I Can Only Conclude That God Doesn't Care

[Muffled]

The word, the Bible? Or the word, Christ? If you mean the Bible it is not rebellion for some people. It is their thinking ability. When some things were changed in it it became less of God's word. People are right not to believe in less imo.



It is basically because it is wrong and their consciences will not allow it.

Do I think God cares they changed God's word? Yes. What do you think God should do about it?

The Word that God speaks.

I believe this view comes from a lack of understanding. There are words that are always true and some that are time limited. For instance if I say I am arriving on a train in Boston on a Tuesday in June, then it is silly to show up for every Tuesday in May and every month after June.

I believe He says in the Qu'ran that He will set everyone straight at the end of time.

 

[savagewind]

There are thousands (if not more) of choices that don't have to be the best choice. For instance I can pick any color and none is better than the other.

LOL And I wondered why your reply wasn't colored!

 

[savagewind]

I believe He says in the Qu'ran that He will set everyone straight at the end of time.

I say why not increase your post count and split your answers up instead of coloring them?

I do believe that as I near my end God is straightening out understanding for me. I do not know why it is only for me.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

If you see God as the Abrahamic one that is personal, male and all seeing, you're correct.
In my view n faith, it's a lot more complicated.

Living souls are part of the impersonal God that is the cosmic consciousness. And the living bodies, mountains, planets, energy, etc are energy that works under the cosmic consciousness.
Which would mean all living beings are God. Will we say that we don't care about the evil in this world?

 

[Demonslayer]

Which would mean all living beings are God.

Hmmm, the old adage goes "If everything is top priority, nothing is top priority."

If we apply that here we get "If everything is God, nothing is God."

Nothing is God = there is no God.

Ipso facto, you're an atheist.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Hmmm, the old adage goes "If everything is top priority, nothing is top priority."

If we apply that here we get "If everything is God, nothing is God."

Nothing is God = there is no God.

Ipso facto, you're an atheist.

The definition of "God" has no exact meaning in my faith.
The soul is a fragment of the cosmic consciousness that is the ultimate reality but cannot be perceived by the senses.
The material world is the result of Prakriti or energy that is dynamic n changing, working according to the cosmic consciousness.

The two aspects are still a fragment of the "Lila" or more accurately in English, the total energies of the Parabrahman that is higher than the Brahman.
Some view this Brahman as consciousness, others as Krishna, others as Shiva, etc.
Labels are pointless in Hinduism as the goal of the religion is to transcend bodily labels of all sorts but label onself solely by his innate duty and the aspects that gives rise to this passion without any expectation for onself and sacrificing the results to Vishnu or Brahman.
Hindu atheistic groups lived in India and practiced their faith or even ideas based on reason openly until the advent of the Islamic reign and bhakti movement.
If I m an atheist, theist or devil worshipper, I m a Hindu nevertheless.

 

[Terese]

Hmmm, the old adage goes "If everything is top priority, nothing is top priority."

If we apply that here we get "If everything is God, nothing is God."

Nothing is God = there is no God.

Ipso facto, you're an atheist.

That's like saying 'If everybody is human, no one is'.

 

[Subhankar Zac]

That's like saying 'If everybody is human, no one is'.

Off topic question: is Krishna Brahman or Parabrahman or an external power that creates the former two?

 

[Terese]

Off topic question: is Krishna Brahman or Parabrahman or an external power that creates the former two?

Good question. Lord Krishna is Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. They are his attributes. It's a sliding scale from impersonal to personal. Typically, you would call Lord Krishna bhagavan, as he is most personal. But yes he is all. He is the Absolute Truth.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

There are thousands (if not more) of choices that don't have to be the best choice. For instance I can pick any color and none is better than the other.

You only think that because you have free will.
If you could see the outcome of every possible choice,
then one color may be slightly better than another color.

 

[Acim]

The prevailing claim of the Abrahamic religions is that through either direct construct or divine inspiration god saw to it that his message was recorded, and recorded correctly. And my guess is that, being god, he would have seen to it that this message was both understandable and unambiguous. Moreover, he would never be so derelict and inefficient as to fill it with inconsequentials or irrelevancies. He said what had to be said, and nothing more and nothing less.

Oh, Spirit has said a lot more. Just cause some think Revelation stops with a book, doesn't mean all who have knowledge/understanding of Abrahamic God believe this. I find it blasphemous to believe that God has stopped speaking with humanity. Not shy about debating this with orthodox types.

Yet, today we have nearly a couple hundred versions of the Bible in English alone. Why so many? Because people disagree as to what the Bible should say and/or how. Take Isaiah 45:7 where the Hebrew word רַע ra` is translated as

evil
disaster
calamity
doom
trouble(s)
bad times
discord
woe
hard times​

depending on which version of the Bible one reads.

So, which is right? And how would one know? Thing is, they don't mean the same thing. Evil is hardly a synonym for hard times, nor is woe synonymous with doom. I doubt that god would ever have penned such confusion in his original, permitting his followers to fumble over his words or mistake what he was trying to get across. Consider: as a history teacher would you hand out a different reason for the origin of WWI to each student? Of course not. So one has to wonder why god went to the trouble having his word recorded and then not care how it was passed along. Either it wasn't meant to impact anyone other than those who read the original text, or he simply doesn't care what later readers get out of it. In effect, it doesn't matter today if one Christian believes he created evil and another gets the impression he only created hard times. If it did matter, then one would expect god to set things straight, making sure that the message he took the trouble to set forth was clear and unambiguous; that every English Bible said the very same thing, either literally or by implication. There wouldn't be nine English versions of רַע ra` meaning very different things. God would make sure that in Isaiah 45:7 every reader knows he had created evil, or whatever, and not something else.

Because of the preceding I can only surmise that god doesn't really care what the Christian does with his word. "Believe this or believe that, I really don't care. Think my word tells you you can get into my heaven by works? Fine. Think my word tells you you can get into my heaven by my grace? Fine. It really doesn't matter. Believe whatever you like."

Because of all that went into this post, would it be fair to surmise that you don't care to understand the FACT that God has never stopped communicating with humanity? I think it would actually be unfair to you to surmise that, but is turning the type of question you are asking on itself.

The keys to understanding any divine message is being open to listening (truly open), discernment and seeking clarification where anything is confusing. The answer(s) lie within. To whatever degree that is seen as unhelpful, then realize God has sent nothing but angels (fellow humans) to try and help with clarification in way that would plausibly be most beneficial to where you are now.

Some objective, intellectual, universal truth will likely never occur. Not really communication, but can help point the way to real/actual communication. Again, that communication has never stopped. For those with ears with which to listen. Be open, patient and willing and you'll realize Who is it that actually cares and who is it that is constantly claiming there are other things to be done that are somehow more important (right now) that gaining greater clarification/understanding from your Creator.

 

[Muffled]

You only think that because you have free will.
If you could see the outcome of every possible choice,
then one color may be slightly better than another color.

Since I walk so closely with God yo would think He would take exception when I wear a tie that doesn't match my shirt but He doesn't. Maybe He just doesn't major in minors.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Since I walk so closely with God yo would think He would take exception when I wear a tie that doesn't match my shirt but He doesn't. Maybe He just doesn't major in minors.

Maybe he just wants you to go through the deeper analysis of harmony yourself?
trial-and-error is the true teacher.

But I would suggest that any tie itself is always worse than no tie.
The tie represents the noose of the condemned man.
A most disharmonious piece of apparel!
The mark of Judas it is!!

 

[Milton Platt]

http://biblehub.com/matthew/5-3.htm

I have observed that people have begged for the truth, got it and then went on their own way. BUT happy are those who keep begging. I am not poor, not in any way. But I keep asking God, begging God, for the right way.

When you are given it, then you can write yet another bible.

 

[james dixon]

I Can Only Conclude That God Doesn't Care​

Wrong conclusion; He cares but he has no control on what we do~~~

He gave us the right to "choose"

What we do with our choices is our doing; Not His

 

[Skwim]

I Can Only Conclude That God Doesn't Care​

Wrong conclusion; He cares but he has no control on what we do~~~

Sure he does. God gave Samson strength to bring down a building to crush 3,000 members of a rival tribe.

Judges 16:27-30(NIV)
27 Now the temple was crowded with men and women; all the rulers of the Philistines were there, and on the roof were about three thousand men and women watching Samson perform. 28 Then Samson prayed to the Lord, “Sovereign Lord, remember me. Please, God, strengthen me just once more, and let me with one blow get revenge on the Philistines for my two eyes.” 29 Then Samson reached toward the two central pillars on which the temple stood. Bracing himself against them, his right hand on the one and his left hand on the other, 30 Samson said, “Let me die with the Philistines!” Then he pushed with all his might, and down came the temple on the rulers and all the people in it. Thus he killed many more when he died than while he lived.​

He gave us the right to "choose"

There's no such thing. Freely choosing, which is what I suspect you have in mind, is an illusion.


.

 

[First Baseman]

The prevailing claim of the Abrahamic religions is that through either direct construct or divine inspiration god saw to it that his message was recorded, and recorded correctly. And my guess is that, being god, he would have seen to it that this message was both understandable and unambiguous. Moreover, he would never be so derelict and inefficient as to fill it with inconsequentials or irrelevancies. He said what had to be said, and nothing more and nothing less.

Yet, today we have nearly a couple hundred versions of the Bible in English alone. Why so many? Because people disagree as to what the Bible should say and/or how. Take Isaiah 45:7 where the Hebrew word רַע ra` is translated as

evil
disaster
calamity
doom
trouble(s)
bad times
discord
woe
hard times​

depending on which version of the Bible one reads.

So, which is right? And how would one know? Thing is, they don't mean the same thing. Evil is hardly a synonym for hard times, nor is woe synonymous with doom. I doubt that god would ever have penned such confusion in his original, permitting his followers to fumble over his words or mistake what he was trying to get across. Consider: as a history teacher would you hand out a different reason for the origin of WWI to each student? Of course not. So one has to wonder why god went to the trouble having his word recorded and then not care how it was passed along. Either it wasn't meant to impact anyone other than those who read the original text, or he simply doesn't care what later readers get out of it. In effect, it doesn't matter today if one Christian believes he created evil and another gets the impression he only created hard times. If it did matter, then one would expect god to set things straight, making sure that the message he took the trouble to set forth was clear and unambiguous; that every English Bible said the very same thing, either literally or by implication. There wouldn't be nine English versions of רַע ra` meaning very different things. God would make sure that in Isaiah 45:7 every reader knows he had created evil, or whatever, and not something else.

Because of the preceding I can only surmise that god doesn't really care what the Christian does with his word. "Believe this or believe that, I really don't care. Think my word tells you you can get into my heaven by works? Fine. Think my word tells you you can get into my heaven by my grace? Fine. It really doesn't matter. Believe whatever you like."


So, how close to the truth am I here?

.

First, you need to figure out whether or not a god exists at all.

Second, you need to figure out which one does. If you think none do then stop wasting your time asking questions about them.

You are getting way ahead of yourself asking questions about something more complicated than that.

 

[Skwim]

First, you need to figure out whether or not a god exists at all.

Not at all. Presumption of the legitimacy of his asserted characteristics is all it takes.

Second, you need to figure out which one does.

Not at all. Many of the proclaimed gods have similar if not identical characteristics; however, in this case it's the god of the Abrahamic religions. More precisely, the god of the Christians and Jews (I'm not familiar with the Islamic notion of god.)


.

 

[First Baseman]

Not at all. Presumption of the legitimacy of his asserted characteristics is all it takes.


Not at all. Many of the proclaimed gods have similar if not identical characteristics; however, in this case it's the god of the Abrahamic religions. More precisely, the god of the Christians and Jews (I'm not familiar with the Islamic notion of god.)


.

I see your problem now. You don't know who or what to believe so you believe nothing concrete.

If a god exists, have you not gone to him/her in prayer asking that god to reveal the truth to you?

 

[Skwim]

I see your problem now. You don't know who or what to believe so you believe nothing concrete.

Let's just say I'm astute enough to know what not to believe . . .

If a god exists, have you not gone to him/her in prayer asking that god to reveal the truth to you?

. . . and wise enough to know that need is a foolish basis for truth.


.