrong, only that we differ on views, reality what God
is like does not depend on me or you; God is what He is, the great I AM.
We will without a doubt deal with “linguistics” otherwise how will we know what we
are talking about!
Kelly
Originally posted by karoly aczel“…"God" for Christians is reality because reality is "His" creation….”
Again, its just linguistics.
Everyone sees some of reality, right?
No one sees all of it, right?
But "reality" means all that is, in a sense. All that is real, as opposed to imaginary.Even the bits you dont "see".
"God" for christians is reality because reality is "His" creation.
Reality for scientists is the empirical truth upon which life is ...[text shortened]... ional encounter with an E.T. ,(or "divine revelation", as some christians may call it)
If that is true then what they believe is logically incoherent.
If I create my own walking stick, am I a walking stick?
If not, then how could reality BE “God” even if “God” created it?
Also I think you confuse the “supernatural” as if it is also “natural”.
“Supernatural” and “natural” are supposed to be two deferent things by definition:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/supernatural
“…A, Of or relating to existence outside the natural world….”
You mustn't confuse the two.
"Ok, so he wants us to help each other find him. I fail to see why this is required though."
Please remember I don't know why, I'm only giving you my thoughts on this!
As I read scripture I see that Jesus said that He wanted us to be one with God
as He is, and we are to be one with each other. I believe love to be foundational
to all that God does with us, and teaching us to care for one another is even called
the 2nd great commandment by Jesus. God wants us to draw not only close to
Him, but with each other, which is why I have an issue with denominations since
they tend to highlight differences over unity.
I agree with you, there are a lot of things I don't know why God did! I see a lot
of things I don't think I'd do, but I'm not in a place where I can see the end goal
of it all either.
More to come, just no time now.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayof course, it is presented as father and a male perspective. The default gender for English is male, as well as in ancient Hebrew. It is equally valid for someone to refer to God as "she" or even "it" (for lack of a term denoting gender duality)
Let’s settle a few things.
I'm talking about God, the God of the Bible.
The One that does present Himself as a Father so male in my opinion is valid.
Granted there are some references to female traits too, but more times than not
scripture portrays God as male, and when I am speaking about God I’m doing so
with my understanding, your agreement is not r ...[text shortened]... t a doubt deal with “linguistics” otherwise how will we know what we
are talking about!
Kelly
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
here when it says God created man, it means mankind (universally), and when he created them it was in his image.
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by KellyJayOriginally posted by KellyJay
I believe I have already shared with you that some are finding God and others are
not, and reasons for that. So if I'm right than those that are honestly seeking God
are finding Him I'm not sure what you want from me? Look at some of the responses
here, people want God to jump through some hoops to make them believe, they
want God to do something to rem ...[text shortened]... e an honest heart that
is seeking God or what God may do to them to answer that call?
Kelly
I believe I have already shared with you that some are finding God and others are not, and reasons for that.
Yes, and I explicitly acknowledged that you had done so successfully.
So if I'm right than those that are honestly seeking God are finding Him I'm not sure what you want from me?
If you are right then that is the case, yes. I accept that you could be right and that you sincerely believe you are right. It is therefore possible that you know you are right. That's not the issue.
Look at some of the responses here, people want God to jump through some hoops to make them believe, they want God to do something to removed doubt as if what ever they are asking for couldn't be brushed off for some other reason that would come to them later.
I don't think it is a question of jumping through hoops so much as just supplying evidence such that a rational agent, all things being equal, would be inclined to believe the proposition that god exists. I accept that god would have to find evidence that is unbrushoffable by rational humans, given our nature, but being all powerful and all knowing I don't understand why that is a problem for god. I do understand why believers appeal to free will here, but this appeal fails in my view.
By the way, if I could save you by jumping through a hoop I'd give it my utmost.
So exactly what do you want from me, some way to measure an honest heart that is seeking God or what God may do to them to answer that call?
No. I said exactly what I wanted from you in the last post. I want you to acknowledge something true about your belief. I want you to show me that you understand the way in which it is unfalsifiable. This is a request, I am not implying an obligation on your part.
Have you ever seen the film 'The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers?'
Originally posted by duecerTell me, the event that your describing was Eve walking around the earth too?
of course, it is presented as father and a male perspective. The default gender for English is male, as well as in ancient Hebrew. It is equally valid for someone to refer to God as "she" or even "it" (for lack of a term denoting gender duality)
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he ...[text shortened]... d created man, it means mankind (universally), and when he created them it was in his image.
Kelly
Originally posted by Lord Shark"I accept that god would have to find evidence that is unbrushoffable by rational humans, given our nature, but being all powerful and all knowing I don't understand why that is a problem for god. "
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]I believe I have already shared with you that some are finding God and others are not, and reasons for that.
Yes, and I explicitly acknowledged that you had done so successfully.
So if I'm right than those that are honestly seeking God are finding Him I'm not sure what you want from me?
If you are r ation on your part.
Have you ever seen the film 'The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers?'[/b]
Our nature, our nature as bright as it can be with thought and deed is also filled
with a darker side, one we tend to excuse time and time again. I do think our
nature is that we can and do see what we from time to time no matter what
is in front of us. Therefore, I do believe God can can call two men the same way
and one say yes, the other brush off the call as if nothing ever happened. As I do
believe we hide our own faults from ourselves from time to time too, to the point
that we can due to our desires harm those closes to us and ourselves and so so
with excuse and reason.
Kelly
- Joined
- 30 May 09
- Moves
- 30120
Originally posted by KellyJayYes but what you have done is justify the paucity of good evidence we see before us in an unfalsifiable way again.
"I accept that god would have to find evidence that is unbrushoffable by rational humans, given our nature, but being all powerful and all knowing I don't understand why that is a problem for god. "
Our nature, our nature as bright as it can be with thought and deed is also filled
with a darker side, one we tend to excuse time and time again. I do think ...[text shortened]... o our desires harm those closes to us and ourselves and so so
with excuse and reason.
Kelly
In other words, you have just shared that aspect of your faith again.
So it seems I have failed to communicate to you that I have heard your message.
I'll ask one more time to please answer some questions directly:
1) Will you acknowledge and demonstrate that you understand how this aspect of your faith is unfalsifiable?
2) Have you seen 'The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers'?
If you don't want to answer, that's fine just say, I won't be offended. But please, don't just share that aspect of your faith again, I have heard and understood it.
Originally posted by Lord SharkThere are millions of things people believe that unfalsifiable not just things that
Yes but what you have done is justify the paucity of good evidence we see before us in an unfalsifiable way again.
In other words, you have just shared that aspect of your faith again.
So it seems I have failed to communicate to you that I have heard your message.
I'll ask one more time to please answer some questions directly:
1) Will yo please, don't just share that aspect of your faith again, I have heard and understood it.
center around religion either. I believe because I and everyone else use the word
faith when talking about this, that sort of is a given that you are not going
get "PROOF", you are either going to accept it or reject it. Yes, I have seen the
movie "'The Invasion of the Bodysnatchers'" a long time ago and a couple of
different versions of it too.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayyou have no idea what you are talking about, that is evident. You are taking a literal translation of a 3000 year old text and applying modern text dynamics to it. God made "adam" which literally means mankind...including women.
It is evident, God created man than drew woman from him.
Kelly
Genesis 1:26 Then God said, "Let us make man (mankind) in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man(mankind) in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
let us make man in our own image, etc...and let them rule over the earth. Its clear from this that Adam (the person) was not solely the very first human being created, but that mankind itself was created and Adam (the person) was made separately for a specific reason.
Originally posted by KellyJayThat depends entirely on which book of Genesis you read. They are inconsistent between them so you can't really say both are true. Book 1 says they were created on the same day, with no indication that either came first or from what they were made.
It is evident, God created man than drew woman from him.
Kelly
Book 2 obviously goes into far more detail on this particular point but where book one does specify an ordering, book 2 contradicts it so I don't think we can really say that book 2 is putting more detail on the events of book 1, because it tells a different story.
Therefor, it is not evident.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by PenguinEven if there were no contradiction in the biblical account, it would still not be evident according to any definition of the word I've ever heard.
That depends entirely on which book of Genesis you read. They are inconsistent between them so you can't really say both are true. Book 1 says they were created on the same day, with no indication that either came first or from what they were made.
Book 2 obviously goes into far more detail on this particular point but where book one does specify an order ...[text shortened]... 1, because it tells a different story.
Therefor, it is [b]not evident.
--- Penguin.[/b]