Too many religions

[1robin]

Where are the simple straight forward facts and evidence to back the claims. He's obviously a true believer so how can I trust that anything from him is unbiased?

1. This is a very common tactic of the biased critic. I give a list of reasons to put faith in the bible. The critic points out rightly or as in this case wrongly, an issue with one claim in the list, ignores the others, and declares victory. I could not wager my soul on such unjustified evaluations. 2. Your claim that because he believes in the bible that his professional opinion is invalid is complete non-sence. Being that every Christian believes in the bible, then by your bogus standards only non Christians can be used to defend Christianity. 3. I do not insist that only no-evolutionists defend evolution. 4. Your attempts to shoot the messenger to avoid the message are invalid. 5. However you might fit in to politics nicely.

 

[1robin]

I am looking at your claims. When I find them unconvincing you simply tell me I'm being difficult, to dimiss my views. I am an unbeliever, I am not going to do mental gymnastics or overlook inconsistencies to except something as evidence for your claims.

Mental gynmastics are unnecessary even though apparently scientists do not have the same problem.
1. You must either have a suffecient familiarity with biblical doctrine to understand that concepts in the bible or allow the scholars to inform you.
2. Such as prophetic day = year
3. Literal v/s symbolic methods of exegesis
4. Cultural language use. (Apocalyptic, romantic etc...)
5. You must have a familiarity that allows you to know that the standards used to determine these issues are always folowed in every similar circumstance. They do not make up a different set of rules for each case.
6. You must have a familiarity with the bible that allows you to understand biblical concepts. For example Spritual Jerusalem v/s physical Jerusalem, spritual kingdom v/s literal kingdom, the church as a human institution v/s the Church as a spritual institution and containing all Christians and is known as the body of Christ. ETC.......

Without a background that incorporates these very basic concepts then any claim that the bible is false is based on preference not evidence. You can find more sites breaking these prophecies down than you will ever read. You may choose a simpler prophecy or spend enough time to make your knowledge about the bible meaningfull but your unjustified assertions have no explanitory scope or power.

 

[1robin]

Again, ancient warmongering. Tyre was prime real estate. People were running around conquering each other at the time. Not much of a prediction. The people of Tyre actually moved before an invading army could destroy them. Nothing to convince me that your religion is any more credible than any other.

Do you even read these prophecies? The people of Tyre DID NOT move. Where did you get that garbage. They were destroyed by Alexander and the very exhaustive details are in almost every history book. The anti-seige operations are well known. Even the day by day actions iof the Tyrian's are well documented. This is just pathetic.
Suggesting that the prophecy was so general that anything would fill it is also silly:
1. The name of it's first besieger is given.
2. The fact that he would not succeed is given.
3. The fact that he would not gain enough loot to pay the troops is given.
4. The fact that he would then invade and break Egypt is given.
5. The fact that Egypt would never again achieve her former status is given.
6. The fact that a later nation would complete Type's destruction is given.
7. The fact that it would be total destruction and mass slaughter is given. (Alexander killed so many of them because those people you claim moved actually hung his messengers on their walls)

I could keep going and going but anyone who thinks that all the people in a great hub of trade moved out and it still took alexander a long time and a lot of men killed would say anything. All 7 things listed above are in a history book in my desk as well as just about every other text on the subject. Try again without making up stuff.

If you have a good prophecy drop it on me, I'll look at it. But please, give a non-biblical source for its fullfillment.

You have not done a single thing to discount the ones you already have. Your challenges are based on either biblical ignorance or purposefull misinformation. Go to the Tyre thread and you can see what a competant counter claim is even if ultimately wrong. I debated the subject with someone very knowledgeable about the bible's Tyre prophecy who's claims were reasonable and did not even hint at the false claim they moved away.

 

[1robin]

I'll cut to the chase here as the following essentially touches on the main thrust of the post to which I'm responding:

However, if God is such a "jerk", as you say, for actively making people believe differently about absolute truth, then you can't avoid concluding that He's just as much of a "jerk" for knowingly setting up a system in which they could freely choose for themselves to believe differently about absolute truth.

I dissagree, I thought we had already covered this in detail. Freewill is consistent with love, no free will is consistent with slavery.

And I'm not sure how freely they chose that when I consider that our inclinations and personalities -- even our brain-chemistry -- that influence our choices are also God-designed.

There are things that influence our free will but there are no conditions except loss of consiousness that render any choice impossible.
The Bible's teachings on the fall of man perfectly account for both of these issues.

Human free will or God-directed, the God-designed system manifests the same result: People are believing differently about absolute truth.

The italics can only happen with free will, it can't happen without it unless the God is a liar. Once again the Bible's teachings about the fall account perfectly for reality. You might not like the implications of the bible but showing them false just isn't possible.

 

[Astravalon]

Freewill is consistent with love, no free will is consistent with slavery.

So essentially what bothers you is the thought of God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven.

There are things that influence our free will but there are no conditions except loss of consiousness that render any choice impossible.

Any choice? So as long as someone hasn’t passed out, they can choose to change their gender with merely a thought?

The italics can only happen with free will

Not necessarily, just ask Pharaoh.

Once again the Bible's teachings about the fall account perfectly for reality.

To the extent that the bible’s teachings about the fall are even true...

You might not like the implications of the bible but showing them false just isn't possible.

But what about free will? You just said that nothing's impossible for a will that's free, right?

 

[1robin]

So essentially what bothers you is the thought of God’s will being done on earth as it is in heaven.

What bothers me is not a factor here, even if it was nothing in your statement bothers me anyway. I look for truth, not what I wish to be true. I think I know what it is you are trying to say here but wish more clarification first.

Any choice? So as long as someone hasn’t passed out, they can choose to change their gender with merely a thought?

Are we going to have to go backwards again? Yes the person's will is free but in most cases can't pull this off. You are once again confusing freedom with capability.

Not necessarily, just ask Pharaoh.

When you slept this weekend did every former discussion we had just vanish? I have already said many times that in very rare cases God does indeed force the will to bend for his purposes. This does not affect most of us at all, and did not even effect Pharaoh 99.9% of the time.

To the extent that the bible’s teachings about the fall are even true...

They perfectly explain all real data. A result that is virtually impossible unless it was from a diety.

But what about free will? You just said that nothing's impossible for a will that's free, right?

Not even close, the evidence suggests and the Bible claims that there is nothing so true that someone by preference and cognative dissonance can't call it false. That does not make it so. I said proving it false is impossible that is again capability not freedom. You seem to have abandoned as hopeless actually showing my position false or yours true and are now concentrating on semantics, and hair splitting, to achieve somekind of technicality.

 

[Astravalon]

You are once again confusing freedom with capability.

I don’t think I’ve ever heard it said that one is free to -- but incapable of -- doing something. It just strikes me as self-contradictory.

I have already said many times that in very rare cases God does indeed force the will to bend for his purposes. This does not affect most of us at all, and did not even effect Pharaoh 99.9% of the time.

You had said, about people believing differently about absolute truth, that it can only happen with free will. Now you’re going back to saying that God does in rare cases force the will to bend for His purposes.

And how would one know it’s rare? How would a person even know the difference between God moving them and them moving themselves? Is there, like, a test for that or something?

They perfectly explain all real data. A result that is virtually impossible unless it was from a diety.

Which result from a deity are you referring to?

Not even close, the evidence suggests and the Bible claims that there is nothing so true that someone by preference and cognative dissonance can't call it false. That does not make it so. I said proving it false is impossible that is again capability not freedom. You seem to have abandoned as hopeless actually showing my position false or yours true and are now concentrating on semantics, and hair splitting, to achieve somekind of technicality.

The free-but-incapable thing just isn’t making sense, sorry. And I did try to wrap my brain around it, but couldn't. But frankly, I shouldn't have to, as it should be obvious that incapacity inhibits freedom.

If all this is just semantics and hair-splitting to you, you are "free" to stop responding to it -- no one is forcing you against your will to continue engaging in this discussion..... right?

 

[Lynix]

All these religions are not religions but a tool/program of an extra-terrestrials, indeed. A tool remove all the ancient knowledge that leads the one to physical and spiritual gratification. All these relgions people worship their god for entire life and keep searching him and in the end they end up badly.

 

[1robin]

I don’t think I’ve ever heard it said that one is free to -- but incapable of -- doing something. It just strikes me as self-contradictory.

Will is an abstract decision. It has no physical property that allows it to effect other things. It is normally followed by actions that do have a limited capability to effect the environment, but this is seperate from the will. Will in this issue can be thought of as simply freedom to decide.

You had said, about people believing differently about absolute truth, that it can only happen with free will. Now you’re going back to saying that God does in rare cases force the will to bend for His purposes.

I have said this from post #1. For 99.9% of us it has no effect. On the .01% it only has effect .01% of the time. I don't get what your centention is here. I have said the same thing from the start.

And how would one know it’s rare? How would a person even know the difference between God moving them and them moving themselves? Is there, like, a test for that or something?

I do not think knowledge of this is relevant here. The only indication we have as to what God does in this regard is found in the bible and my claims are consistent with that. If you want to claim we are all secretly controlled and do not recognise it then I dissagree and even think that is philisophically impossible or at least not meaningfull but have at it. I will stick with what we do know.

Which result from a deity are you referring to?

The perfect description and causes given for what we see in reality.

The free-but-incapable thing just isn’t making sense, sorry. And I did try to wrap my brain around it, but couldn't. But frankly, I shouldn't have to, as it should be obvious that incapacity inhibits freedom

Some people are more analytical than others. I do not have any issue with this what so ever but the knowledge of the future and free will issue drives me nuts but as it is a unknowable I just do not discuss it.

If all this is just semantics and hair-splitting to you, you are "free" to stop responding to it -- no one is forcing you against your will to continue engaging in this discussion..... right?

Believe me I do not need to be reminded of this, I have done just this several times. I keep going because you are polite and respectfull. Even if I consisder your position without any possible justification I still gain by any research I have to do. I also do not want to feel I have left any one who has been polite hanging on any thing.

 

[1robin]

All these religions are not religions but a tool/program of an extra-terrestrials, indeed. A tool remove all the ancient knowledge that leads the one to physical and spiritual gratification. All these relgions people worship their god for entire life and keep searching him and in the end they end up badly.

This subject deserves better scholarship and more meaningfull discussion than this.

 

[JustWondering]

I can see you are really over your head here the flood has nothing to do with Israel's rebith, it has to do with Jerusalem at another point in time.

The prophecy by Daniel was claimed by you to predict the rebirth of Israel in 1948. After looking at the prophecy, it is VERY clear that you are mistaken. The prophecy also includes something about a flood which you left out (intentionally) because it does not fit with how Israel was reestablished. Playing with numbers until something seems to fit is ridiculous. Prophecy fail.

I reject your credentials for asserting a rejection of prophecy based on a lack of understanding.

I don't remember claiming to be a historian or bible scholar. I do remember asking you to provide proof that prophecies in the bible are actually true. You have failed to do so so far.

 

[JustWondering]

1. This is a very common tactic of the biased critic. I give a list of reasons to put faith in the bible. The critic points out rightly or as in this case wrongly, an issue with one claim in the list, ignores the others, and declares victory. I could not wager my soul on such unjustified evaluations. 2. Your claim that because he believes in the bible that his professional opinion is invalid is complete non-sence. Being that every Christian believes in the bible, then by your bogus standards only non Christians can be used to defend Christianity. 3. I do not insist that only no-evolutionists defend evolution. 4. Your attempts to shoot the messenger to avoid the message are invalid. 5. However you might fit in to politics nicely.

You can simply list the facts. If he has real evidence to support his claims where can I find it?

 

[JustWondering]

Mental gynmastics are unnecessary even though apparently scientists do not have the same problem.
1. You must either have a suffecient familiarity with biblical doctrine to understand that concepts in the bible or allow the scholars to inform you.
2. Such as prophetic day = year
3. Literal v/s symbolic methods of exegesis
4. Cultural language use. (Apocalyptic, romantic etc...)
5. You must have a familiarity that allows you to know that the standards used to determine these issues are always folowed in every similar circumstance. They do not make up a different set of rules for each case.
6. You must have a familiarity with the bible that allows you to understand biblical concepts. For example Spritual Jerusalem v/s physical Jerusalem, spritual kingdom v/s literal kingdom, the church as a human institution v/s the Church as a spritual institution and containing all Christians and is known as the body of Christ. ETC.......

Without a background that incorporates these very basic concepts then any claim that the bible is false is based on preference not evidence. You can find more sites breaking these prophecies down than you will ever read. You may choose a simpler prophecy or spend enough time to make your knowledge about the bible meaningfull but your unjustified assertions have no explanitory scope or power.

I'm not interested in becoming a bible scholar. You are the one making the claim that bible prophecies have been fulfilled. If you are an expert than you should lay out a prophecy step by step and show how it was fulfilled to prove your case. I think it is kind of bogus that you give an unbeliever a vague idea of where a prophecy is and when they fail to come to the same conclusions as you, you dismiss them.

 

[1robin]

The prophecy by Daniel was claimed by you to predict the rebirth of Israel in 1948. After looking at the prophecy, it is VERY clear that you are mistaken. The prophecy also includes something about a flood which you left out (intentionally) because it does not fit with how Israel was reestablished.

What are you talking about now. I did not list any words from a prophecy in Daniel. How did I leave out something intentionally from something I did not provide? Both Daniel and Ezekiel predict details of the end times that include the prophecy which we are (I am) discussing. I thought that Daniel was the most detailed and Ezekiel the most cryptic. It is the other way around. Congratualations you have proven the little known fact that I am not perfect, now back to the prophecy. They both talk about Israel but Ezekiel is much more descriptive about the birth of Israel. Maybe if I actually provide you some pieces of the prediction we can actually discuss it instead of your equivecations.

I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land.” (Ezekiel 34:13)
“For I will take you out of the nations; I will gather you from all the countries and bring you back into your own land.” (Ezekiel 36:2)
“I, the Sovereign Lord, will gather you back from the nations where you have been scattered, and I will give you the land of Israel once again.” (Eze.11:17)

• (Also see: Jer.31:10,32:34-41, Neh.1:9, Psa.107:3, Isa.43:5, Eze. 37:21, Mic.2:12)

Israel was obliterated by the Roman general Titus in A.D. 70. Jerusalem was destroyed and the Jewish people were scattered around the world.
No other nation in history has been destroyed only to re-emerge 2000 years later.

• On May 14, 1948, Israel declared independence and once again became a nation.

• For centuries, scholars struggled with the fact that that the end times refers to Israel existing. The books of Daniel, Ezekiel, and Revelation all describe apocalyptic events that reference Israel as a nation.

• The rebirth of Israel prompts tremendous unrest in the Middle East. The Bible stats that this unrest will eventually threaten world security and set the stage for the antichrist (Dan 9:27) to assume power through a platform of peace (Dan 8:25) leading to the eventual return of Jesus Christ (Rev 19: 11 – 21).

End Times Online: Israel reborn as a nation | End Times Online

Playing with numbers until something seems to fit is ridiculous. Prophecy fail.

Perfectly consistent applications of numbers and symbology is incapable of being made up that correctly forces all prophecy to work out. It just can't happen. Besides there are indications in the bible that reveal what is to be used. They didn't make up squat you are still just equivicating. You can't make a false sipher that correctly decodes every message it is used on. Either show how the prophecy mainly in Ezekiel but present in Daniel as well is false or I can't justify this any longer. There are entire books written on the subject. Surely you are capable of an actual debate of the issue.

I don't remember claiming to be a historian or bible scholar. I do remember asking you to provide proof that prophecies in the bible are actually true. You have failed to do so so far.

No you did not. You said to provide proof that the bible is true. I said prophecy. You said provide some and you would disprove them. So far the only thing you have proven is that it is easier to put a cat in a trash can then get tyou to understand and address the subject.

 

[1robin]

You can simply list the facts. If he has real evidence to support his claims where can I find it?

They exist in the bible in Ezekiel and Daniel as well as other places, they are exhaustively covered at a hundred sites line by line on the net, there are books written on the subject. What is it that you want me to provide that are not available at these sites?

 

[JustWondering]

Do you even read these prophecies? The people of Tyre DID NOT move. Where did you get that garbage. They were destroyed by Alexander and the very exhaustive details are in almost every history book. The anti-seige operations are well known. Even the day by day actions iof the Tyrian's are well documented. This is just pathetic.
Suggesting that the prophecy was so general that anything would fill it is also silly:
1. The name of it's first besieger is given.
2. The fact that he would not succeed is given.
3. The fact that he would not gain enough loot to pay the troops is given.
4. The fact that he would then invade and break Egypt is given.
5. The fact that Egypt would never again achieve her former status is given.
6. The fact that a later nation would complete Type's destruction is given.
7. The fact that it would be total destruction and mass slaughter is given. (Alexander killed so many of them because those people you claim moved actually hung his messengers on their walls)

I could keep going and going but anyone who thinks that all the people in a great hub of trade moved out and it still took alexander a long time and a lot of men killed would say anything. All 7 things listed above are in a history book in my desk as well as just about every other text on the subject. Try again without making up stuff.

You have not done a single thing to discount the ones you already have. Your challenges are based on either biblical ignorance or purposefull misinformation. Go to the Tyre thread and you can see what a competant counter claim is even if ultimately wrong. I debated the subject with someone very knowledgeable about the bible's Tyre prophecy who's claims were reasonable and did not even hint at the false claim they moved away.

[youtube]mb6IaFPbNq0[/youtube]
Ezekiel Tyres Out - Ozmoroid Bloviates - YouTube

 

[1robin]

[youtube]mb6IaFPbNq0[/youtube]
Ezekiel Tyres Out - Ozmoroid Bloviates - YouTube

I thought I had already said I can not watch videos on the server I am using. A u-tube video by someone I have never heard of on a different but valid subjectthan we are discussing is not the kind of scholarship that can overturn over a thousand years of textual criticism and theological exegesis. Please give me the verse that says something untrue and why. If you instead wish to cover Tyre then we can stick with that but these take time and I am not going to switch to a different issue in the middle of another one. Choose a specific one and we will get to the bottom of it. I have decided that I will actually provide the information from scholars that you seem to be having so much trouble finding because I can learn from it as well. Pick your poison and I will take care of buisness tomorrow. Tyre would be fine with me and it is your best shot of the ones we have mentioned.

 

[Astravalon]

Will is an abstract decision. It has no physical property that allows it to effect other things. It is normally followed by actions that do have a limited capability to effect the environment, but this is seperate from the will. Will in this issue can be thought of as simply freedom to decide.

Yes, I agree that we are free to ponder about that which we might not physically be able to carry out. I don’t see that as freewill so much as just a good imagination.

I do not think knowledge of this is relevant here. The only indication we have as to what God does in this regard is found in the bible and my claims are consistent with that. If you want to claim we are all secretly controlled and do not recognise it then I dissagree and even think that is philisophically impossible or at least not meaningfull but have at it. I will stick with what we do know.

I figured it must've been relevant to some extent, since you even had it down to percentages as to how much God controls things versus how much we do.

As for what the bible says about it, it seems to include both the human freewill concept and the sovereign-will concept. I'll admit that the plethora of sovereign-will verses, combined with all that we know about the limitations we face in our range of ability to carry out our wishes, heavily influences how I see things.

Some people are more analytical than others. I do not have any issue with this what so ever but the knowledge of the future and free will issue drives me nuts but as it is a unknowable I just do not discuss it.

It’s probably less confounding to me since, for whatever reason, I don’t find the idea of God being in even complete charge of the goings-on in the world an offense to whatever sense of autonomy I enjoy. It's probably easier, though, to have this view if one really trusts that what He’s doing is for the best, and that He really deeply loves all of His creation and has plans to give them a future and a hope.

I don't see it as Him being the big narcissistic control-freak in the sky and we’re just puppets -- I could totally understand someone rejecting the idea of no human free-will if that's the kind of God we were dealing with.

I see it more along the lines of Him being the Hand and we the fingers attached to it. The Hand isn't being unloving towards the fingers by robbing them of choice; they're attached to the Hand, and as extensions thereof, they're going to move with the Hand according to what the Hand wants to accomplish. It's not a power-trip on God's part, it's just that we are an extension and an expression of Him, and, as such, live, move, and have our being accordingly. I think the only way we could achieve absolute autonomy is if we created ourselves from the ground up.

By way of disclaimer, though, I do not have the monist view that there's absolutely no distinction whatsoever between God and us. I believe we are One with Him, yet distinct. I've seen it suggested elsewhere that we are God and God is us, but to me that has the same 'texture' as atheism, so I haven't really entertained that idea. I don't want to think that I'm "as God as it gets".

Believe me I do not need to be reminded of this, I have done just this several times. I keep going because you are polite and respectfull. Even if I consisder your position without any possible justification I still gain by any research I have to do. I also do not want to feel I have left any one who has been polite hanging on any thing.

I appreciate that, and am learning through these discussions as well.


-

 

[1robin]

Yes, I agree that we are free to ponder about that which we might not physically be able to carry out. I don’t see that as freewill so much as just a good imagination.

Well the important part of this whole issue is that we are free to choose out allegience or more accurately to accept or reject truth. That non physical act is what the bible says determines our destination. For this discussion that is all I claim.

I figured it must've been relevant to some extent, since you even had it down to percentages as to how much God controls things versus how much we do

. I just try and head off all the areas that are used to be contentious over. Apparently I miscalculated.

As for what the bible says about it, it seems to include both the human freewill concept and the sovereign-will concept. I'll admit that the plethora of sovereign-will verses, combined with all that we know about the limitations we face in our range of ability to carry out our wishes, heavily influences how I see things.

I think I can agree with this. However I should probably re-read it because that is just too crazy.

It’s probably less confounding to me since, for whatever reason, I don’t find the idea of God being in even complete charge of the goings-on in the world an offense to whatever sense of autonomy I enjoy. It's probably easier, though, to have this view if one really trusts that what He’s doing is for the best, and that He really deeply loves all of His creation and has plans to give them a future and a hope.

I actually might prefer a God that gurantees heaven in some respects however that has nothing to do with reality. He would have to be less interested with love for that to be the case and that is contradictory. My point is that what I believe is based on evidence and experience not what I wish was true.

I don't see it as Him being the big narcissistic control-freak in the sky and we’re just puppets -- I could totally understand someone rejecting the idea of no human free-will if that's the kind of God we were dealing with.

There no no way that no-free will is consistent with love. Love is free. Haven't you ever heard the drugged out hippies in San Franciso say that if you love something set it free. Jesus said he came to make us free and who he makes free is free indeed.

I see it more along the lines of Him being the Hand and we the fingers attached to it. The Hand isn't being unloving towards the fingers by robbing them of choice; they're attached to the Hand, and as extensions thereof, they're going to move with the Hand according to what the Hand wants to accomplish. It's not a power-trip on God's part, it's just that we are an extension and an expression of Him, and, as such, live, move, and have our being accordingly. I think the only way we could achieve absolute autonomy is if we created ourselves from the ground up

. No comparison is capable of doing what you are attempting. Something that breaks up marraiges as fast as anything else is too much control or smothering someone. That is after a decision was freely made and is not even all the time.

By way of disclaimer, though, I do not have the monist view that there's absolutely no distinction whatsoever between God and us. I believe we are One with Him, yet distinct. I've seen it suggested elsewhere that we are God and God is us, but to me that has the same 'texture' as atheism, so I haven't really entertained that idea. I don't want to think that I'm "as God as it gets".

We are God is Gnostic. Maybe you are only half hindu and 1/4 gnostic and 1/4 hippie. I prefer that to many religions I know of.

I appreciate that, and am learning through these discussions as well.

If you are learning anything from me it is despite my best efforts. I have not made a single post with you I thought effeciently concluded the matter. At best an accumulation of my points would overcome eventually. Free will is a complicated subject.


-

 

[Astravalon]

I actually might prefer a God that gurantees heaven in some respects however that has nothing to do with reality. He would have to be less interested with love for that to be the case and that is contradictory. My point is that what I believe is based on evidence and experience not what I wish was true.

See, I just don’t get that.

My existence here, on this challenging, earthly plane, was Divinely preordained, and I don’t feel less loved by God because of it. So, why would a similarly-preordained future in a blissful, heavenly plane be unloving towards me on His part?

I’m wondering if it's just self-will talking when people object to God being God. Self-will is at the root of mankind’s desire to be away from God; they would rather have the guarantee of keeping their self-will intact even at the expense of their salvation. How is that not just the sinful nature (at least, as defined in Christianity) rearing its head?

That this "not my will but Thine be done" sentiment would be difficult for Christians to stomach is ironic, since I have usually seen it promoted by Christians, not by "heathen heretics" like myself!

There no no way that no-free will is consistent with love. Love is free. Haven't you ever heard the drugged out hippies in San Franciso say that if you love something set it free. Jesus said he came to make us free and who he makes free is free indeed.

I believe in all that.

But where is that freedom, according to your bible? "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom."

At any rate, if I, like God, knew the end from the beginning and I loved someone, I’d make sure to set them free in such a way that they wouldn't get annihilated or tortured forever (both of which would rob one of free will, by the way). Besides, "love keeps no record of wrongs", so if my Divine ego were offended by something my creations did, I wouldn't take it out on them by dooming them eternally.

. No comparison is capable of doing what you are attempting. Something that breaks up marraiges as fast as anything else is too much control or smothering someone. That is after a decision was freely made and is not even all the time.

Yeah … I don’t think you understood my hand analogy, which wouldn't apply to marriages between humans.

Besides, a relationship with a controlling human spouse is in no way the same as a relationship with a Deity who actually created me and under Whose influence I live, move, and have my being. If an imperfect, separate human spouse had that much control over me, that would be a serious problem, and I would definitely feel that. I'm not the human spouse's creation that I would be an extension and expression of him like we are as God's creations.

And again, if it is a case that God is in full control of me, I’m not even feeling it, so the only way it would bother me is if, deep down, I harbored resentment at the idea of there being a Power that's higher than me and Who ultimately calls the shots.

As a matter of fact, there's been a lot of talk in this discussion about how God should love us by letting us have our self- ... er, I mean "free-" ... will. But what about how we could love God, even unto not begrudging Him His divine right to will and to work, in us, according to His good pleasure? That's the spirit behind the prayer, "Not my will, but Thine be done", imo. If I have to sacrifice my (sense of) free will in order for His will to be done, so be it. I've heard that preached from pulpits as being the general goal of the Christian walk, so I don't see what the problem is, unless it's the fact that a non-Christian is promoting it, so therefore it can't be right?

We are God is Gnostic. Maybe you are only half hindu and 1/4 gnostic and 1/4 hippie. I prefer that to many religions I know of.

Only ¼ hippie? I thought I was quite further along ... I need to work harder on that, then!


-