Do you believe in God?

[Imari]

That just shows that even though something isn't a fact that if enough people agree on a certain opinion they automatically fall into the delusion of treating it as if it were a fact, the dangers of group think and a lack of independent thinking on full display.

I piss people off with my mere existence, it's something I'm very much accustomed to and fully accept and embrace.

No, you piss people off by advocating for child rapists as a necessary and inevitable part of the universe, and your continued explicit acceptance and embrace of this position.

Other people feel the need to push back against you because your opinions are so monstrous that not doing so feels like it would be implicitly supporting your position. Like just walking past someone getting beat up on the street or something - you're not involved but if you see and don't do anything then you've kind of helped that behaviour continue and be tolerated.

It is a fact that opinion will never be an actual fact of reality, it doesn't matter how many collective opinions accumulate together, it's still just a collective opinion that has no bearing on reality itself.

Opinions aren't facts, but emotions and experiences are. What people feel when they're being abused and raped is as factual as anything is.

What people feel is generally pretty negative. Some would describe that as "bad".

You might not feel the same way. But the general collective experience in this situation does actually have some bearing on how we view it and on how we might behave with regard to potential future instances of the situation.

That you can't understand basic human emotion is kind of disturbing. No wonder people get pissed off at you. And you, having no understanding, have just hand waved that as "it is what it is" again instead of asking WHY people regularly get pissed off at you. It's like you never grew out of being an edgy teenager.

Addiction in my eyes, is clearly bad because of the issues it causes.

This is correct. The borderline for addiction is where it becomes a net negative for the person taking them. If it's not in some way harming you, it's not an addiction. We don't say that we're addicted to food, water and oxygen, even though all those things in excess can absolutely be harmful.

To use drugs as an example, one of the drugs used to manage ADHD symptoms is amphetamines. Like, the exact same stuff that an amphetamine addict on the street would take.

The person taking it for ADHD has some negative symptoms and side effects from them, but overall it results in an improvement in their quality of life. They continue to take it because it helps them, and they would be worse off without it. Amusingly, it's pretty common for people taking amphetamines for ADHD to forget to take their meds on any given day, even after being on them for years.

The addict has some positive effects from taking the drug, but overall it results in a decrease in their quality of life. They continue to take it because of any number of factors, many of which are not entirely under their control. The continue to take it because they feel compelled to, and while they might be worse off in the short term were they to stop taking it they would be better off in the long term.

The same can be applied to addiction to just about anything. Even porn addicts probably get some pleasure from pornography, but the net negative to their quality of life means it's a problem. But that doesn't mean that consuming pornography is a problem for everyone, it just means that addiction is complex and individual.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

What is the numerical value of that age? Why is it that age? Where do people who are cognitively underdeveloped and only have the faculties of someone below that age while being physically older than that age fit into this scheme?

Congratulations on proving my point.

You are just looking to be right. Not have a correct answer.

Yes, porn is harmful. It is HIGHLY addictive.

It can be used to self-medicate in EXACTLY the same way as all other drugs. It just happens to be hormones and other reactions in the body.

But you don't really want to know all of that. You just want to be right.

View attachment 1368408

I have an opposing question:

If God came down, in all His glory, and stood in front of you. Then, He showed you all of His works and creations.

Would it be enough?

THAT is the REAL question.

You want proof. I'm fine with that.

Would you ACCEPT the truth if you had it?

 

[Scaff]

Congratulations on proving my point.

You are just looking to be right. Not have a correct answer.

That's a fairly big projection on your part, what was being looked for however, was an answer!

Yes, porn is harmful. It is HIGHLY addictive.

It can be used to self-medicate in EXACTLY the same way as all other drugs. It just happens to be hormones and other reactions in the body.

But you don't really want to know all of that. You just want to be right.

'Yes, religion is harmful. It is HIGHLY addictive.

It can be used to self-medicate in EXACTLY the same way as all other drugs. It just happens to be hormones and other reactions in the body.

But you don't really want to know all of that. You just want to be right.'

See how, without a good standard of evidence, it's possible to make anything up, now try with actual evidence for your claim.

I have an opposing question:

If God came down, in all His glory, and stood in front of you. Then, He showed you all of His works and creations.

Would it be enough?

THAT is the REAL question.

You want proof. I'm fine with that.

Would you ACCEPT the truth if you had it?

It would 100% be a start, but given that we have zero verifiable evidence of this happening in all recorded history, and only second-hand retellings of claimed anecdotal references, from a small region of what is now the Middle East circa 2,000 years ago, it's a bit of a weak evidence base.

 

[Famine]

You are just looking to be right. Not have a correct answer.

Nope. I'm asking you questions of your stated opinions. They're questions you should be asking yourself of your stated opinions before you state it.

Yes, porn is harmful. It is HIGHLY addictive.

It can be used to self-medicate in EXACTLY the same way as all other drugs. It just happens to be hormones and other reactions in the body.

But you don't really want to know all of that. You just want to be right.

I neither said nor asked anything about porn. Try again:

The basic premise, though, is that God cannot give us every single detail in writing.

Why not? What is the cause of this limitation on his abilities?

Can you imagine the thousands of libraries needed for that information?

Yep. Shouldn't be so hard for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity to solve.

Looking into this one further, at current data storage capabilities the entire sum of all human knowledge can fit into a bunch of hard drives in a space no larger than a bungalow (depending on how you define "knowledge"; after all, a blank "is this a pigeon" meme is as much knowledge as the structure of a nuclear fuel rod is).

I'm not sure that "here are the rules on how not to be bad" would require all that much space.

And then how many people would go there just to find out how to do bad things?

God can't prevent loopholes? Why not?

Children who die before the age of accountability are received into God's presence.

What is the numerical value of that age?

Why is it that age?

Where do people who are cognitively underdeveloped and only have the faculties of someone below that age while being physically older than that age fit into this scheme?


Again, you feel like your opinion is well-founded enough to state openly, so it shouldn't be hard to answer these questions, all of which you ought to have asked yourself in order to found the opinions in the first place.

If you're not asking them of yourself, or whomever is giving you this information, why not?

 

[Imari]

You are just looking to be right. Not have a correct answer.

No, you're just looking to not have to think about it.

Age limits are something that humans use for convenience of legislation and enforcement. We know that some people are responsible enough to drink at 16 and others struggle to drink responsibly into their 30s and beyond. But we draw a line because we're not omniscient, and we pick something that we think is a reasonable compromise of achieving the goals we want.

An omniscient being doesn't need an age limit to see whether it was reasonable to hold someone accountable for certain actions. They can just look and see whether that specific person at that specific time was suitably developed and free to make choices.

You're missing that you're assigning human behaviours to a being that absolutely doesn't need them. If God existed, He absolutely would not be using age limits of any sort to be judging accountability. The idea is laughably stupid if you bother to think about it for any amount of time at all.

But you don't really want to know all of that. You just want to be right.

You just want to avoid saying a number, because you know deep down that all numbers are the wrong number. You know this.

But if you say a number, then you'll have to try and justify it.

Why? Just admit that it's dumb. Be honest with yourself. It's a silly idea.

Even if you absolutely believe in God, Heaven and children going there, the idea of an "age of accountability" that God uses to judge admission is completely daft. Just write it off as one of those foibles of having a divine text written by human authors or something if it lets you hang onto the bits that you like, but don't play this silly game of trying to avoid having to justify something you know is dribble.

Yes, porn is harmful. It is HIGHLY addictive.

These are not the same thing. We have many effective and regularly used medications that are highly addictive. We have any number of recreational drugs that are the same. They are not necessarily harmful if used appropriately, they can in fact be helpful.

Porn can be highly addictive. But the vast majority of the human race is at least interested in it, because we're biologically programmed to be interested in sex. That's at least one reason to see if we can not throw the baby out with the bathwater by going straight to extreme conservative Christian views on sex and nudity.

If it is always harmful and cannot be used responsibly at all, then you're going to have to provide some justification for that beyond pure Christian moral outrage at the idea of people being able to see "the naughty bits".

If God came down, in all His glory, and stood in front of you. Then, He showed you all of His works and creations.

Would it be enough?

Yes.

If He's standing there and providing direct proof and explanations then of course that's enough. At some point He provides sufficient demonstrations of His abilities and past actions that it is unreasonable to question the ability to do them further. I suspect the level of proof required for some would be much greater than for others, but He is apparently omnipotent so He can do whatever is required to prove His own existence to any standard that anyone might require. Even insane ones. There's going to be some difficulty with Him proving paradoxes in the real world, but let's just assume that somehow He manages to everyone's satisfaction.

However, I suspect everyone is going to have a lot of questions for Him, including Christians. Once it's established that His abilities are what He says they are and that His interest in the human race is as strong as He says it is, there are a lot of questions around "well, why did/didn't you do this?" The obvious exemplar in this thread being the child rape thing. He needs to come down and then explain why that's a thing.

And given recorded human history is just a massive list of people doing awful, awful things to each other, it's going to take a while. Maybe He can. I suspect He would just find it easier to magically change everyone's minds to accept whatever He told us, but maybe He really can explain that there is a good reason for awful things to happen.

Where are you going with this though? He's not doing that, and I suspect you're going to try and crab walk this into "well He's doing that already by the world existing" which is not how that works.

 

[Roo]

I have an opposing question:

If God came down, in all His glory, and stood in front of you. Then, He showed you all of His works and creations.

Would it be enough?

THAT is the REAL question.

You want proof. I'm fine with that.

Would you ACCEPT the truth if you had it?

Yes. I still wouldn't believe though, as I'd know he exists, in the same way I don't need to believe in this chair I'm sitting on.

I'll change your question slightly, as I was thinking about this the other day and I'm interested in your response:

Let's say your question happens, but it's not your god. Let's say for example the one and only god, the creator of this and all worlds, is the deity of some small hitherto unknown South American jungle tribe. Everything you've believed, all the rituals you've undertaken (praying, going to church, celebrating Christmas and Easter etc.), have been wrong.

Do you change your beliefs and take on the tribal religion and rituals?

On the understanding you won't be granted a heavenly afterlife if you don't, would you then do so?

Would you even want to if it isn't your idea of heaven?

 

[TRLWNC7396]

It would 100% be a start, but given that we have zero verifiable evidence of this happening in all recorded history, and only second-hand retellings of claimed anecdotal references, from a small region of what is now the Middle East circa 2,000 years ago, it's a bit of a weak evidence base.

You wouldn't believe me if I told you. Check out Joseph Smith's testimony.

Why not? What is the cause of this limitation on his abilities?

Yep. Shouldn't be so hard for an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent deity to solve.

Looking into this one further, at current data storage capabilities the entire sum of all human knowledge can fit into a bunch of hard drives in a space no larger than a bungalow (depending on how you define "knowledge"; after all, a blank "is this a pigeon" meme is as much knowledge as the structure of a nuclear fuel rod is).

I'm not sure that "here are the rules on how not to be bad" would require all that much space.

God can't prevent loopholes? Why not?

What is the numerical value of that age?

Why is it that age?

Where do people who are cognitively underdeveloped and only have the faculties of someone below that age while being physically older than that age fit into this scheme?


Again, you feel like your opinion is well-founded enough to state openly, so it shouldn't be hard to answer these questions, all of which you ought to have asked yourself in order to found the opinions in the first place.

If you're not asking them of yourself, or whomever is giving you this information, why not?

If God had everything written down from the beginning of time, we would KNOW of those libraries.

Sure, CURRENT data capacity makes this a simple thing.

But the reality is that God asks us to ask Him for our (ever current) answers. He DOES answer when we actually listen.

The age thing is (somewhat) subjective. But we have been told, and I do believe, that at the age of 8, a person is (generally) ready to accept their own choices. But generalizations can be wrong, so some people fall outside of that bell curve. But look at the formation of the brain at the ages of 7-8. Certain things fall into place, and a person becomes capable of full decision around that age.

Yes. I still wouldn't believe though, as I'd know he exists, in the same way I don't need to believe in this chair I'm sitting on.

I'll change your question slightly, as I was thinking about this the other day and I'm interested in your response:

Let's say your question happens, but it's not your god. Let's say for example the one and only god, the creator of this and all worlds, is the deity of some small hitherto unknown South American jungle tribe. Everything you've believed, all the rituals you've undertaken (praying, going to church, celebrating Christmas and Easter etc.), have been wrong.

Do you change your beliefs and take on the tribal religion and rituals?

On the understanding you won't be granted a heavenly afterlife if you don't, would you then do so?

Would you even want to if it isn't your idea of heaven?

This is an interesting question. The problem is, I have already experienced some of this. I have felt God's touch, and I have heard His voice.

But it would be interesting to have it be different. That would take some adjusting. I'm glad that it isn't.

Again, check out Joseph Smith's history, where he states that he saw God and Jesus together.

I have a story about suffering and pain, but I don't feel ready to share it, as it involves all of my family. They aren't ready for me to talk about it. But it has an incredibly funny moment. Then a lot of problems after that.

Why have I experienced the level of pain that I have?

I am unsure. I have been trying to understand that for the last 40+ years.

But I still know that God lives. And through all of the pain, I have a knowledge that God has kept me alive, even when I have been actively trying to not. It is hard to trust a being that is willing to allow pain.

But there is a reason, and I do KNOW that God lives. And I can empathize with others who are in pain. And help them heal. I hope.

 

[Famine]

If God had everything written down from the beginning of time, we would KNOW of those libraries.

Sure, CURRENT data capacity makes this a simple thing.

Okay. Why is that a limitation on an omnipotent deity?

But the reality is that God asks us to ask Him for our (ever current) answers. He DOES answer when we actually listen.

The word "reality" is putting in a stretch there. Why could God only communicate a truncated set of rules, full of loopholes, in Hebrew, to falliable humans 2000 years ago, and not a complete set of rules, in every language, today to the internet?

Why is he so limited?

The age thing is (somewhat) subjective. But we have been told, and I do believe, that at the age of 8, a person is (generally) ready to accept their own choices. But generalizations can be wrong, so some people fall outside of that bell curve. But look at the formation of the brain at the ages of 7-8. Certain things fall into place, and a person becomes capable of full decision around that age.

It's entirely subjective, and sounds like human laws rather than the word of an omniscient deity.

In fact it sounds made-up. We generally consider the age of responsibility to be 10-11, as that's the point at which the majority of normally developing children have learned the concepts of empathy and consequences for actions. Many western nations have a law that precludes prosecution for children below this sort of age (passing it on to their parents/guardians). 7-8 is just too young for the majority of children in terms of cognitive development.

It also doesn't account for kids at either end of the curve - those who learn it earlier, and those who don't learn it until later - nor severely developmentally impaired and incapable of adult reasoning. Laws do; we allow for expert analysis of individuals by way of mitigation for actions they may have performed without the ability to recognise consequences.

As such it seems like a weird age for a deity to select the point at which kids can go to heaven or not. Condemning a kid to hell - for eternity, remember - based on being a bit of a tyke aged nine, ignorant of the fact they may not be capable of malice seems astoundingly dim for an omniscient being.

 

[Ghost Lap]

There are three big, glaring, issues that you're facing with your "I like to piss people off" position.

• it's not consistent with Christianity, which is your purported belief
• it's guaranteed to be a source of suffering in your own life
• it comes from a fallacy that breaks your religious views

This is a big chance for you to make a change, re-evaluate. Even to be a better Christian if that's what you choose. Definitely to try to love and be good to your fellow man. WWJD

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first - John 15:18-27​

There are what are so called lukewarm Christians, those who go to Church for 3 hours on a Sunday and then spend the rest of their time living for worldly and material values. These are not the kinds of disciples Jesus ever advocated for when he said "Take up your cross and follow me" and I wouldn't consider myself a Christian in this standard mainstream sense.

@HenrySwanson I haven't studied it in detail but it seems to be filled with deep truths and spiritual wisdom, I'll have to look further into it to give a proper take on it.

 

[Meythia]

I wouldn't consider myself a Christian in this standard mainstream sense.

Why not?
You dont need to ever step foot into a church to be the most faithful and saintly Christian as praying is allowed from every place, every time and for every situation.
According to the bible every believer is all the same, as only in the eyes of god you need to show faith and trust in Jesus asLord and Saviour.

Strange feeling when one needs to lecture those who pretend to be on the book they pretend to follow.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Why not?
You dont need to ever step foot into a church to be the most faithful and saintly Christian as praying is allowed from every place, every time and for every situation.
According to the bible every believer is all the same, as only in the eyes of god you need to show faith and trust in Jesus asLord and Saviour.

Just because someone wears a cross around their neck and calls themselves a Christian doesn't mean much spiritually if they still live mostly for worldly values and pleasures.

From what I gather one can say that they believe and have faith all they want but actions speak louder than words. You have to truly live the life Christ did or as best as you can, die to the flesh daily and feed the spirit to truly demonstrate your faith in the eyes of God.

I think what you're referring to is mans mainstream interpretations of what Jesus meant when he said "The only way to the Father is through me". It's not just about proclaiming Jesus as your saviour but rather more so about actually showing it by following the ways and principles by which he lived in your own life. This is what's called "Walking the hard narrow path" which is a lot easier said than actually done, which is why most so called worldly Christians will preach one thing but their fruits tell another story completely.

 

[Danoff]

If the world hates you, keep in mind that it hated me first - John 15:18-27​

There are what are so called lukewarm Christians, those who go to Church for 3 hours on a Sunday and then spend the rest of their time living for worldly and material values. These are not the kinds of disciples Jesus ever advocated for when he said "Take up your cross and follow me" and I wouldn't consider myself a Christian in this standard mainstream sense.

Jesus (in writing) advocated for every kind of disciple. It's like you haven't read the book. You cherry pick a single line that makes you feel good and roll with that contrary to gobs of teaching about loving your fellow man. The new testament can hardly be considered a book that overall advocates for you to go out of your way to alienate and anger people.

Just because someone wears a cross around their neck and calls themselves a Christian doesn't mean much spiritually if they still live mostly for worldly values and pleasures.

From what I gather one can say that they believe and have faith all they want but actions speak louder than words. You have to truly live the life Christ did or as best as you can, die to the flesh daily and feed the spirit to truly demonstrate your faith in the eyes of God.

I think what you're referring to is mans mainstream interpretations of what Jesus meant when he said "The only way to the Father is through me". It's not just about proclaiming Jesus as your saviour but rather more so about actually showing it by following the ways and principles by which he lived in your own life. This is what's called "Walking the hard narrow path" which is a lot easier said than actually done, which is why most so called worldly Christians will preach one thing but their fruits tell another story completely.

"Walking the hard narrow path" is about pissing people off?

I agree with you, you're not a Christian. It's a front for something else.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Jesus (in writing) advocated for every kind of disciple. It's like you haven't read the book. You cherry pick a single line that makes you feel good and roll with that contrary to gobs of teaching about loving your fellow man. The new testament can hardly be considered a book that overall advocates for you to go out of your way to alienate and anger people.

Revelation 3:15-18​

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold-I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

"Walking the hard narrow path" is about pissing people off?

I agree with you, you're not a Christian. It's a front for something else.

Well it did lead to the crucifixion of Christ himself, an end to which he correctly predicted and foretold beforehand.

 

[Danoff]

Revelation 3:15-18​

I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either one or the other! 16So, because you are lukewarm-neither hot nor cold-I am about to spit you out of my mouth.

This is non-responsive.

Well it did lead to the crucifixion of Christ himself, an end to which he correctly predicted and foretold beforehand.

And Jesus is famous for saying "screw those guys, I'm really pissed about that. Nevermind about all that junk I said before, piss everyone off". The Lord saw that it was good.

 

[Ghost Lap]

This is non-responsive.

Because you know that you've just been proven wrong with scriptural proof and can't retort back, it seems like you're the one who didn't read the book afterall.

 

[Famine]

scriptural proof

🤣

 

[Danoff]

Because you know that you've just been proven wrong with scriptural proof and can't retort back, it seems like you're the one who didn't read the book afterall.

No, because it's non-responsive. It does not counter what I said. Also, keep in mind your thesis is that the NT teaches that we should all go piss each other off and feel righteous about it. On its face, that's a laughable argument.

 

[Ghost Lap]

No, because it's non-responsive. It does not counter what I said. Also, keep in mind your thesis is that the NT teaches that we should all go piss each other off and feel righteous about it. On its face, that's a laughable argument.

I say that Jesus didn't advocate for lukewarm disciples and then you say that Jesus in writing advocated for every kind of disciple. I show you scriptural evidence that Jesus was against lukewarm disciples and then your response is "This is non-responsive". Basically you've got no actual thoughtful response because you can't argue against the actual proof shown or just admit that you were wrong which is okay, just another day on the GT Planet God thread.

I never said anything about going out of your way to piss people off, I simply said in my original post that it's what I naturally seem to do without trying to (with my mere existence). I later eluded that it can come as a consequence of being spiritually opposed to the ways of the world by quoting Jesus "If the world hates you, know that it hated me first". The world basically refers to worldly people who's spiritual values are in opposition to the ways of God. The majority of people hated or were threatened by Jesus when he was actually here in the flesh because he was "The Light of the world". He was the ultimate example of someone who was spiritually aligned with the ways of God and spiritually opposed to the ways of this world and was thus hated by the majority of worldly people of his time and eventually crucified for it. He was the very definition of being a threat to the system if you will.

 

[UKMikey]

I say that Jesus didn't advocate for lukewarm disciples and then you say that Jesus in writing advocated for every kind of disciple. I show you scriptural evidence that Jesus was against lukewarm disciples and then your response is "This is non-responsive". Basically you've got no actual thoughtful response because you can't argue against the actual proof shown or just admit that you were wrong which is okay, just another day on the GT Planet God thread.

I never said anything about going out of your way to piss people off, I simply said in my original post that it's what I naturally seem to do without trying to (with my mere existence). I later eluded that it can come as a consequence of being spiritually opposed to the ways of the world by quoting Jesus "If the world hates you, know that it hated me first". The world basically refers to worldly people who's spiritual values are in opposition to the ways of God. The majority of people hated or were threatened by Jesus when he was actually here in the flesh because he was "The Light of the world". He was the ultimate example of someone who was spiritually aligned with the ways of God and spiritually opposed to the ways of this world and was thus hated by the majority of worldly people of his time and eventually crucified for it. He was the very definition of being a threat to the system if you will.

Could you let us know where the child rape comes into this? Somehow I don't think that's what He intended in Matthew 19:14.

 

[MatskiMonk]

just another day on the GT Planet God thread.

Day 5746 in the God Thread.

Any evidence of God posted yet? No.

 

[Ghost Lap]

Could you let us know where the child rape comes into this? Somehow I don't think that's what He intended in Matthew 19:14.

Bit of a random intersection there but my take is that it's because this world is one of spiritual darkness and the ways of the world are spiritually opposed to the ways of God (We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one - John 5:19). The goal for all of us is to strive towards the Light (God) spiritually with Christ being the figurehead to look to as the example and benchmark.

 

[Exorcet]

I think what you're referring to is mans mainstream interpretations of what Jesus meant

That there are interpretations at all is odd. You'd think something important would be made clear to avoid misunderstanding.

The majority of people hated or were threatened by Jesus when he was actually here in the flesh because he was "The Light of the world". He was the ultimate example of someone who was spiritually aligned with the ways of God and spiritually opposed to the ways of this world and was thus hated by the majority of worldly people of his time and eventually crucified for it. He was the very definition of being a threat to the system if you will.

Jesus would not have met the majority of the world, he was also hardly unique in drawing the ire of the Romans. They crucified many people that proclaimed to have authority over them. What lead to the death of Jesus was the idea that he would lead the Jewish people to independence from Rome.

 

[UKMikey]

Bit of a random intersection there

It's not random. It's where we came in and is the basis of this discussion. I'm just trying to get things back on track.

 

[Ghost Lap]

That there are interpretations at all is odd. You'd think something important would be made clear to avoid misunderstanding.

"He who has the ears to hear, let him hear"

Jesus knew that most people would not truly understand his messages, he implied that the few who are spiritually awake and aware enough to understand will hear him and what hes truly trying to convey through his words.

Jesus would not have met the majority of the world, he was also hardly unique in drawing the ire of the Romans. They crucified many people that proclaimed to have authority over them. What lead to the death of Jesus was the idea that he would lead the Jewish people to independence from Rome.

He wouldn't have needed to either, the world was spiritually the same (darkness) mostly everywhere on it and it hasn't really changed much at all 2000 odd years later.

 

[Scaff]

You wouldn't believe me if I told you.

Your quite right, and I've already explained why.

Check out Joseph Smith's testimony.

You either didn't read or didn't understand what you just quoted.

 

[Danoff]

I say that Jesus didn't advocate for lukewarm disciples and then you say that Jesus in writing advocated for every kind of disciple. I show you scriptural evidence that Jesus was against lukewarm disciples and then your response is "This is non-responsive". Basically you've got no actual thoughtful response because you can't argue against the actual proof shown or just admit that you were wrong which is okay, just another day on the GT Planet God thread.

You think that's an example of Jesus not advocating for lukewarm disciples? Interesting read. That's now how I read it. Is that how you think all of Christianity reads that text? That Jesus says "screw them".

Since you want to do bible study, why don't you explain the full context of the passage. Who is speaking, why are they speaking, and what do you think they're trying to say with each passage. Walk me through it. Walk me through the NT biblical teaching that "the lord spake and sayeth, those that are lukewarm are not my children". Because just based on the quote and my understanding of the context, you're not correct.

I never said anything about going out of your way to piss people off, I simply said in my original post that it's what I naturally seem to do without trying to (with my mere existence).

...and you ignored the part earlier about how that's actually wrong? That you aren't pissing people off by your mere existence, and that actually it's when you start spouting stuff like "god wants babies to suffer"? I suppose you think you're just right about God wanting babies to suffer and so you're just like jesus - hated for preaching the word of god. I guess it never occurred to you that maybe you're wrong about your religion? Maybe your religion doesn't actually teach that god wants babies to suffer? I did give you a quote from a Christian source explaining that you're wrong. You just jogged on?

I later eluded that it can come as a consequence of being spiritually opposed to the ways of the world by quoting Jesus "If the world hates you, know that it hated me first". The world basically refers to worldly people who's spiritual values are in opposition to the ways of God. The majority of people hated or were threatened by Jesus when he was actually here in the flesh because he was "The Light of the world". He was the ultimate example of someone who was spiritually aligned with the ways of God and spiritually opposed to the ways of this world and was thus hated by the majority of worldly people of his time and eventually crucified for it. He was the very definition of being a threat to the system if you will.

The difference between your depiction of mythical Jesus and your depiction of yourself as being just like Jesus is that Jesus turned the other cheek and tried to be kind and help people, and you wear it as a badge of honor to tell people that they should suffer. See the difference?

 

[Meythia]

Just because someone wears a cross around their neck and calls themselves a Christian doesn't mean much spiritually if they still live mostly for worldly values and pleasures.

And someone who rapes and does 23/7 service in the name of god is any better then?
The god those in the faith of any Christian religion doesnt care for the amount of service anyone is doing in his deeds, but for the strength of trust, and as god is merciful and forgiving, it doesnt matter how much wordlly pleasure one are seeking (or how much suffering one is causing).
In the end all is the same: do you believe? Then up you go, otherwise it goes down to the neverending metal party.

 

[GBO Possum]

If God came down, in all His glory, and stood in front of you. Then, He showed you all of His works and creations.

Would it be enough?

Yep. It would. Yet strangely, it has never happened.

For some reason, I have to be satisfied with claims made by people who typically stand to financially benefit from having people believe in these claims.

I wonder why this is so 🤔.

 

[Ghost Lap]

And someone who rapes and does 23/7 service in the name of god is any better then?
The god those in the faith of any Christian religion doesnt care for the amount of service anyone is doing in his deeds, but for the strength of trust, and as god is merciful and forgiving, it doesnt matter how much wordlly pleasure one are seeking (or how much suffering one is causing).
In the end all is the same: do you believe? Then up you go, otherwise it goes down to the neverending metal party.

Think of salvation as the equivalent of spiritual graduation from fleshly incarnation. The first step towards salvation is to believe and have faith, but that's just the first step along the hard narrow path.

Your soul has to be fully refined and purified which funnily enough requires enduring suffering of the flesh and the sacrifice of worldly desires. The flesh has to be overcome and be put to death spiritually speaking (Be of cheer, for I have overcome the world). Otherwise it will still have a hold over your soul and keep you trapped down here spiritually (reincarnation).

The path to Heaven is never easy as nothing worthwhile of God ever comes easily and must truly be earned on the spiritual level which is what you probably won't hear in most modern day churches.

 

[TRLWNC7396]

Okay. Why is that a limitation on an omnipotent deity?

It isn't. It is a proof of OUR personal limitations.

The word "reality" is putting in a stretch there. Why could God only communicate a truncated set of rules, full of loopholes, in Hebrew, to falliable humans 2000 years ago, and not a complete set of rules, in every language, today to the internet?

Why is he so limited?

He isn't. He is waiting for us to listen to His voice.

It's entirely subjective, and sounds like human laws rather than the word of an omniscient deity.

In fact it sounds made-up. We generally consider the age of responsibility to be 10-11, as that's the point at which the majority of normally developing children have learned the concepts of empathy and consequences for actions. Many western nations have a law that precludes prosecution for children below this sort of age (passing it on to their parents/guardians). 7-8 is just too young for the majority of children in terms of cognitive development.

It also doesn't account for kids at either end of the curve - those who learn it earlier, and those who don't learn it until later - nor severely developmentally impaired and incapable of adult reasoning. Laws do; we allow for expert analysis of individuals by way of mitigation for actions they may have performed without the ability to recognise consequences.

As such it seems like a weird age for a deity to select the point at which kids can go to heaven or not. Condemning a kid to hell - for eternity, remember - based on being a bit of a tyke aged nine, ignorant of the fact they may not be capable of malice seems astoundingly dim for an omniscient being.

This is, again, an interesting question. But personal choice develops around 8. Yes, over the age of 11 we have an even better chance of understanding all of the implications.

We shall see.

Oh, and I'm not saying that as a "I'm right. Just you wait".... I'm simply saying that, one way or the other, we will see. If we cease to exist, we shall see just as much as if we continue to.

Bit of a random intersection there but my take is that it's because this world is one of spiritual darkness and the ways of the world are spiritually opposed to the ways of God (We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one - John 5:19). The goal for all of us is to strive towards the Light (God) spiritually with Christ being the figurehead to look to as the example and benchmark.

Absolutely. As has been said:

For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father.

Yep. It would. Yet strangely, it has never happened.

For some reason, I have to be satisfied with claims made by people who typically stand to financially benefit from having people believe in these claims.

I wonder why this is so 🤔.

It is TRULY sad when someone CLAIMS to have a spiritual experience, then uses that to make themselves wealthy.

The only way to truly be sure is to question them.

I think the best story of this is the person who helped with the Watergate investigation. He had 12 of the most powerful men in the world, and yet they couldn't keep a secret for a week (month?).

Yet, the apostles were ALL tortured to death (except John), yet they never turned from their statements of truth.

Look at the beginning of the LDS church. The three witnesses, who saw the golden plates (et all). They all turned from the church. In fact, I think at least one fought a bit against it. But they never, ever denied their statement of truth.

I think that 3 witnesses, just as the 12 with Jesus, would stand in court.