How will God prove himself?

[Jodie.Lynne]

13 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

That is why there was a scheme to Christianise the world,

Clever that. Because, if I recall correctly, those that were completely ignorant of Jesus wouldn't be punished to hell. But now, thanks to missionaries spreading their beliefs everywhere, they have doomed those people to hell, if they choose not to accept Christianity.

Not trying to offend anyone, but I always felt that xtianity was a death cult, it's believers longing for death, because they have been promised that 'everything is better on the other side'. No matter how bad your life is here, rejoice in your faith, because you will be rewarded in heaven. 

It is, in my opinion, the religion of slaves in that it tells you to enjoy your suffering because at life' end, "god" will give you paradise. I know this sounds harsh and blunt, and I am NOT trying to turn others from their faith. This is how I have always perceived xtianity, ever since I can remember.

[+Hammerclaw]

8 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Clever that. Because, if I recall correctly, those that were completely ignorant of Jesus wouldn't be punished to hell. But now, thanks to missionaries spreading their beliefs everywhere, they have doomed those people to hell, if they choose not to accept Christianity.

Not trying to offend anyone, but I always felt that xtianity was a death cult, it's believers longing for death, because they have been promised that 'everything is better on the other side'. No matter how bad your life is here, rejoice in your faith, because you will be rewarded in heaven. 

It is, in my opinion, the religion of slaves in that it tells you to enjoy your suffering because at life' end, "god" will give you paradise. I know this sounds harsh and blunt, and I am NOT trying to turn others from their faith. This is how I have always perceived xtianity, ever since I can remember.

An understandable misperception, easily misconstrued by stereotypes and a handful of the very vocal who give that impression. The only real difference between the Christian and the secular is they go to church before sitting down at home to watch Sunday Football.

[Jodie.Lynne]

13 hours ago, Coil said:

An excerpt from the book of one person who saw all the levels of hell:

What book? Don't be shy or coy, tell us the book you lifted this from.

[Opus Magnus]

30 minutes ago, danydandan said:

But both Perfection and MrWalker have stated both were brought up Athiests and never had access to a Bible or any other religions doctrine when they first had their experiences of God.

MrWalker has stated he initially assumed the thing he encountered was an Alien and after reading biblical accounts he then changed his mind and now believes its God.

Perfection has also stated they encountered God prior to having knowledge of Jesus. And only read Religious texts after their experiences.

So either Jesus being the only way to God is bogus or their claims are. Which is it?

You also know the Bible and other texted are full of people, who never even heard of Jesus, experiencing God?

Regardless, they have probably heard of Jesus outside of the house. Jesus, also doesn't actually live in the Bible. So, they are going to have to encounter Jesus sooner or later on their path to God. Before and after the crucifixion doesn't matter as this is just when religion changed on the earth. Jesus has always been there as a power in Heaven and probably is responsible for most things in the Old Testament. Ezekiel is also called the Son of Man, the same title Jesus gets. I think one angle is that if you don't understand the nature of Jesus, than the nature of God will never be understood enough to be totally forgiven. 

[danydandan]

13 minutes ago, Jodie.Lynne said:

Clever that. Because, if I recall correctly, those that were completely ignorant of Jesus wouldn't be punished to hell. But now, thanks to missionaries spreading their beliefs everywhere, they have doomed those people to hell, if they choose not to accept Christianity.

Not trying to offend anyone, but I always felt that xtianity was a death cult, it's believers longing for death, because they have been promised that 'everything is better on the other side'. No matter how bad your life is here, rejoice in your faith, because you will be rewarded in heaven. 

It is, in my opinion, the religion of slaves in that it tells you to enjoy your suffering because at life' end, "god" will give you paradise. I know this sounds harsh and blunt, and I am NOT trying to turn others from their faith. This is how I have always perceived xtianity, ever since I can remember.

Personally I've never experienced any of that doom and gloom, it honestly seems to be an Americanism to be honest and in my opinion a very Protestant thing.

Growing up in Ireland and Catholic all I can say is there is little difference between Religious and Irreligious people.

[Jodie.Lynne]

Dan, my Dad was Irish, right off the boat and a firm believer in the RC Church. Mom was C of E, and as far as I can tell, paid it no mind.

I was raised Catholic, until I was old enough to tell Dad I couldn't wrap my head around the belief.

The death cult/slave religion came from me listening to the priests and reading the bible. Everything about the NT screams at me that this was a way to control people, to make them satisfied with their station in life & that it doesn't matter because, "Paradise".

[danydandan]

27 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

Regardless, they have probably heard of Jesus outside of the house. Jesus, also doesn't actually live in the Bible. So, they are going to have to encounter Jesus sooner or later on their path to God. Before and after the crucifixion doesn't matter as this is just when religion changed on the earth. Jesus has always been there as a power in Heaven and probably is responsible for most things in the Old Testament. Ezekiel is also called the Son of Man, the same title Jesus gets. I think one angle is that if you don't understand the nature of Jesus, than the nature of God will never be understood enough to be totally forgiven. 

Everyone has heard of Jesus, the issue is you said accepted Jesus not just heard of him. Considering you could literally get two versions if Jesus from different Gospels how can anyone understand his nature?

One is peaceful and quite open about turning the other cheek and accepting all. Where another version is all doom and gloom if you don't accept him as King. There is no way one can grasp an understanding of Jesus from the Gospels because each one had there own agenda and each one was supposed to be read on it's own without comparison to each other. A great example of this is the difference between Marks version of Jesus's death on the cross and Luke's. In Marks Jesus is clearly in shock and doesn't have a clue why what's happening to him is happening and in Luke's he understands and is clearly in control of himself.

In Mark's Gospel, he's mocked by the robbers who are being crucified with him. And at the end, his only words are his cry of dereliction, as it's called:" My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And then he cries out and dies, and that's it.

And so it's a story that's filled with pathos, and Jesus is clearly in great agony going to his death, whereas in Luke, you have a very different Jesus he isn't silent in Luke while being crucified. When they nail him to the cross, he prays for those who are doing this: "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing." And so Jesus knows fully well what's happening to him and why it's happening to him. And he knows what's going to happen to him after it happens. He's going to wake up in heaven with God. The most telling thing of all is that in Luke, instead of crying out, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me - instead of that, Jesus says, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."

Then if you take John's account it's completely different, Jesus says he is thirsty so he can fulfill scripture in the Old Testament, and you take Matthews account into account and your left with alot of conflicted stories, and seven last words that are in none of the Gospels.

They areo very different versions of the same event the issue is most people take them all accounts as one, and anyone reading the Bible should see they are clearly different personalities described. So how can one trust the Gospels, and what they say about Jesus when they are so conflicted? Which leads me to how can anyone understand Jesus because of the conflicting information within the book that is his primary source?

Like I said the Gospels were intended to be independent of each other, but take them all as one and your left with alot of conflicted stories. And makes the Bible effectively useless.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by danydandan

[Opus Magnus]

1 minute ago, danydandan said:

Everyone has heard of Jesus, the issue is you said accepted Jesus not just heard of him. Considering you could literally get two versions if Jesus from different Gospels how can anyone understand his nature?

One is peaceful and quite open about turning the other cheek and accepting all. Where another version is all doom and gloom if you don't accept him as King. There is no way one can grasp an understanding of Jesus from the Gospels because each one had there own agenda and each one was supposed to be read on it's own without comparison to each other. A great example of this is the difference between Marks version of Jesus's death on the cross and Luke's. In Marks Jesus is clearly in shock and doesn't have a clue why what's happening to him is happening and in Luke's he understands and is clearly in control of himself.

In Mark's Gospel, he's mocked by the robbers who are being crucified with him. And at the end, his only words are his cry of dereliction, as it's called:" My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" And then he cries out and dies, and that's it.

And so it's a story that's filled with pathos, and Jesus is clearly in great agony going to his death, whereas in Luke, you have a very different Jesus he isn't silent in Luke while being crucified. When they nail him to the cross, he prays for those who are doing this: "Father, forgive them, for they don't know what they're doing." And so Jesus knows fully well what's happening to him and why it's happening to him. And he knows what's going to happen to him after it happens. He's going to wake up in heaven with God. The most telling thing of all is that in Luke, instead of crying out, my God, my God, why have you forsaken me - instead of that, Jesus says, "Father, into your hands I commend my spirit."

Then if you take John's account it's completely different, Jesus says he is thirsty so he can fulfill scripture in the Old Testament, and you take Matthews account in account and your left with alot of conflicted stories, and seven last words that are in none of the Gospels.

They areo very different versions of the same event the issue is most people take them all accounts as one, and anyone reading the Bible should see they are clearly different personalities described. So how can one trust the Gospels, and what they say about Jesus when they are so conflicted? Which leads me to how can anyone understand Jesus because of the conflicting information within the book that is his primary source?

Like I said the Gospels were intended to be independent of each other, but take them all as one and your left with alot of conflicted stories. And makes the Bible effectively useless.

 

 

I don't think they vary as far to describe a different person. It's the same God however. Jesus repeatedly warns Israel of how God is going to bring his destructive wrath on Israel again, after he dies. God has a kind, but severe nature. Zeus is known for protecting mortals, but also has a lot of rage towards them from time to time.

[HayleyBi]

On 8/13/2018 at 3:52 PM, Jodie.Lynne said:

Greetings.

To echo what Sherapy said, this is the Spirituality VS Skepticism Forum. People make extraordinary claims about things spiritual, and when they do, they need to expect to be asked to provide some type of proof or evidence. Don't take it personally, but people can ( and do) claim many things. It doesn't mean that what the claim is true.

When asking for proof, are you asking for scientific proof? If yes, then you have to look at the attitude of most scientists. Many of them are rather turn their heads away than have any associations with anything supernatural in nature. A lot of times, scientists will measure something that's quantifiable and observable. So they are less likely to measure how many times God shows up in your dream or stuff like that. Results like the following are more likely to be seen:

• Hospitalized people who never attended church have an average stay of three times longer than people who attended regularly.

• Heart patients were 14 times more likely to die following surgery if they did not participate in a religion.

• Elderly people who never or rarely attended church had a stroke rate double that of people who attended regularly.

[danydandan]

9 minutes ago, Opus Magnus said:

I don't think they vary as far to describe a different person. It's the same God however. Jesus repeatedly warns Israel of how God is going to bring his destructive wrath on Israel again, after he dies. God has a kind, but severe nature. Zeus is known for protecting mortals, but also has a lot of rage towards them from time to time.

It's either two different personalities or Jesus was bipolar.

Also I assume your not going to address the clearly conflicting information in each story I described? The bases of my argument is that each Gospel has conflicted stories with another so how can they be trusted?

Edited August 15, 2018 by danydandan

[danydandan]

10 minutes ago, HayleyBi said:

When asking for proof, are you asking for scientific proof? If yes, then you have to look at the attitude of most scientists. Many of them are rather turn their heads away than have any associations with anything supernatural in nature. A lot of times, scientists will measure something that's quantifiable and observable. So they are less likely to measure how many times God shows up in your dream or stuff like that. Results like the following are more likely to be seen:

• Hospitalized people who never attended church have an average stay of three times longer than people who attended regularly.

• Heart patients were 14 times more likely to die following surgery if they did not participate in a religion.

• Elderly people who never or rarely attended church had a stroke rate double that of people who attended regularly.

Have a link for these? They are quite outrageous 14 times more likely come on that pure crap.

Also it's been shown, that if a person knows they are being prayed for by others it can adversely affects their recovery.

https://www.nytimes.com /2006/03/31/health/longawaited-medical-study-questions-the-power-of-prayer.html

But I suppose it's science and you don't trust it?

Edited August 15, 2018 by danydandan

[Jodie.Lynne]

@HayleyBi

Because those who are healthier attend church on a regular basis?

And as far as prayer, those that know they are 'being prayed for' do less well than those who haven't got a support prayer group. I will look for the articles.

 

As to proof, not necessarily scientific. If "Perfection" has advance knowledge, provided by 'god', then fecking post it!

Today, God told me Thus and such! Dated 14 August 2018..

If, 'thus & such' occurs, that would be either a coincidence, or a very small piece of evidence.

If "Perfection" posted 5 such predictions, and they all came true, that would be more evidence.

If she posted 30 predictions that all came true...….

 

Do you see my point?

[Will Due]

Just now, danydandan said:

Ah man, please address the differences. I'm begging you.  She's all hell fire and brimstone's, and your quite opposite.

Anyways no one is perfect.

 

Well the hellfire stuff doesn't work to sway most thinking people. It's an awful way to encourage someone. It isn't very attractive.

When Perfection and Mr Walker say the things they say about their encounters with God, that they're physical in nature, I get it. But unless what they say is interpreted spiritually, it will be hard to understand them. It seems to me, and it's my guess that this is the reason why most don't understand what they're saying when they don't. 

If there's anything I've learned about the "connections" a person might have with God, often the experience is not exactly what it might seem. Not to mention how trying to articulate it in writing in a forum like this one is somewhat fleeting at most.

From the information I refer to sometimes (guess what that is) God prompts each of us on the inside through our minds by attempting to help us adjust our thoughts. Adjust our thinking to be more responsive to being spirit led. And I experience this. This for me, is my meeting with God. 

The problem with this though, when a person takes an experience of having contact with God, is that there's a very real danger of it not being what one might think it is. That whatever one might think is genuine contact, actually is not, and is something more akin to a whole lot of wishful thinking.

Regarding my personal religious or genuine spiritual experiences, I never hear a voice. But I do sense I'm being led or being given direction. Yes, it's just a feeling generally. But what happens next is when these experiences add up to something that to me, is much more than tangible. It's more than tangible because it's what my entire life has all added up to so far. I can see the tracks and where my train is today relative to where my journey started all those years ago.

These experiences become a record in my memory that I can look back on. When a point of direction occured in the past that signaled for me to zag, I zigged instead, and the outcome wasn't good. The next time I zagged, and it was better. Zig zag, zig zag some more and what do you know, zag zag zag works out best. There's a definite pattern and it funnels to a goal. This then builds up and bolsters my faith. Then there's more and so on. Something keeps growing. Something good keeps going. But not always. There are many bumps in the road.

I will say this. When it's all firing on 8 cylinders, it's usually occuring without me thinking about it too much. But it never occurs subconsciously or unconsciously. Never without willful decision. 

***

For the record, whenever I use the word God, most often, I am using it to refer to God the Father. But not always. The term God can also include multiple agents or subordinate beings who work with God as if they're all a team working together as a single unit. Like with the Holy Spirit and a persons guardian angels for example. And I think Perfection and Mr Walker are referring to the same thing. But I guess it's at this point, that I have to say it's all just my opinion. 

 

 

[danydandan]

10 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Well the hellfire stuff doesn't work to sway most thinking people. It's an awful way to encourage someone. It isn't very attractive.

When Perfection and Mr Walker say the things they say about their encounters with God, that they're physical in nature, I get it. But unless what they say is interpreted spiritually, it will be hard to understand them. It seems to me, and it's my guess that this is the reason why most don't understand what they're saying when they don't. 

If there's anything I've learned about the "connections" a person might have with God, often the experience is not exactly what it might seem. Not to mention how trying to articulate it in writing in a forum like this one is somewhat fleeting at most.

From the information I refer to sometimes (guess what that is) God prompts each of us on the inside through our minds by attempting to help us adjust our thoughts. Adjust our thinking to be more responsive to being spirit led. And I experience this. This for me, is my meeting with God. 

The problem with this though, when a person takes an experience of having contact with God, is that there's a very real danger of it not being what one might think it is. That whatever one might think is genuine contact, actually is not, and is something more akin to a whole lot of wishful thinking.

Regarding my personal religious or genuine spiritual experiences, I never hear a voice. But I do sense I'm being led or being given direction. Yes, it's just a feeling generally. But what happens next is when these experiences add up to something that to me, is much more than tangible. It's more than tangible because it's what my entire life has all added up to so far. I can see the tracks and where my train is today relative to where my journey started all those years ago.

These experiences become a record in my memory that I can look back on. When a point of direction occured in the past that signaled for me to zag, I zigged instead, and the outcome wasn't good. The next time I zagged, and it was better. Zig zag, zig zag some more and what do you know, zag zag zag works out best. There's a definite pattern and it funnels to a goal. This then builds up and bolsters my faith. Then there's more and so on. Something keeps growing. Something good keeps going. But not always. There are many bumps in the road.

I will say this. When it's all firing on 8 cylinders, it's usually occuring without me thinking about it too much. But it never occurs subconsciously or unconsciously. Never without willful decision. 

***

For the record, whenever I use the word God, most often, I am using it to refer to God the Father. But not always. The term God can also include multiple agents or subordinate beings who work with God as if they're all a team working together as a single unit. Like with the Holy Spirit and a persons guardian angels for example. And I think Perfection and Mr Walker are referring to the same thing. But I guess it's at this point, that I have to say it's all just my opinion. 

 

 

Thanks for your insight. I actually like that you don't assume to speak for God. Unlike others do.

I just find it hard to accept, and I believe you do too, that these two posters have two very different versions of the same being. You gave a vague explanation why you think they are two conflicted examples, but saying one might not understand is a cop out. For example, just the fact that each person makes different claims regarding Gods, let's say, persuasiveness. Either one is right and the other wrong, or both are wrong. I think it's the latter. I just can't fathom how a being so powerful cant compell people to see exactly the same as each other.

Edited August 15, 2018 by danydandan

[Will Due]

3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Thanks for your insight. I actually like that you don't assume to speak for God. Unlike others do.

I just find it hard to accept, and I believe you do too, that these two posters have two very different versions of the same being. You gave a vague explanation why you think they are two conflicted examples, but saying one might not understand is a cop out. For example, just the fact that each person makes different claims regarding Gods, let's say, persuasiveness. Either one is right and the other wrong, or both are wrong. I think it's the latter. I just can't fathom how a being so powerful cant compell people to see exactly the same as each other.

 

Perhaps what's missing is the perception that's spiritual in nature. I think everyone is leaning more to being right. Even atheists. But there's that dag gum thing. You know. That thing that seems right to a man but isn't. And this is occuring with everyone to certain degrees.

Nonetheless, it's when and where a meeting with God occurs that all this gets put in its proper perspective in my opinion. Without meeting God on his terms, these things of the Spirit cannot be understood spiritually. And the Spirit supersedes any and all things matetial.

Again I have to say, in my opinion but for me, it's a lot more than opinion because I have a track record. But so does everyone. Everyone including atheists and agnostics. 

 

 

[danydandan]

2 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Perhaps what's missing is the perception that's spiritual in nature. I think everyone is leaning more to being right. Even atheists. But there's that dag gum thing. You know. That thing that seems right to a man but isn't. And this is occuring with everyone to certain degrees.

Nonetheless, it's when and where a meeting with God occurs that all this gets put in its proper perspective in my opinion. Without meeting God on his terms, these things of the Spirit cannot be understood spiritually. And the Spirit supersedes any and all things matetial.

Again I have to say, in my opinion but for me, it's a lot more than opinion because I have a track record. But so does everyone. Everyone including atheists and agnostics. 

 

 

Your still not addressing the issue of obviously different versions of the same being. When ever I bring this up, just like the conflicting information in the Bible, I get non answes and failure to address the questions.

Why are these stories so different from one another?

[Jodie.Lynne]

3 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Your still not addressing the issue of obviously different versions of the same being.

Because they cannot. Every believer has their own personal version of god. And surprisingly, their god has the same biases, prejudices, and hatreds as the believers.

 

One would almost imagine that, instead of beauty, 'god' is in the eye of the beholder.....

[Will Due]

23 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Your still not addressing the issue of obviously different versions of the same being. When ever I bring this up, just like the conflicting information in the Bible, I get non answes and failure to address the questions.

Why are these stories so different from one another?

 

Alright, let me do my best to give you my version of why this is so.

To me it's impossible for two people to agree on what God is because no two experiences with God, nor much else for that matter, are ever the same. But "in the Spirit" this isn't true at all. In the spirit all is the same or something like that.

How many times have you had a conversation with someone about something where it just ends up with a "yeah, I know what you're talking about?" And not much else needs to be said thereafter. To me, this is where the spirit realities of life intersect between two people. Intersect via the Spirit of Truth. But not necessarily. Truth may not have anything to do with it.

I don't think even any two fervent Christians, or Muslims, or Bhuddists ever have exactly the same insights about what's actually real regarding who and what God is. But that's not even important anyways.

I think the reason for this is because as human beings, we are free. Free to think whatever we want. Free to experience whatever we will. I think God expects us all to have unique and original ideas about everything. About him. About ourselves. Otherwise he would have created us as if we were robots. Automatons. And who would like that?

 

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Will Due

[Will Due]

1 hour ago, danydandan said:

Your still not addressing the issue of obviously different versions of the same being. When ever I bring this up, just like the conflicting information in the Bible, I get non answes and failure to address the questions.

Why are these stories so different from one another?

 

Perhaps a simpler reason for this can be explained by using the human family as an example.

Given any number of children in a given family, each one of them, if asked to describe their father would tell an entirely different story. They would have a different version of their dad to tell. Same thing with their mother.

Primarily this is true because each child has a different and unique experience with their parents. Wouldn't you agree?

And this is also true with people's experiences with God. But it's the same God just like it's the same parents.

 

 

Edited August 15, 2018 by Will Due

[+Hammerclaw]

The simplest explanation is that  everyone is just guessing and you're just arguing or asking explanation for one wild guess or another. This being, this anthropomorphic conceptualization--which ever one you choose--is a chimera, a product of imagination with all the flaws and prejudices of it's conceiver woven into it. I would submit that anything that could have created the universe is far beyond anything imagined in our quaint mythologies and all you're arguing about are fairy tale assumptions.

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, Hammerclaw said:

The simplest explanation is that  everyone is just guessing and you're just arguing or asking explanation for one wild guess or another. This being, this anthropomorphic conceptualization--which ever one you choose--is a chimera, a product of imagination with all the flaws and prejudices of it's conceiver woven into it. I would submit that anything that could have created the universe is far beyond anything imagined in our quaint mythologies and all you're arguing about are fairy tale assumptions.

 

Um, is that how you'd describe who your parents are compared to how your brothers and sisters would describe them?

 

 

[+Hammerclaw]

5 minutes ago, Will Due said:

 

Um, is that how you'd describe who your parents are compared to how your brothers and sisters would describe them?

 

 

Who cares? They haven't seen him either. They're free to entertain any notion they like and like everyone else, they can't prove theirs, either, nor can anyone in this thread. We're all whistling in the dark--it's just that some of us like to whistle louder and longer than others. I sidestepped your crude analogy

Edited August 15, 2018 by Hammerclaw

[Will Due]

2 minutes ago, Hammerclaw said:

We're all whistling in the dark

 

Not all. 

 

 

[+Hammerclaw]

1 minute ago, Will Due said:

 

Not all. 

 

 

Oh, yes, Will, we all know how special you think you are. When you fall off that high horse of yours, you're gonna hit hard. I've already seen it happen more than once in these forums. It was kind of pathetic.

[Will Due]