What does God want from you?

[Bird123]

There was no invective in my posting to you. I commented on what it meant to mean to read that if I open my eyes, I'll hear God. I told you that I understood that as the faith-based thinker advising the critical thinker to stop thinking critically if he wants to believe in a god like he did. You chose to be offended by that, which is fine with me, but you also chose to be offensive ("yammer", "blather"), at which point I lost interest in discussion with you. A man of ideas might have been intrigued by the thought and chosen to explore it or even rebut it. An insightful man might ask whether itis correct and pertains to him. I'm looking for that poster, not hurt feelings.

I don't believe in "God," but any conscious agent able to prevent gratuitous suffering ought to, and one that didn't is justifiably called indifferent. If it cared, it would intervene.

Nor did I claim it was, but add that this god is omniscient and omnipotent and that gratuitous suffering exist in the world, if the god existed, it would be one indifferent to that suffering.

Donald Trump is suffering now, and even if I had the power to prevent it, I wouldn't. Would you call me indifferent to his suffering?

Yes, it would be, if it had the power to make itself known and didn't. The words of prophets and messengers aren't convincing to critical thinkers. There is nothing in them that couldn't be there if no god existed.

I believe it was meant and taught literally until that became untenable, and then, rather than call the story a wrong guess - because we NEVER use that wrd with scripture, right? - some began calling it allegory. It most definitely is not allegory as allegory is defined.

Then the god said to have made those things happen doesn't exist.

Me, too.

Not to anybody's knowledge.

Yes. I want to avoid accumulating false and unfalsifiable beliefs.

In my life, experience.

The laws of nature dictate the conditions of life - the length of the day, the weather, etc.. The laws of man determine how much freedom I have. But I am the principle source that determines the conditions of my life - where and how I'll spend my day.

OK. I've studied nature extensively - empirically (life experience), formally (schools), professionally, and as an avocation (free reading, discussion on venues like this one). What I've learned shows me what nature is like, and I respect that, but I haven't given it a name except maybe Mother Nature.

How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how?

Do you really think you have seen it all? Look again. What are you missing?

God still doing nothing? What about the parameters of your life? How many parameters can you think of where you made no choice about?

Do you really think no one has experienced that one is a Spiritual being? You might just be surprised.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[Bird123]

The cycle stops on the day of judgment. Good go to heaven and evil to hell.

Your cycle can only stop when you Understand all sides. Only then can you Discover what the best choices really are.

God does not value the petty things mankind holds so dear. Do not expect God to payback those you hate for you. It's never going to happen. Why not? It is not an Intelligent move to make.

If all the kiddies are going to make it in time, given enough lessons, Judging and condemning is useless energy spent. That too is not Intelligent.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[blü 2]

In a time-based causal universe God's actions can be seen. Study and understand God's actions and you will understand God.

Yes, you've said all that before, but it remains meaningless unless and until you describe to me what real entity you intend to denote by the word "God" ─ such that if I find a real candidate I can determine whether it's God or not.

I asked you that before, but it appears you can't.

So when it comes to real Gods, it also appears that you don't know what you're talking about. Not that you're on your own there, of course.

Ok, you feel you have to leave God out of it.

Leave WHAT exactly out of it? Your imaginary being? If so, consider it done.

This journey is not a journey about fiction. This is a journey about What Is!!

So far, only What Is Fiction!!

It comes down to what you really seek.

I've told you I like accurate statements about reality.

But I acknowledge reality isn't your territory.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I've told you I like accurate statements about reality..

You seem "stuck" on the material level..

We can observe the behaviour of the material universe, and appreciate the sciences..
..but they include psychology, and spiritual factors too.
You seem to ignore these facts, as if they were superfluous.

 

[blü 2]

You seem "stuck" on the material level..

We can observe the behaviour of the material universe, and appreciate the sciences..
..but they include psychology, and spiritual factors too.
You seem to ignore these facts, as if they were superfluous.

I've thought with some care about materialism vs supernaturalism. And outside of RF what people choose to believe doesn't worry me ─ I have good friends and dear relatives who are believers, so we simply never discuss it. What worries me instead is whether people treat each other with decency, respect, inclusion and common sense (and whether I do) ─ that's the part that actually matters and comes free of tithes.

As for spiritual matters, the only manner in which the supernatural is known to exist is as concepts and things imagined in individual brains. One example of support for this is the sheer number of the world's religions and their failure to agree with each other ─ if a spiritual world actually had independent existence, all religions would be in substantial agreement about the essentials, all seers would have substantially the same experiences and "observations" of it. But they don't, and their reports are heavily acculturated. The followers of Yahweh never came back and said, "Hey guys, it's actually Chemosh who's the real deal." This is because humans are tribal creatures and have tribal identities, which gives the enormous advantage of cooperative action; and tribal identity includes language, folk history, folk heroes and stories, customs in common, often identity with terrain, and so on ─ no surprise in such a context if we have our own gods and you have yours and they have theirs.

I acknowledge that in the western world religion has done many good things (not including endless bickering or the Thirty Years War). Charity, hospitals, education, literacy in statesmanship, however primitive they were the ones largely doing it. These days, the state carries out most of those functions far more efficiently and universally. And to show just how human churchmen can be, we've just had two or three decades of government enquiries and commissions into child sexual abuse in church care. Plus, we notice that churches, like other institutions, are built on the premise that survival of the institution takes priority over everything else, and that people at the top may get very comfortable there and have no intention of moving when it's appropriate.

But there isn't even the concept of a real God, one with objective existence, one you could make a video of, or interview, or in one or other fashion seek to hold accountable. No, that's not how it's done. Equally I don't understand why the churches don't have government-supported colleges of experts dedicated to learning how miracles are performed and how humans might get that understanding; or why military planners have nothing on hand either to defend against or to mount a supernatural attack. If I thought the supernatural were genuine, I'd dang sure be doing both those things.

However, if by spiritual factors you include reasoned morality, art and esthetics, love and related emotions, meditation and mind training, and other things of that kind, I dare say we could have a peaceful discussion. (I speak as one who grew up on science fiction and ghost stories and so on.)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

God did not create any evil people. The Bible supports that. Genesis 1:31 And God saw every thing that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Two things. There are contradictory scripture that say that God *Is* the source of evil, and second, neither is evidence of anything about reality to the critical thinker except that some people wrote these ideas down and maybe believed them when they did.

Christianity and Islam have some differences because they were revealed by different messengers in different ages to different people, it would make no sense if they were the same.

Sure it would, if there were a god and both traditions were channeling it. Their divergence is what we expect from religions not receiving any messages from gods. If that began happening tomorrow, the religions would converge to a single, common, true religion.

Why would God send a new messenger to reveal exactly the same things?

Why would a god need to change its message?

Differences are not contradictions

Not all, but some claims are not just different, but mutually exclusive. Christians claim that Jesus was a demigod. Islam says he was not, just a prophet, like Muhammad, not the offspring of a god and a human. Christianity says he was the messiah promised in Old Testament scripture. The Muslims (and Jews) say he was not. These are two contradictions in four claims. Both religions can't be correct, so calling them both true religions isn't meaningful to me unless you mean that truly, they are both religions.

Who cares what he believes? If he claimed to receive a revelation from God he was deluded. Gurus are a dime a dozen.

So are what you call prophets and messengers. My point is that they all have the same qualifications, and there is no reason to believe one over the other when they claim to speak for gods.

How long did mankind watch birds fly before they figured out how?

I don't know. How long will birds watch man fly before they learn to pilot a jet aircraft? Do these questions have any value? I know mine doesn't.

Do you really think you have seen it all? Look again. What are you missing?

Nothing. I'm content. There is nothing more I want from life but more of the same for as long as health and circumstances permit.

You likely think your beliefs would make my life better if I shared them. You likely see them as knowledge I should like to acquire. Thanks for that, but I disagree. Whatever they do for you I don't need done for me. I either don't have that need or it is met elsewhere. I am comfortable without a god belief or a religion. I'm centered and purpose driven as an atheistic humanist. I'm happy to be alive and to live the life I do.

God still doing nothing? What about the parameters of your life? How many parameters can you think of where you made no choice about?

Most were out of my control. How I adapted to them or failed to do so was under my control. One aspect of intelligence is its ability to solve problems, but also, the ability to identify and avoid potential problems, and to be able to recognize and successfully exploit opportunities. I was born in an ideal time and place to a good family that protected, nurtured, and taught me well (we were atheists), with all kinds of advantages and opportunities available to me, and so far, no terrible luck. If I get credit, it's for not messing that up, but instead, making it work for me.

You seem "stuck" on the material level.

The critical thinker is "stuck" in empiricism as the only means to discern correct ideas about reality and how it works, and that's by design. He trains himself to be able to conform to rules of critical thought and the evaluation of evidence and arguments. It's the only defense against accumulating false and unfalsifiable beliefs, and he finds value in avoiding such beliefs.

We can observe the behaviour of the material universe, and appreciate the sciences..
..but they include psychology, and spiritual factors too.
You seem to ignore these facts, as if they were superfluous.

You seem to assume that mind represents and implies the existence of a separate reality apart from nature. As far as we know, there are no spiritual factors, just spiritual intuitions. Most people have them (including this atheist), and no spirits are involved. These experiences are human minds generating feelings of warmth, belonging, and connection.

Some assume that that means that they have met or know a god and begin speaking of other realities. Not this atheist. I understand it as a gift of evolution that facilitates human well-being when it results in ideas about oneness and the sanctity of life and nature, but it can also be coopted by isms that have the opposite effect when they conflate the spiritual intuition with a god, especially one who is outside of nature, is nothing like nature, and that one is to regard more highly than nature. That's anti-spiritual.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..if a spiritual world actually had independent existence, all religions would be in substantial agreement about the essentials..

Why?
There are many different theories in psychology .. they do not all agree with each other.

..we notice that churches, like other institutions, are built on the premise that survival of the institution takes priority over everything else, and that people at the top may get very comfortable there and have no intention of moving when it's appropriate..

Fear!
The same goes for various belief systems .. including communism, for example.

But there isn't even the concept of a real God, one with objective existence, one you could make a video of, or interview..

You want to interview G-d?
That will have to wait, I'm afraid.

The "real concept" of G-d is in our minds.
That does not necessarily mean that it is invalid.
Why would you expect everything that exists to be material?
My thoughts are not material, however they may be generated.
The sum total of mankind's knowledge is the "tip of an iceburg" ..
..always has been, and always will be.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why would a god need to change its message?

"a god" might have many reasons..

..but G-d is the Most Wise .. He is the Evolver from nought.
Just as civilisation has evolved, the guidance [law] has changed to keep up with it.

However, the changes are minimal.
i.e. there has always been One G-d, and we must worship Him alone

..Christianity says he was the messiah promised in Old Testament scripture. The Muslims (and Jews) say he was not. .

That is false.
Muslims believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and will return to fulfill the prophecies.

Both religions can't be correct, so calling them both true religions isn't meaningful to me unless you mean that truly, they are both religions.

They are both monotheistic religions, that believe in the One G-d of Abraham.

The critical thinker is "stuck" in empiricism as the only means to discern correct ideas about reality and how it works..

..which is fine, when it comes to knowledge about the material universe.
..but not suitable to discern spiritual "realities" [truths] from false ones.

You seem to assume that mind represents and implies the existence of a separate reality apart from nature..

What is "nature"?
Where did it originate?

"It evolved" is not an explanation in itself..
What did it evolve from, and why?

 

[Link]

Your cycle can only stop when you Understand all sides.

Evil is irrational, there is nothing to understand about it, but that it needs to be condemned. Yes to a degree you forbear and forgive, but it also needs to be condemned.

God in a way has forgiven mankind in that he wants to save them, but if they don't turn to him and repent, then there is nothing he can do to save them. Death is a time ticker that is suppose to pressure us to be good. If we don't get it right now, we will never get it right.

 

[Gassim]

That is a horrible answer of meaningless God speak ... that is not what Truth is ... gobble - dee - gook is not the Truth - The Way - The Life but the words down the dark path .. for if everything will perish .. there is no eternal life .. no heaven .. just a dark black pit of nothingness awaits .. and if that is the case as you proclaim, then what does it matter what the living one wants... ?

Thus in the words of the Immortal and Messianic Screwface from the movie "Marked for Death" --- Everybody wanna go heaven - Nobody wanna get dead

Your claim that it is a horrible answer of meaningless God speak ... that is not what Truth is. However, there is no only one definition truth. Therefore, it is not necessary you are right and others are wrong. So the absolute truth is only one. In respect of no heaven and no eternal life, it just your view, again you can’t claim that you are right; there is eternal life according to holy books but the way is not furnished with roses and flours; everyone will face accountability, unbiased and fair judgement. Are we expecting that oppressors are treated same as oppressed ones?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"a god" might have many reasons

But none that you can suggest. I disagree with you. A tri-omni god has no reason to change any message. People do. They have motivation to create messages and call them of divine origin, and others have reason to compete with them and begin competing, contradictory denominations and religions.

That is false. Muslims believe that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, and will return to fulfill the prophecies.

OK Then lets move on to where they DO contradict one another. Do Muslims also believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles in his lifetime, and was resurrected to die for their sins? If not, it's a contradictory religion, and at least one of them is wrong where they contradict one another. Contrariwise, if Muslims believe all of that, then they're Christians by definition.

They are both monotheistic religions, that believe in the One G-d of Abraham.

OK. And they have much more than that in common. Christians and Muslims each revere a Semitic desert god, that is an angry, vengeful, jealous, judgmental, pestilential, sadistic, prudish, strongman who requires worship and submission. Believers of both attend temples (Mosques or churches) and obey paternalistic, misogynistic clergy. Both religions embrace magical thinking, mythology, dogma, the supernatural, and ritual. Each feature demons angels, prayer, an afterlife, a judgment, and a system of reward and punishment after death.

Both religions are patriarchal, authoritarian, misogynistic, sexually repressive, anhedonisitic, atheophobic, homophobic, antiscientiific, use psychological terrorism on their children, have violent histories featuring torture, genocide and terrorism, and demand obedience and submission. Each consider faith a virtue and reason a problem, each has a history of opposing human rights and science, and each advocates theocracy over democracy.

Yet they still contradict one another in other areas. None of the above similarities change that.

which is fine, when it comes to knowledge about the material universe...but not suitable to discern spiritual "realities" [truths] from false ones.

There are no known spiritual realities or truths - just spiritual intuitions held by human beings.

What is "nature"?

Look around you. That.

"It evolved" is not an explanation in itself.. What did it evolve from, and why?

Agreed. Mind (followed by intellect and then culture) apparently evolved from brain and body, which apparently evolved from chemistry, which apparently evolved from the basic particles and forces that arose following the initial expansion of the universe.

 

[Gassim]

OR
Truth is a quality of statements and a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with / accurately reflects reality, the world external to the self.

The advantage of my definition is that it gives you an objective test for whether any statement is true or not.

But I agree with you that it's in the nature of all living things to die, whether they be amoebae, moss, insect, spider, bird, tree, human.

It seems to follow that if God will never die, it will be because [he] was never alive, no? That would fit the data.

That is the theory of atheists that creation started with a lifeless single point. How had the lifeless single point produced an intelligent creature? Like man who is equipped with billions of nerve cells. How had the lifeless single point produced 2.5 million of insects? If the lifeless single point itself lacks the life how it can give life to others. The important issue of which atheists failed to convince us is that how the lifeless point came from nothing? There is only one true living that is the living God who will never die.

 

[muhammad_isa]

OK. And they have much more than that in common. Christians and Muslims each revere a Semitic desert god, that is an angry, vengeful, jealous, judgmental, pestilential, sadistic, prudish, strongman..

No .. G-d is not a person, so cannot be "a strongman"..
Our concept of G-d is purely a reflection of ourselves [or is it the other way around?]

..so are you suggesting that while we might respect people with a "strong mind", any "god"
should be weak?

Both religions are patriarchal, authoritarian, misogynistic, sexually repressive, anhedonisitic, atheophobic, homophobic, antiscientiific, use psychological terrorism on their children, have violent histories featuring torture, genocide and terrorism, and demand obedience and submission.

Is it religion itself to blame for that, or the people who are in power?

There are no known spiritual realities or truths - just spiritual intuitions held by human beings.

..from your perspective, that's how you see it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

How had the lifeless single point produced an intelligent creature? If the lifeless single point itself lacks the life how it can give life to others?

You'll need to do the legwork yourself if you'd like to know what science has to say about that. You'll need a background in the Big Bang beginning with the standard model of particles and forces (fermions and bosons). You'll need to understand how stars forge and disseminate heavy elements, the current status of abiogenesis research, and the theory of biological evolution.

If you don't care to obtain that background, then the answers aren't for you to know, and your apparent interest in them isn't very credible, or you'd already know or be knowledgeable enough to understand what others can teach those who are prepared to learn and are open-minded. The creationist has a stake in NOT understanding such things, but likes to imply that evidence and reason matter to him and that his detractors can't make their case, so he pretends to care and to have evaluated the answers provided and found them lacking, but who's buying that except other creationists?

The important issue of which atheists failed to convince us is that how the lifeless point came from nothing?

There is no burden of "proof" with a face-based thinker. He usually can't follow the argument (or refute it) and doesn't try to, either, which are required before a burden of proof obtains regarding one's claim. There is no burden to demonstrate any idea to anybody who won't or can't follow the argument.

There is only one true living that is the living God who will never die.

So you consider a disembodied mind alive? Such a thing would meet none of the criteria for life were it possible.

G-d is not a person, so cannot be "a strongman"

If he can be a father, he can be a strongman. And are you really satisfied with that response to, "Christians and Muslims each revere a Semitic desert god, that is an angry, vengeful, jealous, judgmental, pestilential, sadistic, prudish, strongman"? Just, 'He's not a man'?

are you suggesting that while we might respect people with a "strong mind", any "god" should be weak?

No. I didn't suggest either of those. I suggested that both deities behave tyrants in scripture.

Is it religion itself to blame for that, or the people who are in power?

More semantic quibbling? The people made the religion.

from your perspective, that's how you see it.

I wrote, "There are no known spiritual realities or truths - just spiritual intuitions held by human beings." You can't rebut that without inventing rogue definitions reality and truth and defending that - the kinds of definitions that call whatever the believer chooses to believe truth and reality. Yes, that's my perspective, and if it's not yours, you're mistaken. There is no known spiritual reality or truth, just insufficiently supported, unfalsifiable ideas that some people believe and call reality and truth.

 

[YoursTrue]

Evil is irrational, there is nothing to understand about it, but that it needs to be condemned. Yes to a degree you forbear and forgive, but it also needs to be condemned.

God in a way has forgiven mankind in that he wants to save them, but if they don't turn to him and repent, then there is nothing he can do to save them. Death is a time ticker that is suppose to pressure us to be good. If we don't get it right now, we will never get it right.

Please explain how evil is irrational. For instance, and thanks for mentioning it by the way, there is a trial going on in the United States regarding a young woman who killed her mother. The defense is trying to get her off with an insanity plea (not sure if I'm using the correct legal terminology, because she's up on trial I think for murder). But she had a reason, even if she had a "schizophrenic episode." From the events that took place, she had a reason. Even if it was uncontrolled anger. I can't figure it, but she flew the coop as the expression used to go. I''ll just say this. There is no defense in the Mosaic Law for release or lesser sentence for murder by insanity. I'm not a psychologist or psychiatrist, but again, there is no way of lessening penalties under the law of Moses for the Jews back then because of insanity.

 

[YoursTrue]

The cycle stops on the day of judgment. Good go to heaven and evil to hell.

Not sure where you're getting your information from. Anyway, what you said there is not true according to the Bible, so it might be helpful for you to explain where you got your information from. Thanks.

 

[Trailblazer]

There are contradictory scripture that say that God *Is* the source of evil,

I already know the scripture that says God creates evil, but it does not say that God created evil people, which was your claim.

Isaiah 45:7 King James Version
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things.
Can you cite the scripture that says that God is the source of evil people?

I consider the KJV a poor Bible translation. There are other translations that are more accurate. God does not create evil, evil is committed by humans. However I have no doubt that God creates good times and hard times, and we are totally at His mercy.

NIRV I cause light to shine. I also create darkness. I bring good times. I also create hard times. I do all these things. I am the Lord.

AMP The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing peace and creating disaster; I am the Lord who does all these things.

ERV I made the light and the darkness. I bring peace, and I cause trouble. I, the Lord, do all these things.

EHV I am the one who forms light and creates darkness, the one who makes peace and creates disaster. I am the Lord, the one who does all these things.

ESV I form light and create darkness; I make well-being and create calamity; I am the Lord, who does all these things.

TLB I form the light and make the dark. I send good times and bad. I, Jehovah, am he who does these things.

NASB The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating disaster; I am the Lord who does all these things.

NCB I form the light and create the darkness; prosperity and disaster depend upon my will; I, the Lord, do all these things.

NCV I made the light and the darkness. I bring peace, and I cause troubles. I, the Lord, do all these things.

NIRV I cause light to shine. I also create darkness. I bring good times. I also create hard times. I do all these things. I am the Lord.

NIV I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things.

Isaiah 45:7 - Bible Gateway

neither is evidence of anything about reality to the critical thinker except that some people wrote these ideas down and maybe believed them when they did.

Then don't refer to Bible scripture to try to support your arguments.

Sure it would, if there were a god and both traditions were channeling it. Their divergence is what we expect from religions not receiving any messages from gods.

The divergence is exactly what we would expect to see in messages from God that were revealed in different ages to different peoples.

“These principles and laws, these firmly-established and mighty systems, have proceeded from one Source, and are the rays of one Light. That they differ one from another is to be attributed to the varying requirements of the ages in which they were promulgated.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 287-288​

If that began happening tomorrow, the religions would converge to a single, common, true religion.

Religion is constantly evolving according to the needs of humans at the time of revelation. If religion was static it would be no more useful than science that was static and never changed to meet the needs of humanity.

“The All-Knowing Physician hath His finger on the pulse of mankind. He perceiveth the disease, and prescribeth, in His unerring wisdom, the remedy. Every age hath its own problem, and every soul its particular aspiration. The remedy the world needeth in its present-day afflictions can never be the same as that which a subsequent age may require. Be anxiously concerned with the needs of the age ye live in, and center your deliberations on its exigencies and requirements.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 213​

Why would a god need to change its message?

Humans and the world they live in changes over time, so humanity needs a new message that suits the needs of the times they are living in.

Not all, but some claims are not just different, but mutually exclusive. Christians claim that Jesus was a demigod. Islam says he was not, just a prophet, like Muhammad, not the offspring of a god and a human. Christianity says he was the messiah promised in Old Testament scripture. The Muslims (and Jews) say he was not. These are two contradictions in four claims. Both religions can't be correct, so calling them both true religions isn't meaningful to me unless you mean that truly, they are both religions.

The claims or religious leaders and adherents do not represent those religions as they were originally revealed by a messenger.
All the older religions have been corrupted by man over the course of time. That accounts for the 'apparent' contradictions.

“This is the Day when the loved ones of God should keep their eyes directed towards His Manifestation, and fasten them upon whatsoever that Manifestation may be pleased to reveal. Certain traditions of bygone ages rest on no foundations whatever, while the notions entertained by past generations, and which they have recorded in their books, have, for the most part, been influenced by the desires of a corrupt inclination.” Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 171​

So are what you call prophets and messengers. My point is that they all have the same qualifications, and there is no reason to believe one over the other when they claim to speak for gods.

No, they certainly do not all have the same qualifications. It doesn't take a lot of research to realize that.

Nothing. I'm content. There is nothing more I want from life but more of the same for as long as health and circumstances permit.

You might believe you have control of your health and circumstances, but your health and circumstances could turn on a dime.
Of course that is true for everyone., although some people are able to go on being content longer than others.
I never had the illusion of control so I was not knocked off my horse when tragedy struck.

Humans have very little control over what happens in their lives. God holds or fate in His Hands. Maybe part of the way your life went was good planning on your part, but nothing goes on the same way forever in this life. No matter how healthy people are, everyone gets old. Eventually spouses die and leave their loved one behind.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

There are contradictory scripture that say that God *Is* the source of evil,

Out of curiosity, were you referring to Proverbs 16:4?

KJV: "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."

NIV: "The LORD works out everything to its proper end— even the wicked for a day of disaster."

ESV: "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble."

According to this verse, he creates wicked people, and according to Isaiah 45:7, he also creates evil. Furthermore, according to Genesis 6:6-7, he regretted creating not only mankind but also every animal, every creature that creeps on the ground, and the birds of the air. I would think that an omniscient (Psalm 139:1-6; Isaiah 46:9–10; 1 John 3:20), omnipotent (Psalm 147:5; Job 42:2; Daniel 2:21), and omnipresent (Psalm 139:7–10; Isaiah 40:12; Colossians 1:17) God would know better than to create something that he foreknew he would later regret creating. The Bible contains other verses that mention God's regrets in addition to creating mankind (1 Samuel 15:11; 2 Samuel 24:16; Jeremiah 42:10). There are some verses describing him changing his mind about bringing disasters down on his own people as punishment for their sins against him (Jeremiah 26:13; 1 Chronicles 21:15; Joel 2:13). For the record, Jeremiah 26:13, 1 Chronicles 21:15, and Joel 2:13 coincide with Isaiah 45:7 (NIV), which says, "I form the light and create darkness; I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things." The New King James uses the word "calamity" instead of disaster, and the KJV uses the word "evil" instead of disaster or calamity.

 

[Trailblazer]

Out of curiosity, were you referring to Proverbs 16:4?

KJV: "The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil."

NIV: "The LORD works out everything to its proper end— even the wicked for a day of disaster."

ESV: "The LORD has made everything for its purpose, even the wicked for the day of trouble."

According to this verse, he creates wicked people, and according to Isaiah 45:7, he also creates evil. Furthermore, according to Genesis 6:6-7, he regretted creating not only mankind but also every animal, every creature that creeps on the ground, and the birds of the air. I would think that an omniscient (Psalm 139:1-6; Isaiah 46:9–10; 1 John 3:20), omnipotent (Psalm 147:5; Job 42:2; Daniel 2:21), and omnipresent (Psalm 139:7–10; Isaiah 40:12; Colossians 1:17) God would know better than to create something that he foreknew he would later regret creating. The Bible contains other verses that mention God's regrets in addition to creating mankind (1 Samuel 15:11; 2 Samuel 24:16; Jeremiah 42:10). There are some verses describing him changing his mind about bringing disasters down on his own people as punishment for their sins against him (Jeremiah 26:13; 1 Chronicles 21:15; Joel 2:13). For the record, Jeremiah 26:13, 1 Chronicles 21:15, and Joel 2:13 coincide with Isaiah 45:7 (NIV), which says, "I form the light and create darkness; I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the Lord, do all these things." The New King James uses the word "calamity" instead of disaster, and the KJV uses the word "evil" instead of disaster or calamity.

If I had to believe in the Bible there is no way I could ever believe in a good God. I thank God every day that I don't have to believe in the Bible.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Out of curiosity, were you referring to Proverbs 16:4?

The one I remembered was, "I am the LORD, and there is none else. I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things." Isa 45.

don't refer to Bible scripture to try to support your arguments.

Why not? Sometimes, I need to as you just saw.

Humans and the world they live in changes over time, so humanity needs a new message that suits the needs of the times they are living in.

But the messages don't reflect those needs. They're exhortations to be pious. None of those messages address the major problems of today. Which of these prophets is bringing man answers on climate change? Where are the tips on staving off an AI disaster? Where was the advice to get vaccinated during the pandemic? Which prophet brought that? Instead we see vague, flowery poetry telling us to come to god and love one another. That's just not useful. Rewriting that message over and over meets few needs, and none of mine.

Humans have very little control over what happens in their lives. God holds or fate in His Hands. Maybe part of the way your life went was good planning on your part, but nothing goes on the same way forever in this life. No matter how healthy people are, everyone gets old. Eventually spouses die and leave their loved one behind.

So true, except the God part. Yet many get the chance to live good lives and don't squander the opportunity.