Is "Cruelty" Ever Justified?

[danieldemol]

It is true that the suffering we experience today, would not have existed, if Adam had not sinned, because he would not have passed on his defect to the entire human race, but what about some of the created humans who sin... would they not pass on sin to their offspring, and would there not be suffering from the same sin... and the result... would it not affect those who did not sin?

No as in my view there is no reason an All-powerful God is limited to creating through human intercourse.
God could simply make humans sterile and keep on creating new humans with no inherited sin as I see it.

In my opinion.

 

[nPeace]

No as in my view there is no reason an All-powerful God is limited to creating through human intercourse.
God could simply make humans sterile and keep on creating new humans with no inherited sin as I see it.

In my opinion.

Oh. No procreation.
So you are just concerned with not suffering sickness and death.
Hmm. I guess you got me on this one. I can't say it's better, but it's the first time someone offered something that isn't impractical.
Of course, you know, I have to take God's side, since you haven't demonstrated your wisdom to be superior, as yet.

I would take your side when you do something like this...

Spoiler

 

[Alien826]

Why does it make sense to you?

• Mary was not miraculously born.
• Mary was the daughter of Heli, who was the son of... all the way back to Adam.
• No scripture says that Mary was born of Holy Spirit, or was miraculously given, as in the case of John.

Jesus did not inherit sin from Mary, because, as the angel said, Jesus was not born of human seed, but from God, and Holy Spirit overshadowed - that is protected Jesus from any tainted genes.
Yes, Jehovah has the power to do that. Scientists could do the same, if the knew how, and they had the time to.

Luke 1:
34 But Mary said to the angel: “How is this to be, since I am not having sexual relations with a man?” 35 In answer the angel said to her: “Holy spirit will come upon you, and power of the Most High will overshadow you. And for that reason the one who is born will be called holy, God’s Son

Jesus said of persons who let go of the word of God, for their traditions...
Mark 7:6-8
6 ...“Isaiah aptly prophesied about YOU hypocrites, as it is written, ‘This people honor me with [their] lips, but their hearts are far removed from me. 7 It is in vain that they keep worshiping me, because they teach as doctrines commands of men.’ 8 Letting go the commandment of God, YOU hold fast the tradition of men.”

It made sense because I was assuming that Mary's genes were used in the process. Come to think of it, that would imply that Jesus had to be female, as there would be no XY gene.

What you say does make sense, though quite a lot of divine power would be involved. I find it interesting that you are incorporating modern ideas about genes. I know at one time it was believed that the woman didn't contribute anything to the child, she was just a vessel for the the man's seed.

Thanks for the response.

 

[Alien826]

Yes. The decision is yours.
If your father gave you advice, would you consider it?
Would you forego it, if you wanted to please your father, and you were aware that it displeased him because it reflected the spirit of someone with ways, opposite to your father?
Or would you insist you needed to go your way?

It depends on the advice. I certainly should consider my father's advice, though that applies to almost anyone who gives me advice.

The next sentence is a little confusing. I think you are asking if I would go against my father's wishes and follow the advice of someone else that he disagreed with, even if I upset him in the process. I would consider both sides of the question, and include any other sources of information that were available to me, and make the best decision I could. I would not do something that was against my own conscience just because he was displeased. On the other hand I would not just go my own way regardless, or just to **** him off.

The above contains certain assumptions. The decision would have to be important. I would take my shoes off in his house if he asked me, even if I didn't do that at home and thought it was unnecessary. What I say is what I should do, not how I really behaved to my (long dead) father.

To sum up, I take full responsibility for my actions and what results from them. For that reason I don't take important decisions lightly. I would consider blindly following the advice of someone else (anyone!) to be irresponsible.

That's what I said. We learn our own experiences, but I also mentioned that we come to see from experience that our dad is right.
Why would it be any other way, unless he is not perfect.

The problem is knowing that "Dad" is perfect. All the above relates to a human father.

To be fair, IF I was convinced that God exists and IF I could be sure that he was acting in a benevolent way, and IF I could be sure of what he was telling me, then it would be different. Lot's of IFs there, I'm afraid.

No. Not if you understood what I have said before.
I hope you are taking all of what I said, and not just parts.

I try. You do throw a lot of stuff at me though. I don't read every Bible verse, for example.

 

[YoursTrue]

No as in my view there is no reason an All-powerful God is limited to creating through human intercourse.
God could simply make humans sterile and keep on creating new humans with no inherited sin as I see it.

In my opinion.

Let's say that the first two humans were created without ability to produce children. That would make them kind of like the angels. But evidently God did not want humans to be like that. I could conjecture but not now.

 

[Alien826]

Oh? Where did you get that?

From what you said. Didn't you say that people that don't believe do so willfully?

It is not judgement day, so you do not know if you will have a different belief when God closes the door.
If you are in that position when God closes the door, then you need to consider, if you really do have an honest disbelief in God.

If I suddenly found myself in that position I would know more than I do now. Obviously I would change my beliefs. We're talking about what I believe now, aren't we? If the "door closed" and you found that your current beliefs were wrong, would you not accept that?

Factually, we do tend to think something when deep down we know differently. True?

That's a good question. In some cases, probably yes, but I'm not a mind reader and nor are you. Does a "flat Earth" believer know at some level that what he believes is nonsense?

I think you might be looking at it from one angle. There is another.
I'm open. I have not closed the door ... on the conversation.

OK go ahead. Answer me one thing though. Do you admit the possiblity that I might genuinely believe as I do, and am not willfully supressing the "truth"?

It doesn't bother most... at the moment.

A serious question and not intended to be rude. Do you ever have the slightest doubt about what you say here? Might you, just possibly, be wrong?

 

[danieldemol]

Abraham.

But you said;

"We still have the opportunity to remain obedience, without facing death."

'After 175 years of life, Abraham fell asleep in death. He “died in a good old age,” says the Bible... (Genesis 25:7, 8)'

Source: https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20120101/Who-Was-Abraham/

So unless you are no longer JW I believe Abraham doesn't fit the narrative of a person who remained obedient *without facing death*.

In my opinion.

 

[nPeace]

It made sense because I was assuming that Mary's genes were used in the process. Come to think of it, that would imply that Jesus had to be female, as there would be no XY gene.

What you say does make sense, though quite a lot of divine power would be involved. I find it interesting that you are incorporating modern ideas about genes.

I would not call it a modern idea, since heredity was known before Mendel.
The DNA blue print was known before modern discovery.
While understanding was limited, as these guys were not scientists, they had the knowledge.
How they acquired that knowledge, is no mystery.

I know at one time it was believed that the woman didn't contribute anything to the child, she was just a vessel for the the man's seed.

Not sure about that. What era are you referring to?

Thanks for the response.

It depends on the advice. I certainly should consider my father's advice, though that applies to almost anyone who gives me advice.

The next sentence is a little confusing. I think you are asking if I would go against my father's wishes and follow the advice of someone else that he disagreed with, even if I upset him in the process.

No. That's not what I am asking.
Say your dad gives you a warning against another person, who might give you advice, and other information.
Say, choosing which advice to follow, is critical, and have a serious impact on your life.

The problem is knowing that "Dad" is perfect. All the above relates to a human father.

Can you know? Is there a need to know? Why would knowing matter, more than knowing if there is a basis your dad can be trusted, and has more experience?

To be fair, IF I was convinced that God exists and IF I could be sure that he was acting in a benevolent way, and IF I could be sure of what he was telling me, then it would be different. Lot's of IFs there, I'm afraid.

Sounds good to me.
Actually, it's critical we know these things.

I try. You do throw a lot of stuff at me though. I don't read every Bible verse, for example.

Once you get the point. That's what matters.
The scriptures are there, to let you know, I am not speaking from my own ideas.

From what you said. Didn't you say that people that don't believe do so willfully?

Me???
I have never said that in all my life!

There are of course some people who will fit that category, in the same way there are people who are genuinely ignorant... but why would I say that "people that don't believe do so willfully"?

That's equivalent to saying, "what is the use of sharing the good news with unbeliever, when none of them want it."
No. That's terribly wrong!
Many people are misled. Many are genuinely searching for truthful answers. Many are humble, and at heart, honest... What?
I've never been so shocked in my life!

Can you show me where I wrote that?
I want to see if it's possible for me to sleep write.

If I suddenly found myself in that position I would know more than I do now. Obviously I would change my beliefs. We're talking about what I believe now, aren't we? If the "door closed" and you found that your current beliefs were wrong, would you not accept that?

If the door closed, and I found myself on the outside, I would accept that my heart was not complete. I was not really honest or humble.
No person with an honest heart will be left out.
I won't swamp you with scriptures. Just two.
Haggai 2:7 ; John 6:44

That's a good question. In some cases, probably yes, but I'm not a mind reader and nor are you. Does a "flat Earth" believer know at some level that what he believes is nonsense?

I don't know who knows or does not know if their beliefs are wrong.
I do know that some people genuinely don't know, and some people know.

OK go ahead. Answer me one thing though. Do you admit the possiblity that I might genuinely believe as I do, and am not willfully supressing the "truth"?

You might.
It's not for me to determine that.
I might discern by a reaction of someone, if they are trying to avoid acknowledging that they know something.
In conversation, that can happen, and it's important to use discernment when talking to people, since you don't want to be going in circles, or using precious time, on someone who may not be genuinely ignorant.

I don't discern that in you. You ask questions, and I have observed that you listen for the answer, and consider where the person is coming from.

I believe though, you are making reference to Romans 1:18-20
For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

So, you are saying that since you are not suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, this evidence for God cannot exist.

First of all, the scripture says that God will act against those who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way. God knows who they are.

Secondly, the scripture says that what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made...
So, it acknowledges that discernment is needed, to recognize what God has made clearly evident, which of course means, it involves one's heart, and mental disposition.

Everyone does not have the same figurative heart condition, and mental disposition, and not everyone develops those at the same rate.
At the same time, we all can. Hence, there is no excuse, when people are given adequate time to.
Time is a factor here.
When God acts, he will be doing so, based on what he knows about the heart... against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way.

A serious question and not intended to be rude. Do you ever have the slightest doubt about what you say here?

I don't doubt what God, no.

Might you, just possibly, be wrong?

I believe anything is possible.
To say I cannot possibly be wrong, is to suggest that I know everything.
I can tell you that everything I believe at the momemt, may not be accurate, and I may have to adjust, which I have done before, and continue willing to do.

However, I know that Jesus' followers know the truth, and it's not possible for them to be wrong (overall that is. Not in minor or individual details).
I believe I am one of those individuals who have been set free by knowing the truth.
(John 8:31, 32)
. . .Jesus went on to say to the Jews who had believed him: “If you remain in my word, you are really my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

 

[nPeace]

But you said;

"We still have the opportunity to remain obedience, without facing death."

Yes. Not everyone will face death.
(John 11:26) . . .everyone who is living and exercises faith in me will never die at all. . .

'After 175 years of life, Abraham fell asleep in death. He “died in a good old age,” says the Bible... (Genesis 25:7, 8)'

Source: https://www.jw.org/en/library/magazines/wp20120101/Who-Was-Abraham/

So unless you are no longer JW I believe Abraham doesn't fit the narrative of a person who remained obedient *without facing death*.

In my opinion.

This depends of what manner of man one is, when looking at this.
To the fleshly man, Abraham died.
To the spiritual man, Abraham did not die, but is living.
(Luke 20:38) . . .He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.. . .

Remember Jesus words...
(Luke 8:52) . . .“Stop weeping, for she did not die but is sleeping.”
Jesus was not lying.

 

[danieldemol]

Yes. Not everyone will face death.
(John 11:26) . . .everyone who is living and exercises faith in me will never die at all. . .


This depends of what manner of man one is, when looking at this.
To the fleshly man, Abraham died.
To the spiritual man, Abraham did not die, but is living.
(Luke 20:38) . . .He is a God, not of the dead, but of the living, for they are all living to him.. . .

Remember Jesus words...
(Luke 8:52) . . .“Stop weeping, for she did not die but is sleeping.”
Jesus was not lying.

The author of Genesis must have been a fleshly man then, because they state plainly that Abraham died.

Additionally I was clearly talking about physical or flesh death. For you to promise me I won't die in such a context then claim you were only talking about spiritually when caught out doesn't show integrity in my opinion.

 

[nPeace]

The author of Genesis must have been a fleshly man then, because they state plainly that Abraham died.

Additionally I was clearly talking about physical or flesh death. For you to promise me I won't die in such a context then claim you were only talking about spiritually when caught out doesn't show integrity in my opinion.

I am not claiming nothing. It's not my fault you if don't understand spiritual things.
When Jesus said the girl did not die, but is only sleeping, some in the crowd laughed at him. He did not reverse what he said, or try to explain, because he knew what he was saying.
I know what I was saying. I claim nothing.
Also, there are people living today, who will never taste death at all.

Why are you guys so obsessed with claiming to have caught someone? Is that some kind of egotists drug, or something?

 

[Alien826]

I would not call it a modern idea, since heredity was known before Mendel.
The DNA blue print was known before modern discovery.
While understanding was limited, as these guys were not scientists, they had the knowledge.
How they acquired that knowledge, is no mystery.

I'm not sure what you mean by the "DNA blueprint", but be careful how you word things. Friedrich Miescher identified a molecule that would later be called DNA in 1869. Others contributed over the years, until James Watson and Francis Crick, discovered the structure of DNA (the double helix) in 1953. It would be inaccurate to say that anyone knew about DNA before 1869. If you mean that people had a "rule of thumb"understanding of genetics before that, I agree.

History of DNA - What is DNA & How Was It Discovered? | LunaDNA

Not sure about that. What era are you referring to?

Heh. I'm having trouble finding a good source for that. What I did find was the concept of the homunculus, which was supposed to be a tiny human form that was contained in the sperm, from which the baby grew. Here's a link if you are interested.

Homunculus | Description, History, Models, & Importance

Homunculus, diminutive fully formed human body, historically believed to inhabit a germ cell (an egg or a sperm) and to have the capacity to increase in size, giving rise to an adult human. The word homunculus is Latin for “little man” or “little person.” The homunculus has had a colourful history

www.britannica.com

It refers to "early modern scholarly texts" for this version of the idea.

No. That's not what I am asking.
Say your dad gives you a warning against another person, who might give you advice, and other information.
Say, choosing which advice to follow, is critical, and have a serious impact on your life.

OK. I'd still consider all the evidence, or advice, no matter what the source was.

Can you know? Is there a need to know? Why would knowing matter, more than knowing if there is a basis your dad can be trusted, and has more experience?

Can we know? Maybe, maybe not. Does it matter? Absolutely! If all I have is a general basis that he can be trusted, that doesn't mean he is right in this particular instance.

Me???
I have never said that in all my life!

There are of course some people who will fit that category, in the same way there are people who are genuinely ignorant... but why would I say that "people that don't believe do so willfully"?

That's equivalent to saying, "what is the use of sharing the good news with unbeliever, when none of them want it."
No. That's terribly wrong!
Many people are misled. Many are genuinely searching for truthful answers. Many are humble, and at heart, honest... What?
I've never been so shocked in my life!

Can you show me where I wrote that?
I want to see if it's possible for me to sleep write.

If that's true, then we don't disagree, and time has been wasted. Let's see if I can track this down.

First, I have been accused of this by Christians many times. As I recall it's based on some verses that I'll try to dig out.

I found this, which is a good example.

What Is the Best Argument for the Existence of God?

There are a number of common arguments for the existence of God. But most of these arguments are not as effective as many Christians would like to think.

answersingenesis.org

Here's the relevant section.

The Bible teaches that atheists are not really atheists. That is, those who profess to be atheists do ultimately believe in God in their heart-of-hearts. The Bible teaches that everyone knows God, because God has revealed Himself to all (Romans 1:19). In fact, the Bible tells us that God’s existence is so obvious that anyone who suppresses this truth is “without excuse” (Romans 1:20). The atheist denies with his lips what he knows in his heart. But if they know God, then why do atheists claim that they do not believe in God?


The answer may be found in Romans 1:18. God is angry at unbelievers for their wickedness. And an all-powerful, all-knowing God who is angry at you is a terrifying prospect. So even though many atheists might claim that they are neutral, objective observers, and that their disbelief in God is purely rational, in reality, they are strongly motivated to reject the biblical God who is rightly angry with them. So they suppress that truth in unrighteousness. They convince themselves that they do not believe in God.2 The atheist is intellectually schizophrenic—believing in God, but believing that he does not believe in God.3


Therefore, we do not really need to give the atheist any more specific evidences for God’s existence. He already knows in his heart-of-hearts that God exists, but he doesn’t want to believe it. Our goal is to expose the atheist’s suppressed knowledge of God.4 With gentleness and respect, we can show the atheist that he already knows about God, but is suppressing what he knows to be true.

OK, that's set the scene. Some Christians do say things like that. Now let's see if you said anything that led me to think you felt the same way.

I seems to have come from this. You said

Willful ignorance is not an honest mistake, far as we know.
The scriptures say God is patient with you because he does not desire anyone to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance (2 Peter 3:9), and he has the good news preached as a witness, before he brings the end.
So, that obviously does not translate to 'honest mistake'.

In fact, Jesus highlighted the problem when he said... "...as they were in those days before the Flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and they took no note until the Flood came and swept them all away, so it will be..." Matthew 24:38, 39

Noah preached to the people (2 Peter 2:5), before the end came, in a really wicked and depraved world, but people were comfortable, and paid him no mind.
That's willful ignorance. Not an honest mistake.
God knows the heart, and the Bible says he draws people of honest heart. So he pays attention to honest mistakes, and 'takes that person's hand'.

The Bible says he sees the arrogant from a distance.

I guess you didn't say it applied to all people. Sorry. You did come close though.

If the door closed, and I found myself on the outside, I would accept that my heart was not complete. I was not really honest or humble.
No person with an honest heart will be left out.
I won't swamp you with scriptures. Just two.
Haggai 2:7 ; John 6:44

That's not what I was suggesting. The idea is that you find yourself in the presence of God and he explains to you that what you believed on Earth was wrong in some significant fashion. Would you accept that?

I believe though, you are making reference to Romans 1:18-20
For God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.

So, you are saying that since you are not suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way, this evidence for God cannot exist.

Not exactly. Obviously the world exists and can be seen as evidence if someone so chooses. It's the "inexcusable" bit that's the problem. Obviously I don't see the world as good evidence for God, but even if it was then an honest conclusion that it wasn't shouldn't be inexcusable. You've said as much I think.

First of all, the scripture says that God will act against those who are suppressing the truth in an unrighteous way. God knows who they are.

Secondly, the scripture says that what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made...
So, it acknowledges that discernment is needed, to recognize what God has made clearly evident, which of course means, it involves one's heart, and mental disposition.

I would expect that "clearly seen" would not require some kind of emotional or mental disposition. If I stub my toe on a rock, I "clearly see" (or feel!) that the rock exists. No special mental attitude required.

I believe anything is possible.
To say I cannot possibly be wrong, is to suggest that I know everything.
I can tell you that everything I believe at the momemt, may not be accurate, and I may have to adjust, which I have done before, and continue willing to do.

That's good.

However, I know that Jesus' followers know the truth, and it's not possible for them to be wrong (overall that is. Not in minor or individual details).

You were doing so well!

 

[nPeace]

OK. I'd still consider all the evidence, or advice, no matter what the source was.

...and whether your failing to respond to your dad's advice means death or not?

That's not what I was suggesting. The idea is that you find yourself in the presence of God and he explains to you that what you believed on Earth was wrong in some significant fashion. Would you accept that?

I take it this is a scenario, because that's not how it works.
I accept God's view... right or wrong. It's not about me. I can't make a sun... even if I tried to do so from the time I was born.

I would expect that "clearly seen" would not require some kind of emotional or mental disposition. If I stub my toe on a rock, I "clearly see" (or feel!) that the rock exists. No special mental attitude required.

Hmm. I think without reason, science would be in trouble.

You were doing so well!

Don't get tied up. Of course, anything being possible is relative.
It's not possible for God to lie. Come on.

 

[Alien826]

...and whether your failing to respond to your dad's advice means death or not?

Of course. The more serious the possible consequences, the more careful I need to be and the more sources of information I need to consult. It doesn't mean I necessarily reject Dad's advice or take this other person's advice. It's no different from getting a second opinion if my doctor tells me that I need a certain treatment.

This all seems totally obvious to me, and you usually have something in mind when you go into these series of questions, so maybe there's something you're getting at that I don't understand?

I take it this is a scenario, because that's not how it works.
I accept God's view... right or wrong. It's not about me. I can't make a sun... even if I tried to do so from the time I was born.

Obviously it's a thought experiment (scenario if you wish), but I am trying to make a point. I asked you to imagine a situation where God tells you that something that you believe is wrong. I then ask if you would change your beliefs. I think you're saying that you would do so, as God is telling you to? There's another question though. When you say "right or wrong" do you mean if God is right or wrong or if your understanding is right or wrong?

Hmm. I think without reason, science would be in trouble.

Mustn't skip the question. What I think you were saying was the familiar Christian response to a skeptic's statement that it's not totally clear that God exists by examining the world. The next thing they say is that the Bible has to be "spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). In other words I don't see it their way because I'm not "spiritual". You may not have meant that.

Don't get tied up. Of course, anything being possible is relative.
It's not possible for God to lie. Come on.

Is the statement "It's not possible for God to lie" relative?

 

[blü 2]

No. God killed Ananias, because he sinned against the holy spirit, by lying in his heart, to the congregation, and to God.

Ananias is equally as dead either way, and God is not just, but a murderous self-important bigot (as distinct from an all-wise benevolence) either way.

No. You picture him that way because you know nothing about the Bible, or God, and his people... or his arrangement.

If you knew any of that stuff yourself, you'd be able to tell me why it was necessary for Jesus to die, why it was necessary for him to die horribly, and what was different after than before. But as we both know, you can't.

 

[nPeace]

Of course. The more serious the possible consequences, the more careful I need to be and the more sources of information I need to consult. It doesn't mean I necessarily reject Dad's advice or take this other person's advice. It's no different from getting a second opinion if my doctor tells me that I need a certain treatment.

This all seems totally obvious to me, and you usually have something in mind when you go into these series of questions, so maybe there's something you're getting at that I don't understand?

I thought what I had in mind was obvious.
If your dad's advise is based on knowledge you don't have, and are not aware of, but regardless of if he shares that knowledge with you, or not... he obviously did... but it's his word against the other person.

The only thing you have to go on, is... do you have reason to trust your dad - the evidence for or against that.
How critical is it? It means your life.
There is no time for dillydallying.

Obviously it's a thought experiment (scenario if you wish), but I am trying to make a point. I asked you to imagine a situation where God tells you that something that you believe is wrong. I then ask if you would change your beliefs. I think you're saying that you would do so, as God is telling you to? There's another question though. When you say "right or wrong" do you mean if God is right or wrong or if your understanding is right or wrong?

I meant I accept God's view, whether I am right or wrong. In other words, whether I think I am right or wrong.
I can't be right, if I am wrong... if you get what I am saying.

The fact that I stand before the judge as condemned, means I am wrong.
God is not a man... like Putin... that does injustice.
All God's ways are righteous. There is no injustice with him.

For example, Putin says to JWs, "Stop your worship NOW!" That's wrong.
God says, "STOP your worship, NOW!" We say, "Okay." That's right.

Hope I don't have to explain why... but let's see how sharp you are.

Mustn't skip the question. What I think you were saying was the familiar Christian response to a skeptic's statement that it's not totally clear that God exists by examining the world.

Nope. I think you need to be careful with the wording there.
If I said that, I would be contradicting the scripture.
Having to use discernment, does not mean something is not clear.
What's does totally clear mean? It's either clear, or it's not. Totally clear?
Or did you mean it's not direct evidence, but circumstantial? You would be right there.
There is no direct evidence that man evolved from apes, but we hear it all the time - "It's clear". They say.

The next thing they say is that the Bible has to be "spiritually discerned" (1 Corinthians 2:14). In other words I don't see it their way because I'm not "spiritual". You may not have meant that.

Nope. The Bible has to be "spiritually discerned"? Seriously?
Where did you read that, buddy? These things often leave a on my mind about your inner self. You can't blame me. I mean...
I have to wonder if these come from the mind, of the skeptic, since they are not reading them.
So, it would lead one to the conclusion, these stem from the heart of the individual.
That's reasonable, isn't it? Or maybe I missed something?

Is the statement "It's not possible for God to lie" relative?

"Anything is possible" for us, is relative.
With God, all things are possible, is relative only to the nature of God.
So, it is impossible for God to lie, because that would be beyond his nature, and since there is nothing beyond God, that would be impossible.
Hope you are not

I'll explain.
Say you have a circle, and nothing exists outside the circle. The only things that can exist, would be in that circle... Of course, the circle is.
The circle can expand. There are no boundaries. There are no limits to that circle.
However, the circle remains a circle, even if its diameter expands a zillion times.
The circle however, cannot become a square, a triangle... It cannot change its 'nature' It is 'constant'. It remains the same - never changing.

That's just an example, to describe what the Bible says about God. God does not change, and God cannot be what he is not.
God cannot lie; cannot be unjust; cannot be corrupted; cannot become a puny man; cannot die... as those in Christendom claim, when the say God came as a man, to die for us ; etc.

So, I hope that answers your question.

 

[nPeace]

Ananias is equally as dead either way, and God is not just, but a murderous self-important bigot (as distinct from an all-wise benevolence) either way.

If you knew any of that stuff yourself, you'd be able to tell me why it was necessary for Jesus to die, why it was necessary for him to die horribly, and what was different after than before. But as we both know, you can't.

I hear it every year.
I preach it every year.
... and I don't know it? People say the funniest things.

 

[Alien826]

I thought what I had in mind was obvious.
If your dad's advise is based on knowledge you don't have, and are not aware of, but regardless of if he shares that knowledge with you, or not... he obviously did... but it's his word against the other person.

The only thing you have to go on, is... do you have reason to trust your dad - the evidence for or against that.
How critical is it? It means your life.
There is no time for dillydallying.

Is this some Earthly father, or an all knowing God? I've been answering as if it's an human father, because that's all I know.

You've narrowed the focus, but actually what I have said all along stands. I would use the best information that was available to me to make the best decision I could. In this case, all I have are two conflicting statements from two different people and I have no way to check what they say. In that case I would follow the advice of the person whose opinion I valued most. What else could I do? If it was my father versus some stranger I would have more to go on about my father. That could actually go either way if my father was a consistent liar, but we're assuming he is generally reliable I think.

What I meant by what you have in mind is not what you have said so far, but where you are going with it. I assume it will lead to some conclusion you think I should draw about God, but I don't want to put words into your mouth.

I meant I accept God's view, whether I am right or wrong. In other words, whether I think I am right or wrong.
I can't be right, if I am wrong... if you get what I am saying.

The fact that I stand before the judge as condemned, means I am wrong.
God is not a man... like Putin... that does injustice.
All God's ways are righteous. There is no injustice with him.

For example, Putin says to JWs, "Stop your worship NOW!" That's wrong.
God says, "STOP your worship, NOW!" We say, "Okay." That's right.

Hope I don't have to explain why... but let's see how sharp you are.

OK.

You still haven't addressed what I intended, and maybe I need to make myself clearer. I mean if God told you you were wrong about something really basic. I'm thinking of a conversation something like this.

God: Welcome to heaven. Before you go on there's something I have to tell you. What you believed on Earth was not correct in some important ways. For example, Jesus was just human. He did say some very important things, but he was also wrong about a lot of other things. For example, he is not divine in any way. There's only one God and that is me.

You: But ... Lord, it clearly said otherwise in your Word, the Bible! Did I misunderstand it? Am I damned?

God: Um, yes, that's something else. The Bible is a collection of writings by people who were trying to understand me. Most of the time they got it wrong to some extent, but they did do their best, so they get credit for that. (Smiles) Oh and you are not damned, nor is anyone else. I don't do that. Some people do need a lot of help before they can be truly incorporated into my Kingdom though. (Looks sad)

You can answer that or not, but if you do, you have to accept it as true for the purposes of the example. No saying "God wouldn't do that".

I'll get right to my point. You find that incredible because you are so convinced of what you believe. When you talk to Atheists they find your assertions just as difficult to believe.

Nope. I think you need to be careful with the wording there.
If I said that, I would be contradicting the scripture.
Having to use discernment, does not mean something is not clear.
What's does totally clear mean? It's either clear, or it's not. Totally clear?
Or did you mean it's not direct evidence, but circumstantial? You would be right there.

Things can be partially clear. Have you stood in front of a mirror after taking a shower, when the glass is partially fogged up and partially clear?

There is no direct evidence that man evolved from apes, but we hear it all the time - "It's clear". They say.

It's not clear because that's not what the Theory of Evolution says.

Nope. The Bible has to be "spiritually discerned"? Seriously?
Where did you read that, buddy?

1 Corinthians 2:14.

Those who are unspiritual do not receive the gifts of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to them, and they are unable to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. (NRSV. Other versions use different words, but the meaning is similar).

These things often leave a on my mind about your inner self. You can't blame me. I mean...
I have to wonder if these come from the mind, of the skeptic, since they are not reading them.
So, it would lead one to the conclusion, these stem from the heart of the individual.
That's reasonable, isn't it? Or maybe I missed something?

Be nice now!

So, I hope that answers your question.

I can't remember what I was getting at! So OK!

 

[blü 2]

... and I don't know it? People say the funniest things.

You may know the words ─ well, some of them ─ but they always end up meaning what you want them to mean, not what they actually say.

And in this case you pervert your moral sense in order to approve the murder of Ananias, simply because the story says God did it. And as I said, on that reading, God has no positive morality at all, just wanders round killing people who don't pay up. But obviously not everyone who doesn't pay, and not everyone who "lies to God", just Ananias. So God is a terrorist, a random killer.

I find that wholly primitive, wholly barbaric, and it's not merely odd, that in your hands the Christian religion should thus approve and encourage murderous revenge ─ and in this case arbitrary murderous revenge.

 

[nPeace]

You may know the words ─ well, some of them ─ but they always end up meaning what you want them to mean, not what they actually say.

And in this case you pervert your moral sense in order to approve the murder of Ananias, simply because the story says God did it. And as I said, on that reading, God has no positive morality at all, just wanders round killing people who don't pay up. But obviously not everyone who doesn't pay, and not everyone who "lies to God", just Ananias. So God is a terrorist, a random killer.

I find that wholly primitive, wholly barbaric, and it's not merely odd, that in your hands the Christian religion should thus approve and encourage murderous revenge ─ and in this case arbitrary murderous revenge.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.