Too many religions

[JustWondering]

Because man is rebellious in nature and very rarely does surrender his will completely.

Odd that god would purposely create creatures with traits it found distasteful. Don't you think?

 

[JustWondering]

I'm still waiting for some fullfilled prophecies from Savagewind and Robin. I don't need all 2,500. 3 or 4 will do.

 

[1robin]

Odd that god would purposely create creatures with traits it found distasteful. Don't you think?

We were not created with only the ability to rebel. We can be and are obedient in many cases. He created us with the ability to choose to be obedient or dissobedient. Most choose disobedience because it is easy and choose disbelief because it avoids (until death anyway) ultimate accountability for the disobedience we chose. God did not create man faulty. He created us with the ability to choose to be faulty.

 

[savagewind]

"Many will come on the basis of my name saying I am he" That's one
"O God, the proud have risen up against me, And a company of the terrible sought my soul, And have not placed Thee before them" That's two
"just when they are saying peace and security destruction will be upon them"
In your anger do not sin; when you are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent
Matthew 24:5
Psalm 86:14
1 Thessalonians 5:3
Psalm 4:4

 

[JustWondering]

We were not created with only the ability to rebel. We can be and are obedient in many cases. He created us with the ability to choose to be obedient or dissobedient. Most choose disobedience because it is easy and choose disbelief because it avoids (until death anyway) ultimate accountability for the disobedience we chose. God did not create man faulty. He created us with the ability to choose to be faulty.

Your argument is meaningless. Only a fool would purposely anger an all powerful god. People do not choose to belief or disbelief. There is no evidence or even a good argument to support the existance of your god. Therefore, I do not believe in it. Just like you can't simply believe in invisible magical unicorns. Why would you? Choice isn't really a factor.

 

[1robin]

I'm still waiting for some fullfilled prophecies from Savagewind and Robin. I don't need all 2,500. 3 or 4 will do.

Sorry I got distracted with the Baha'i guys. 1. The prophecy in Daniel that Israel would be a nation again in 1948, and that it would not be overcome again. This was fulfilled to the day I believe and the year I know. They also should have lost all six wars and countless battles where they have been outnumbered by the opposing countries by 80-1 at times. The fact is their improbable victories have been some of the most lopsided in history. 2. The prophecy predicting the destruction of the phonecian city of Tyre in Isaiah and Ezekiel I believe. It is one of the most picked on so I gave you a chance. 3. There are 350 concerning Christ alone. Pick a winner at this site. http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

Good luck, you would be the first. The only one I will not defend is one in the Gospels about Christ returning before some people died. I do not understand it or the explenation so that leaves 2,499 left that you will unjustifiably and arbitrarily dismiss without suffecient evidence and in the face of adaquite explenation. However rock on.

 

[JustWondering]

"Many will come on the basis of my name saying I am he" That's one
"O God, the proud have risen up against me, And a company of the terrible sought my soul, And have not placed Thee before them" That's two
"just when they are saying peace and security destruction will be upon them"
In your anger do not sin; when you are on your beds, search your hearts and be silent
Matthew 24:5
Psalm 86:14
1 Thessalonians 5:3
Psalm 4:4

Ok, one of those is a statement, another is a command. The other two are vague enough to apply to almost anything. Also, predicting that con men will emerge claiming to be prophets isn't a brain buster, anyone could predict that. I am unimpressed.

 

[1robin]

What evidence?!

If you ask this I doubt you understand the subject. However reliable witness testimony is one such standard. 25,00 verified historical corroberations another. In fact can you name the evidence in any meaningfull category for any other character in history for which the Bible's for Christ is not more plentiful and reliable. I would save you some time and tell you that I already know that there isn't one, but have at it any way.

 

[1robin]

Your argument is meaningless. Only a fool would purposely anger an all powerful god. People do not choose to belief or disbelief. There is no evidence or even a good argument to support the existance of your god. Therefore, I do not believe in it. Just like you can't simply believe in invisible magical unicorns. Why would you? Choice isn't really a factor.

If you go to u-tube and look up what is called the blasphemer's challenge I believe, you will find hundreds of idiot atheists that are trying to do the one thing that the bible says is unforgivable. They do not know what they are doing isn't it but that is not the point. They are doing exactly what they think would make God the maddest. Since no one can disprove the existance of God. These people are doing exactly what you claim isn't done. Stalin who believd in God but hated and rejected him sat up in bed and his last act was to shake his fist at God and then he died. As men are born seperated from God then they do not know they are actually defying a God. However I agree that only a fool would do these things and being that the world is full of fools then that is not a problem. Voltaire hated God and said that in 50 years Christianity would be dead and in the morgue. In 50 years he was dead in a morgue and his house was used to print bibles. Christopher Hitchens wrote a book called God is not great. It should have been titled I don't believe God exists and I hate him because he did in every debate exactly what you say only a fool would do.

BY idiot atheists, I meant atheists that are also idiots.

 

[savagewind]

Ok, one of those is a statement, another is a command. The other two are vague enough to apply to almost anything. Also, predicting that con men will emerge claiming to be prophets isn't a brain buster, anyone could predict that. I am unimpressed.

Prophesy means God's communication. It does not mean predictions. Did you know that?

So to prove to an unbeliever that God is speaking is the same as proving to an unbeliever that God exists. It can't be done.

 

[1robin]

Prophesy means God's communication. It does not mean predictions. Did you know that?

So to prove to an unbeliever that God is speaking is the same as proving to an unbeliever that God exists. It can't be done.

I disagree with this. If true no one would be a Christian because no one is born a Christian and by your standards could not be convinced.

The definition of prophecy is:
prophecy/ˈpräfəsē/

• A prediction: "a bleak prophecy of war and ruin".
• The faculty, function, or practice of prophesying: "the gift of prophecy".

 

[savagewind]

I disagree with this. If true no one would be a Christian because no one is born a Christian and by your standards could not be convinced.

The definition of prophecy is:
prophecy/ˈpräfəsē/

• A prediction: "a bleak prophecy of war and ruin".
• The faculty, function, or practice of prophesying: "the gift of prophecy".

I thought we were talking about Bible prophesy.
2 Peter 1:20,21
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

John 4:18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true. "Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem." Of course it's just a woman's opinion but he did not tell her her future. He told her her past. A prophet is one sent to speak God's word. It is not always about the future. But it is alway true.

 

[1robin]

I thought we were talking about Bible prophesy.
2 Peter 1:20,21
Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

John 4:18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true. "Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem." Of course it's just a woman's opinion but he did not tell her her future. He told her her past. A prophet is one sent to speak God's word. It is not always about the future. But it is alway true.

I may have mistaken your statement. Prophecy does not come from man. It comes from God, that is true. He uses the Holy Spirit speaking through a prophet to predict a future event. That is not exactly the same as divine knowledge that would be unknowable by any one without God. Ones a prediction the other is a claim to unknown knowledge without prediction. Either one proves God but only a prediction qualifies as prophecy in my understanding of the bible. I did find this however:

The gift of prophecy is a special ability to speak forth the message of God. A prophet is basically a spokesman for God. He or she delivers the Word of God to people by means of direct revelation. Prophetic utterances can deal with certain individuals, the church, or a larger context. It does not always refer to the future.
Blue Letter Bible - Help, Tutorials, and FAQs

So you may be right in some cases.

However when I debate I adopt common understandings of what terms mean because if they do not believe the bible it is necessary. Non - believers agree that prophecy involves prediction and so I must meet them on that common ground.

 

[Astravalon]

I do not know about you but I thank God that our wills do not produce unlimited or unrestrained consequences. Some one would have willed humans out of existance within a few years of the fall.

I agree!

Well I mostly agree. In my case I sought God and he responded with what I would call an invitation. I responded in the affirmative and I was granted a supernatural experience that produced a level of faith I did not have before the event. Jesus says for us to knock and he will open. For us to diligently seek and he will be found. All of these are consistent with two things. We are free to choose to persue him or not but the salvation event that produces what Christian's call saving faith is not produced by effort.

Just by way of explanation, what you describe here is a good example of synergism (associated with Arminianism), which is the individual and God cooperating to effect the individual’s salvation. A monergistic take on your experience would say that even your act of seeking God was God-induced (monergism being usually associated with Calvinism).

I lean more toward God doing the whole 9 yards, from the seeking to the finding, in the person’s heart. Indeed, if it’s true that we were “dead in our transgressions” as the bible puts it, it would make sense that God does it all, since a dead person can’t do much to initiate anything.

But that’s a debate that’s been around since the O-Dark-Hundreds.

Faith is the gift OF God. However it can be denied or accepted by our exercising free will.

I’m not as sure about that, but we’ve been over that. I tend to think that if God is controlling the heart’s brake and the accelerator pedals, so to speak (hardening or softening it like He did with Pharaoh), then the denial and acceptance is actually according to His will as opposed to the individual’s will.

But you know what, something just occurred to me as I'm typing this. Since I believe that everyone will, sooner or later, fall in love with the Lord, and be with Him forever, etc., it probably shouldn't matter so much to me whether God initiates these things or man does. The end result will be the same.

The monergism-synergism issue is one less thing I feel compelled to debate to death, now! OMG! Thank you, 1robin!!

Once again a person telling God what he should have done is the equivalent of a mouse telling Tiger Woods how to putt.

That’s why I prefer instead to ask His followers these things, as I’m doing.

We just do not have a fraction of the information needed to make that decision. You are leaving out all kinds of things in your characterisation of the event.1. It is the greatest example of self less compassion in human history. 2. God's absolute justice demands a payment for our killing, raping, injustice, etc.... We do not have anything to offer. The offering must be perfect. That is why the animals in the OT testiments that signified Christ had to be perfect. 3. Only God could supply the payment necessary. 4. Jesus was to be an example to us which means he had to be obedient and he had to suffer as we suffer. 5. THere is also a bunch of others concers like a curse on the blood line of David, prophecies etc... The crucifixion answered or addressed about a million concerns. No lesser act could have accomplished a fraction.

There’s also the possibility that none of that was ever needed in the first place, because, ultimately, whatever it is that we point to as being somehow offensive to an all-powerful, all-knowing God, one also has to remember that if God truly had a problem with any aspect of mankind, it was well within His power to create things differently.

Even if He didn’t put the offending ingredients into the mix from the get-go, He surely saw the offending ingredients coming down the pike from even before the get-go, and proceeded anyway.

It’s almost akin to a chef deliberately mixing too much Tabasco into his soup recipe, and then blaming the soup for burning his tongue due to the spiciness of it.

 

[JustWondering]

There’s also the possibility that none of that was ever needed in the first place, because, ultimately, whatever it is that we point to as being somehow offensive to an all-powerful, all-knowing God, one also has to remember that if God truly had a problem with any aspect of mankind, it was well within His power to create things differently.

Even if He didn’t put the offending ingredients into the mix from the get-go, He surely saw the offending ingredients coming down the pike from even before the get-go, and proceeded anyway.

It’s almost akin to a chef deliberately mixing too much Tabasco into his soup recipe, and then blaming the soup for burning his tongue due to the spiciness of it.

Why is this concept too difficult for some theists to grasp? Honestly? I haven't ruled out the possiblity of some godlike being/s existing somewhere in the cosmos. Its just that religions (I've learned about so far) ideas of what this being or beings are like don't really mesh with reality.

 

[JustWondering]

Sorry I got distracted with the Baha'i guys. 1. The prophecy in Daniel that Israel would be a nation again in 1948, and that it would not be overcome again. This was fulfilled to the day I believe and the year I know. They also should have lost all six wars and countless battles where they have been outnumbered by the opposing countries by 80-1 at times. The fact is their improbable victories have been some of the most lopsided in history. 2. The prophecy predicting the destruction of the phonecian city of Tyre in Isaiah and Ezekiel I believe. It is one of the most picked on so I gave you a chance. 3. There are 350 concerning Christ alone. Pick a winner at this site. http://www.accordingtothescriptures.org/prophecy/353prophecies.html

Good luck, you would be the first. The only one I will not defend is one in the Gospels about Christ returning before some people died. I do not understand it or the explenation so that leaves 2,499 left that you will unjustifiably and arbitrarily dismiss without suffecient evidence and in the face of adaquite explenation. However rock on.

I'm going to check out the site you linked here and tell you what I think about it. In the meantime here are some youtube videos that reflect what I think about bible prophecies and events, enjoy.

[youtube]BIk0B2BUIzY[/youtube]
Gospel Prophecies - Debunked - YouTube

[youtube]oLeNGlUCUF0[/youtube]
Gospel Events - Debunked (pt. 1) - YouTube

 

[1robin]

I'm going to check out the site you linked here and tell you what I think about it. In the meantime here are some youtube videos that reflect what I think about bible prophecies and events, enjoy.

[youtube]BIk0B2BUIzY[/youtube]
Gospel Prophecies - Debunked - YouTube

[youtube]oLeNGlUCUF0[/youtube]
Gospel Events - Debunked (pt. 1) - YouTube

I apologise but I can not watch videos on the server I post from. However if you pick a single claim from either site we can see how competent they are. Trust me these claims never stand up. You asked for prophecy and I provided them can you please refute them directly or conceed the point. I gave you 1 of the ones most attacked as being week and gave you choice of the other. Even if I could watch the videos from the titles it sound like they are going to list a few ideas about how to arbitrarily dismiss a few and then apply that to all 2,500 and declare victory. It is hard to have a debate by proxy through videos.

 

[Astravalon]

Why is this concept too difficult for some theists to grasp? Honestly? I haven't ruled out the possiblity of some godlike being/s existing somewhere in the cosmos. Its just that religions (I've learned about so far) ideas of what this being or beings are like don't really mesh with reality.

I have to admit it took me ages, but when something is drilled into a person from the day they’re born it can be harder to shake. It was only relatively recently that I was like, “Waaaaait a minute …!”

 

[1robin]

I agree!

I am agreeable to your agreement.

Just by way of explanation, what you describe here is a good example of synergism (associated with Arminianism), which is the individual and God cooperating to effect the individual’s salvation. A monergistic take on your experience would say that even your act of seeking God was God-induced (monergism being usually associated with Calvinism).

I understand the concepts you are listing and there is some value in them. However like in biology I resist compartmentalising because the compartments are arbitrary and false. God did not confine the animal kingdom is groups nor did he do so with religion, so when we do it it leads to false conclusion based on man made compartments. That being said I understand why it is done.

I lean more toward God doing the whole 9 yards, from the seeking to the finding, in the person’s heart. Indeed, if it’s true that we were “dead in our transgressions” as the bible puts it, it would make sense that God does it all, since a dead person can’t do much to initiate anything.

If this is the case that Charlie Manson and Hitler will be sitting in Heaven with you and Attila the Hun. Life sure doesn't bear out that God saves us on his on. A vast number of people die in a state of depraved evil. This would also make that God unjust. It would also render our response not a choice and so not love. None of that proves it false just makes it unlikely.

I’m not as sure about that, but we’ve been over that. I tend to think that if God is controlling the heart’s brake and the accelerator pedals, so to speak (hardening or softening it like He did with Pharaoh), then the denial and acceptance is actually according to His will as opposed to the individual’s will.

He never completely or even significantly controlls the brake except in very extreme and rare conditions. I do not think you are properly considering the purpose of all this. God desires love freely given with out force. You would have to dismiss the purpose before your method would have any function. In fact what would be the pupose to creating a person and then forcing them to love him. Please answer this honestly. Which one would you value more. A wife who freely chose to love you and overcame hardship and self sacrifice to make that love evident. Or a robot wife that is programed to love but did not choose to and does not overcome any hardship that it is not made to do so. No comparison.

But you know what, something just occurred to me as I'm typing this. Since I believe that everyone will, sooner or later, fall in love with the Lord, and be with Him forever, etc., it probably shouldn't matter so much to me whether God initiates these things or man does. The end result will be the same.

Universalism makes justice meaningless. It also defeats the whole purpose of God as stated in the bible. I would, God apparently would, and I would think anyone would rather have 10 friends that freely chose to love them than a thousand that were made to. The ends are at contradiction with the purpose.

The monergism-synergism issue is one less thing I feel compelled to debate to death, now! OMG! Thank you, 1robin!!

I aim to please.

There’s also the possibility that none of that was ever needed in the first place, because, ultimately, whatever it is that we point to as being somehow offensive to an all-powerful, all-knowing God, one also has to remember that if God truly had a problem with any aspect of mankind, it was well within His power to create things differently.

Not and maintain freewill. Freewill necessitates the ability to choose evil and dissobedience. That results in action that offend God. Reality confirms free will. It does not confirm universalism or automotons.

Even if He didn’t put the offending ingredients into the mix from the get-go, He surely saw the offending ingredients coming down the pike from even before the get-go, and proceeded anyway.

I believe free will necessitates that God knew he would be rejected by some and loved by some and that is what reality suggests. This is also consistent with purpose which is love freely given. I think you keep forgetting the purpose. There is no purpose out side that that explains our past and present.

It’s almost akin to a chef deliberately mixing too much Tabasco into his soup recipe, and then blaming the soup for burning his tongue due to the spiciness of it.

There is no similar comparison between God and any man except Christ. As the bible says God's ways are not our ways. He will be found true though every man be found a liar. When that Chef produces a human brain (the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe) then we can discuss him.

 

[Astravalon]

I understand the concepts you are listing and there is some value in them. However like in biology I resist compartmentalising because the compartments are arbitrary and false. God did not confine the animal kingdom is groups nor did he do so with religion, so when we do it it leads to false conclusion based on man made compartments. That being said I understand why it is done.

So God doesn’t make a distinction just in design between, say, elephants and ducks?

It’s man-made compartmentalizing that helps us distinguish Christianity from Buddhism, or the book of Genesis from the book of Sirach. It’s useful, for sure.

Life sure doesn't bear out that God saves us on his on. A vast number of people die in a state of depraved evil. This would also make that God unjust. It would also render our response not a choice and so not love. None of that proves it false just makes it unlikely.

A vast number of people appear to die in a state of what would appear to be depraved evil. Again, though, God is greater than that which we call evil, and whether He fashions it or not, it’s not irrevocably beyond His control, imo.

If this is the case that Charlie Manson and Hitler will be sitting in Heaven with you and Attila the Hun.

I’m often amazed at how people drop these names as though these characters come as some sort of shock to God, and are beyond His ability to restore. The bible does speak of God softening and hardening peoples’ hearts, so I trust that this concept isn’t alien to Christianity. It also speaks of God sending an ‘evil spirit’ into people to enable them to do certain things. I can share those verses if you like.

He never completely or even significantly controlls the brake except in very extreme and rare conditions. I do not think you are properly considering the purpose of all this. God desires love freely given with out force. You would have to dismiss the purpose before your method would have any function. In fact what would be the pupose to creating a person and then forcing them to love him. Please answer this honestly. Which one would you value more

To repeat what I said in post #338:

I don’t think He’ll necessarily have to “force” people to love Him. I think it’ll pretty much be a no-brainer for each individual as their time comes. They’ll feel no more forced to love Him than they felt forced to love anyone else in their lives.

As it is, we are commanded to love one another, yet I don’t think I’ve ever heard a Christian complain that they were being “forced” to love others. So, why should they think “force” comes into the equation in the case of loving God? Especially if one is convinced that He’s the most radiant, beautiful, gorgeous, loving entity one has ever laid their eyes on. He’s not called the “Beatific Vision” for nothing.

No, I don’t think people will be forced to love Him. When they see Him, they’ll probably wonder why they didn’t fall in love sooner and wonder why He didn’t “force” them to.

A wife who freely chose to love you and overcame hardship and self sacrifice to make that love evident. Or a robot wife that is programed to love but did not choose to and does not overcome any hardship that it is not made to do so. No comparison.

However, “Love Me or Else” isn’t love either, so the element of force is still present in both the eternal-torment and the utter annihilation paradigms of Christianity. The only difference is that one is a "robot" scenario (or what the bible would call the "clay" scenario ), and the other is a captor-hostage/abused-wife situation.

Universalism makes justice meaningless. It also defeats the whole purpose of God as stated in the bible.

How so?

Not and maintain freewill. Freewill necessitates the ability to choose evil and dissobedience. That results in action that offend God. Reality confirms free will. It does not confirm universalism or automotons.

I’ve asked this question before, and never got an answer: Is God a robot?

There is no similar comparison between God and any man except Christ. As the bible says God's ways are not our ways. He will be found true though every man be found a liar.

When that Chef produces a human brain (the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe) then we can discuss him.

Do you understand the concept of what’s called an “analogy”? Or perhaps the more bibliocentric term, “parable”?