Does 'God' Intend to be Proven?

[Aquila King]

4 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

I'm an indifferent agnostic. Mean I do not know nor care if god exist, and if god happens to exist it will not affect how I live.

[GlitterRose]

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

1) Very well, point taken. I must have misinterpreted your quote. That was my honest mistake, and I do apologize.

2) No you didn't. My OP wasn't an argument per say, it was more of a 'what if' scenario. It's impossible to answer the question: "Can you prove to me that God cannot be proven scientifically?" with: "Does God intend to be proven?" Now you could answer it with: "God doesn't intend to be proven.", and that could be a reasonable answer in a sense. However I didn't suggest that he did or didn't intend to either way. I left that question open for discussion. Furthermore, you would have to first prove that God doesn't intend to be proven before using it as proof for the original question, which you can't do because in order to do that you must first prove God exists. It's just a viscous cycle of infinite regress. You didn't answer anything, you just lackadaisically dismissed everything without putting much thought into it.

3) If I offended you I'm sorry, but I can assure you I wasn't trying to 'dismiss' you at all. I was currently in the process of responding to you and was intending to respond to other posts when you started this whole argument insinuating me to be a liar. Now you call me a gloat for merely referencing previous threads so I don't have to type things over again for the shear sake of brevity.

4) I don't want to ignore you, or anyone else on this forum. But given your apparent lack of human decency over a minor miscommunication on my part (which I do totally own as being my fault and again, I do apologize. see #1), I don't see any reason why I should waste any of my time discussing things with someone who has no qualms in resulting to name calling. The only 'bs' you've been able to successfully call me out on is my minor misunderstanding in whether or not I asked people to prove anything in my OP. However a minor miscommunication such as this is in no way deserving of being called 'brain damaged', as well as every other insult you've thrown my way. I don' have to put up with that, and I won't.

You did demand proof several times, you did gloat, you did lump us all together, you did claim you never did any of that, and now you're claiming you just misunderstood.

I'll admit the brain damaged bit was not one of my better moments, but I won't call back that comment on douchery. That was definitely going on first. 

Edited September 1, 2017 by ChaosRose

[Guyver]

6 hours ago, AZDZ said:

The bible makes it pretty clear, god is long suffering for all to believe but some still refuse. Some continually spit in his face denying every evidence at every opportunity then we wonder why he may be p***ed off? In the end saying, "But, there was no evidence of you!" won't be a valid excuse.

Btw, being targeted for physical termination by God isn't the worst he can do us. It's equivalent to being sent to the corner for a time out, a soul can come back from that. There are far worse punishments at his disposal than death. *shudders*

It is entirely possible that souls come back.  I don't know if they do or not.....so I can't say.  I can say that I accept the possibility that they could.  And termination by God, well that's just being dead.  And if you're dead, you won't know it because there will be nothing so that's the end.  Yet, a soul could endure physical death....and then what?  No one knows but many speculate.  

In any event, regarding the bible and God.  The bible is so internally inconsistent as to be of very little theological value, IMO.  The reason for this should be readily apparent.  In the Old Testament you have a "God" who is angry, and jealous....prone to wrath and retribution.  In the New Testament "God" is referred to as the God of Love and Peace....as a title, and Love by nature.  God is love.  This is a direct quote from the bible describing God's nature.  In 2 Corinthians chapter 13, the bible describes the attributes of love.  It is patient and kind, it's not arrogant nor proud....etc. and so forth....and keeps no record of a wrong done.

All of these things fly directly in the face of the concept that God is angry, vengeful, hateful, jealous and filled with wrath, fury, and indignation.  It's so obviously contradictory as to boggle the mind.  Yet, people don't seem to question this, and they just automatically assume that the bible is a good book and it describes a good "God."  I have many, many hours of bible study in and I can say that this is clearly not the case.  Not as I see it anyway.  

[Mr Walker]

8 hours ago, Aquila King said:

That all depends on what you define as "God". If those phenomenon collectively build a cohesive structure of 'universal consciousness', then yes, it does in a sense prove that God exists.

In my own experience god is both the universal or cosmic consciousness,ANd communicates with us this way  but also the material manifestations of that consciousness and purpose,   and so can materiale in any form of matter and energy,

Indeed most paranormal phenomenon can be explained, if you think of a universal consciousness which human minds can link into and, via which, one human mind can contact another The cosmic consciousness might even store all past consciousnesses deceased peole in a form f virtual reality and allow access to them. if part of the power of the consciousness is made manifest in a human being, this would explain abilities to heal and work other minor miracles  

Edited September 2, 2017 by Mr Walker

[Aquila King]

9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

In my own experience god is both the universal or cosmic consciousness,ANd communicates with us this way  but also the material manifestations that consciousness and purpose,   and so can materiale in any form of matter and energy,

Indeed most paranormal phenomenon can be explained, if you think of a universal consciousness which human minds can link into and, via which, one human mind can contact another The cosmic consciousness might even store all past consciousnesses deceased peole in a form f virtual reality and allow access to them. if part of the power of the consciousness is made manifest in a human being, this would explain abilities to heal and work other minor miracles  

Exactly. I don't really see eastern and western philosophies to really be in conflict with one another. There are multiple things in nature that appear contradictory but in fact are more complimentary.

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, XenoFish said:

I'm an indifferent agnostic. Mean I do not know nor care if god exist, and if god happens to exist it will not affect how I live.

Unless of course, "that"  god decides on active intervention in your life, in which case you won't have a choice about it affecting you   

[+Hammerclaw]

If the tooth fairy doesn't leave a quarter under my pillow, does that mean he does not exist, or is the one I found on the sidewalk his way of making amends? Does the tooth fairy even exist? Exactly how would one go about proving science can't prove he doesn't exist? Exactly what form of proof would proof of a lack of disproof take? It's a fascinating discussion, pondering the logical application of illogical rationalization of the logical application of illogic.

Seriously. we are all friends here. Let's put away the torches and pitchforks and treat each other with politeness and simple courtesy, and cut each other and our foibles some slack. No one can write the perfect paragraph, every time, or  always find the exact words to express the thoughts we try to get across. Let us be kind to one another. Kindness doesn't cost a dime, tooth fairy or not, but it's worth is without measure.

Edited September 2, 2017 by Hammerclaw

[Aquila King]

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

If the tooth fairy doesn't leave a quarter under my pillow, does that mean he does not exist, or is the one I found on the sidewalk his way of making amends? Does the tooth fairy even exist? Exactly how would one go about proving science can't prove he doesn't exist? Exactly what form of proof would proof of a lack of disproof take? It's a fascinating discussion, pondering the logical application of illogical rationalization of the logical application of illogic.

2 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

Seriously. we are all friends here. Let's put away the torches and pitchforks and treat each other with politeness and simple courtesy, and cut each other and our foibles some slack. No one can write the perfect paragraph, every time, or  always find the exact words to express the thoughts we try to get across. Let us be kind to one another. Kindness doesn't cost a dime, tooth fairy or not, but it's worth is without measure.

[Aquila King]

If a picture's worth a thousand words, a gif's worth a million.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

20 hours ago, Aquila King said:

That was incredibly well said.  I completely agree! Couldn't have said it better myself, so hats off to you my friend. Well done.

Uh, ............. Thanks!  

20 hours ago, Aquila King said:

I think the burden of proof depends primarily on the individual. Don't get me wrong, The amount of evidence necessary to establish something as 'proven' can indeed be objectively measured, however it is more often then not obscured. This is because it is indeed possible to be both too skeptical and too believing. Some people are willing to believe in something without any evidence at all, where as others are willing to be skeptical of it no matter how much evidence you present, and of course the majority of us fall somewhere in between. Under these mindsets, 'proof' is relative to their own individual pre-existing requirements. What is considered to be necessary evidence to constitute as proof to some people will not be nearly enough evidence necessary for others. Therefore proof's relativity to the individual makes it ever elusive.

I agree with you on this. And I think, it can even be subtracted even further to how one sees proof, and what they need to believe or to not believe. And I agree with you how one can get too much into believing or too much into being skeptical. That no matter what you do, their personal affirmations of it, will not change. I have seen this in my own observations, including with people close to me. I feel, I have done that to myself, but then again, I feel, what I observe, I cannot deny. (But fit into my own subjective affirmations, not objective, because I could be the only person who has come to that conclusion and there could be many contaminated aspects to push that.) I think, it cannot be simplified, because of all the different environments into what would constitute proof for a singular or group of people. I do feel, although, that it is very simply put, objectively, one needs proof definitely to make it objectively. To get everyone on the bandwagon, you need the bandwagon for everyone to see to get on it.   

If I am to tie this up to your OP question, considering if God intended to have proof of his existence for everyone, then I think he would have done it by now. I wonder if you're intending this as part of your OP or not. Because, as I stated earlier, I feel the intentions for God's proof, was started by those being targeted for conversion. I don't know if I am reading this meaning in your post to me here, but I don't think I'm saying that the targeted are wrong, but that there is a reason that they are doing so. 

Even though I was raised secular, I am aware of the summons to spread the 'news' and get converts. (That is correct, right?) Was this directive from God, from Jesus, or someone else that happened to author one or more of the things written in the bible. If it was from God himself, please forgive me ( I don't want to offend, it's just a secular raised individual with an observation ) why wouldn't he just cut to the chase and show himself to all? As I have said earlier, (Was it here in this thread or another?) I really do not understand why one would have to have a test of faith to show themselves a good follower. (Especially, if it's such a distressing process when there is a crisis of faith involved.) I feel, it shouldn't be how you believe, but how you see the subject and understand where you stand and go from there. 

Plus, since there are many different point of views of how individuals hold their subjective truths about their higher powers, there could be many different ways that could be misconstrued wrongly, and what higher power would approve of that? 

 

20 hours ago, Aquila King said:

So how do we get past these two extremes in order to find the objective truth? I think the simple answer is to be as open-minded as possible. It's dogmatism that brings these strong biases on both sides, a.k.a., the human ego. The goal is to strike a balance between the two. So in other words, genuine objective 'proof' may only lie in the in-between place where all biases are dropped and where one is willing to completely and entirely abandon the ego and ones self-preservation of pre-existing belief systems, and where one is willing to embrace concepts that might be previously unknown to us otherwise. Rather than attempting to prove your beliefs correct, we should instead simply seek to understand the universe around us with full willingness of total self abandonment. Then, and only then, will we find real 'proof'.

Anyway, that's my rant.

Well, true, but I think even then, you have differing points of views on how the universe around us viewed. Even in the total self abandonment, there is still the individual self that influences the person, and would instinctually come to a self-conclusion they might assume is objectively correct. Kind of like viewing a M.C. Escher art piece and seeing something different in it each time. To use as example, my mother praises "Who Moved My Cheese" by Spencer Johnson. She encouraged me to read it. After I did, I told her what I thought was the point of the book. (Despite being a book categorized in the adult business section of the bookstore, it's written in a child's picture book way. I told her what I thought was the message. She came back with "Oh, that's a very interesting way of seeing it." It wasn't wrong, and she liked what I saw, but she felt she read a different message. My mother is more into the economics way of things, I am not. Yet, the book itself, is the objective book, with the same way it was written. Heck, the Dr. Seuss book, "Oh, the Places You Will Go" is clearly a child's picture book and filed in that section, a trend has been to gift it to high school and collage graduates, because of a message that adults have in that book. (In fact, I gifted it to both my niece and my daughter for their high school graduations, while niece was sincerely grateful and thanked me, my daughter eyed me like I was insane. ((Well, I guess daughters do that over nieces.))) Anyways, even in that situation, two people got two different interpretation to a gift, that would be understandable. ((You know, my daughter also got a laptop, so she should be grateful........................ sorry, got off tangent there.  ))

You know what I mean, right?!?!       

Where were we? 

Oh yeah...................... if we use the last sentence in your post, "Then, and only then, will we find real 'proof'." Makes me wonder, if that really can be done. If I was going to do just what you would suggest, and abandon myself and look around me, well I would see real proof yes, but of God, I don't think so. Because, in my feeling, if you're seeing stars in space, and clouds in the sky, and trees, rivers, oceans, insects, animals, people, and the products of people, then that would be real proof, yes. If you think you're seeing God, ( in which I understand people see that as proof from God or other higher powers ) well, I don't think so. I feel, you're still seeing stars in the sky, and trees, rivers, oceans, insects, animals, people, and their products. And a natural definition and explanation would come along to explain their existence. I know, there might not be a way to not deny that maybe they were 'encouraged' by a higher power, but overall, there's no proof on that. It's not like I could go to a tree, and see 'made by God' on it, or turn over a rock and see 'made by your higher power'. 

Now, I hope you don't think, I'm dead set on just that outlook, I just see that as a priority, because it's easily visible as a definition. I have felt, there is more, but that is something left to subjective defining, by just me. I'm happy with that, but I know, I can't deny that a tree exists by various natural reasons, which including the help from the sun, water and such. Where does all that come from, well, I feel, that has had it's natural reasons from my point of view. I just feel, as to why, I think I have my answer for me. 

To get to the heart of my point here, I feel, that God probably did not intend to have proof of himself, for I feel, it wasn't his priority (if in fact, it's true and he created this all) I feel, that creating this, (if that is true) it was in getting it right, and then hoping to put instructions into the mix to help his 'children' along. If it was true. Then probably got perplexed when the children wanted a guide, and wanted others along for the ride, and the other children couldn't believe it and wanted proof to believe it. I think, that would make better sense to me. Kind of like various Star Trek episodes, where inadvertently the crew got mixed up in the developing race of a planet, and all of a sudden they're part of their evolution and they didn't intend for that, since they are suppose to obey a rule that keeps them from interfering in the normal development of a race. You might say, I might think that God may have a 'prime directive' if you will.  

You know, we could also fathom, that God probably didn't intend to be worshipped, that was probably an accident somewhere and then he had to go from there.  

 

[+DieChecker]

On 8/29/2017 at 8:43 AM, Aquila King said:

The big debate for several millennia is whether or not the existence of what many people call 'God' can be proven. Some say they can prove God exists, others vise versa. Still others say God's existence can't be proven either way, or at the very least that we simply have no way of knowing at this time.

But what if God never intended to be proven to exist in the first place? What if being proven to exist is irrelevant to his/her goal(s)? What if this whole debate that's been raging for thousands of years was intended to take place, or at the very least meant to remain an open question?

Of course this is all under the assumption that God does exist, and that God has a plan; just that the 'plan' doesn't involve proving his/her own existence. I have my own ideas concerning what we call 'God' (as we all do), but when it comes to these big questions I honestly don't know. Just figured I'd throw this idea out there since there seems to be many people operating under some pretty big assumptions.

I believe God can't be proven, but not because He's outside of science. But, because if God proved He was real, He'd interfere with humanity psychologically so that we'd either all kill each other, or we'd all mass convert.

Think about it... If you KNEW for a FACT that God was real, and that then Jesus was real, and Christianity was the one real religion, would anyone... ANYONE... not convert to Christianity as soon as possible? If it was proven God was omnipotent, and did answer prayers, and that the Afterlife was REAL.... would anyone risk the wrath of such a being, and risk going to torment rather then being with your loved ones forever?

Would any of you risk that? Given that God and everything that implies was Real?

If God was proven to be real, we'd all be ruined, worthless, impotent. It is by faith that we are saved, not by proof.

[+Hammerclaw]

I've always considered God beyond our frame of reference and that humans are like microbes in a petri dish, debating the existence of the vast being whose great eye peers down upon them through the microscope. A crude analogy, but one that illustrates the disparity between a mere human and something that created everything we know.

[Aquila King]

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 10:32 AM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

To get to the heart of my point here, I feel, that God probably did not intend to have proof of himself, for I feel, it wasn't his priority (if in fact, it's true and he created this all) I feel, that creating this, (if that is true) it was in getting it right, and then hoping to put instructions into the mix to help his 'children' along. If it was true. Then probably got perplexed when the children wanted a guide, and wanted others along for the ride, and the other children couldn't believe it and wanted proof to believe it. I think, that would make better sense to me. Kind of like various Star Trek episodes, where inadvertently the crew got mixed up in the developing race of a planet, and all of a sudden they're part of their evolution and they didn't intend for that, since they are suppose to obey a rule that keeps them from interfering in the normal development of a race. You might say, I might think that God may have a 'prime directive' if you will.  

I know I'm probably just taking the lazy way out, but there's so much that I could say in response to all of that that I could end up writing several pages and not only do I just simply not feel like doing that, but I don't really think people in general really read extremely long posts like that so that sort of thing if done just feels like a whole lot of work mostly for nothing...  So instead I'll just skip to the main gist of it. I hope you're okay with that.

People have always complained about God's silence in the world. They always ask, "why does God remain silent in the midst of such hardship and tragedy?", which is of course a perfectly reasonable question. And I think this question ties in with the question of whether or not God intends to be proven or not. I certainly don't understand why God remains silent, as I don't think anyone does. Although I've always seen God's silence as a sort of candid admission or sign that everything's going according to plan. I think if God needed to speak up or show himself or whatever, then that would essentially be a sign that something is messed up enough that the situation requires he make drastic intervention. His silence and apparent inactivity could simply be a sign that no major intervention is necessary as things are operating exactly as he/she originally intended.

In other words, the lack of any immediately recognizable words or actions on the part of 'God' could signal that such words and/or actions are not necessary because his/her intentions are currently being carried out.

Mind you, you don't necessarily have to know what those intentions actually are in order to arrive at that conclusion. And I know that many skeptics will respond to that claiming it's the ultimate cop-out, since this could technically be true even if there was no evidence or proof of God at all and is therefore an unfalsifiable claim. That is true. However I think that it's still a strong possibility worth seriously considering nonetheless.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

10 hours ago, Aquila King said:

On 9/2/2017 at 10:32 AM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

To get to the heart of my point here, I feel, that God probably did not intend to have proof of himself, for I feel, it wasn't his priority (if in fact, it's true and he created this all) I feel, that creating this, (if that is true) it was in getting it right, and then hoping to put instructions into the mix to help his 'children' along. If it was true. Then probably got perplexed when the children wanted a guide, and wanted others along for the ride, and the other children couldn't believe it and wanted proof to believe it. I think, that would make better sense to me. Kind of like various Star Trek episodes, where inadvertently the crew got mixed up in the developing race of a planet, and all of a sudden they're part of their evolution and they didn't intend for that, since they are suppose to obey a rule that keeps them from interfering in the normal development of a race. You might say, I might think that God may have a 'prime directive' if you will.  

I know I'm probably just taking the lazy way out, but there's so much that I could say in response to all of that that I could end up writing several pages and not only do I just simply not feel like doing that, but I don't really think people in general really read extremely long posts like that so that sort of thing if done just feels like a whole lot of work mostly for nothing...  So instead I'll just skip to the main gist of it. I hope you're okay with that.

 I guess you could find it in condensed way you could describe it. *shrugs* 

Quote

People have always complained about God's silence in the world. They always ask, "why does God remain silent in the midst of such hardship and tragedy?", which is of course a perfectly reasonable question. And I think this question ties in with the question of whether or not God intends to be proven or not. I certainly don't understand why God remains silent, as I don't think anyone does. Although I've always seen God's silence as a sort of candid admission or sign that everything's going according to plan. I think if God needed to speak up or show himself or whatever, then that would essentially be a sign that something is messed up enough that the situation requires he make drastic intervention. His silence and apparent inactivity could simply be a sign that no major intervention is necessary as things are operating exactly as he/she originally intended.

In other words, the lack of any immediately recognizable words or actions on the part of 'God' could signal that such words and/or actions are not necessary because his/her intentions are currently being carried out.

Huh?! Meaning, if you hadn't got a call from us, that means everything is normal? Kind of like taking a medical lab test, and having it be normal. (Well, actually, I think that was in the past. I don't know if this is other's doctors ways of doing this, but even if test come out normal, I get something in the mail saying it.) 

Here's the thing with that, that's how you see it. Well, I'm not knocking it, but it just happens to be the way you're looking at it. I would have never looked at it that way. 

I feel that I need to break things down to the believers and the non-believers being proselytized to. I am really not sure, if a lot of believers, Christians more than likely, criticize about God being silent in the world where there is a lot of pain. I think this is one half group, where they may have their crisis in faith. I think that other group, the Non-believers would point that out, for one of the reasons why they don't believe. I would think here, if God wanted to be believed in by everyone, would consider the non-believer's reason and probably want to do something about it. 

Quote

Mind you, you don't necessarily have to know what those intentions actually are in order to arrive at that conclusion. And I know that many skeptics will respond to that claiming it's the ultimate cop-out, since this could technically be true even if there was no evidence or proof of God at all and is therefore an unfalsifiable claim. That is true. However I think that it's still a strong possibility worth seriously considering nonetheless.

Which I feel, is a subjective outlook you have come to. Which I can see, you have come to on your own. As I have said, I have never seen it looked that way before. It might be true, but it also might not be true. The way I see it, where does one get that feeling, that this is the way God works? Even then, he would try to convey, 'If I don't call you, everything is fine.' 

Well, that is how I look at it.  

[Aquila King]

Forgive me for taking the short and simple way in responding to you Stubbly_Dooright, I have a lot going on irl atm. I haven't had much free time to surf forums this weekend.

11 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

 I guess you could find it in condensed way you could describe it. *shrugs* 

Well, since you subtly insist, I'll indulge you in as full a response as I can.

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 10:32 AM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I agree with you on this. And I think, it can even be subtracted even further to how one sees proof, and what they need to believe or to not believe. And I agree with you how one can get too much into believing or too much into being skeptical. That no matter what you do, their personal affirmations of it, will not change. I have seen this in my own observations, including with people close to me. I feel, I have done that to myself, but then again, I feel, what I observe, I cannot deny. (But fit into my own subjective affirmations, not objective, because I could be the only person who has come to that conclusion and there could be many contaminated aspects to push that.) I think, it cannot be simplified, because of all the different environments into what would constitute proof for a singular or group of people. I do feel, although, that it is very simply put, objectively, one needs proof definitely to make it objectively. To get everyone on the bandwagon, you need the bandwagon for everyone to see to get on it.   

If I am to tie this up to your OP question, considering if God intended to have proof of his existence for everyone, then I think he would have done it by now. I wonder if you're intending this as part of your OP or not. Because, as I stated earlier, I feel the intentions for God's proof, was started by those being targeted for conversion. I don't know if I am reading this meaning in your post to me here, but I don't think I'm saying that the targeted are wrong, but that there is a reason that they are doing so. 

Even though I was raised secular, I am aware of the summons to spread the 'news' and get converts. (That is correct, right?) Was this directive from God, from Jesus, or someone else that happened to author one or more of the things written in the bible. If it was from God himself, please forgive me ( I don't want to offend, it's just a secular raised individual with an observation ) why wouldn't he just cut to the chase and show himself to all? As I have said earlier, (Was it here in this thread or another?) I really do not understand why one would have to have a test of faith to show themselves a good follower. (Especially, if it's such a distressing process when there is a crisis of faith involved.) I feel, it shouldn't be how you believe, but how you see the subject and understand where you stand and go from there. 

Plus, since there are many different point of views of how individuals hold their subjective truths about their higher powers, there could be many different ways that could be misconstrued wrongly, and what higher power would approve of that? 

I think the intention for God's proof comes inherently more as a scientific question rather than an intention for conversion. Of course there's no doubt that the intent to convert is undoubtedly a strong motivating factor in trying to prove God. However the question of whether or not 'God' exists is a scientific question in the sense that it is a truth claim about the nature of reality. Therefore 'proving God' can come from the religious or otherwise.

On ‎9‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 10:32 AM, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Well, true, but I think even then, you have differing points of views on how the universe around us viewed. Even in the total self abandonment, there is still the individual self that influences the person, and would instinctually come to a self-conclusion they might assume is objectively correct. Kind of like viewing a M.C. Escher art piece and seeing something different in it each time. To use as example, my mother praises "Who Moved My Cheese" by Spencer Johnson. She encouraged me to read it. After I did, I told her what I thought was the point of the book. (Despite being a book categorized in the adult business section of the bookstore, it's written in a child's picture book way. I told her what I thought was the message. She came back with "Oh, that's a very interesting way of seeing it." It wasn't wrong, and she liked what I saw, but she felt she read a different message. My mother is more into the economics way of things, I am not. Yet, the book itself, is the objective book, with the same way it was written. Heck, the Dr. Seuss book, "Oh, the Places You Will Go" is clearly a child's picture book and filed in that section, a trend has been to gift it to high school and collage graduates, because of a message that adults have in that book. (In fact, I gifted it to both my niece and my daughter for their high school graduations, while niece was sincerely grateful and thanked me, my daughter eyed me like I was insane. ((Well, I guess daughters do that over nieces.))) Anyways, even in that situation, two people got two different interpretation to a gift, that would be understandable. ((You know, my daughter also got a laptop, so she should be grateful........................ sorry, got off tangent there.  ))

You know what I mean, right?!?!       

Where were we? 

Oh yeah...................... if we use the last sentence in your post, "Then, and only then, will we find real 'proof'." Makes me wonder, if that really can be done. If I was going to do just what you would suggest, and abandon myself and look around me, well I would see real proof yes, but of God, I don't think so. Because, in my feeling, if you're seeing stars in space, and clouds in the sky, and trees, rivers, oceans, insects, animals, people, and the products of people, then that would be real proof, yes. If you think you're seeing God, ( in which I understand people see that as proof from God or other higher powers ) well, I don't think so. I feel, you're still seeing stars in the sky, and trees, rivers, oceans, insects, animals, people, and their products. And a natural definition and explanation would come along to explain their existence. I know, there might not be a way to not deny that maybe they were 'encouraged' by a higher power, but overall, there's no proof on that. It's not like I could go to a tree, and see 'made by God' on it, or turn over a rock and see 'made by your higher power'. 

Now, I hope you don't think, I'm dead set on just that outlook, I just see that as a priority, because it's easily visible as a definition. I have felt, there is more, but that is something left to subjective defining, by just me. I'm happy with that, but I know, I can't deny that a tree exists by various natural reasons, which including the help from the sun, water and such. Where does all that come from, well, I feel, that has had it's natural reasons from my point of view. I just feel, as to why, I think I have my answer for me. 

To get to the heart of my point here, I feel, that God probably did not intend to have proof of himself, for I feel, it wasn't his priority (if in fact, it's true and he created this all) I feel, that creating this, (if that is true) it was in getting it right, and then hoping to put instructions into the mix to help his 'children' along. If it was true. Then probably got perplexed when the children wanted a guide, and wanted others along for the ride, and the other children couldn't believe it and wanted proof to believe it. I think, that would make better sense to me. Kind of like various Star Trek episodes, where inadvertently the crew got mixed up in the developing race of a planet, and all of a sudden they're part of their evolution and they didn't intend for that, since they are suppose to obey a rule that keeps them from interfering in the normal development of a race. You might say, I might think that God may have a 'prime directive' if you will.  

You know, we could also fathom, that God probably didn't intend to be worshipped, that was probably an accident somewhere and then he had to go from there.  

 

Like I previously stated, I could write a whole book on this topic. However for the sake of brevity I'll try and do as you suggested and condense it as best I can.

I don't personally see logic, reason, and evidence (mostly, but not limited to, the scientific method) as the sole proprietors of all truth. There are a number of problems with them philosophically, and while they are undoubtedly beneficial to society (as they have helped build our modern scientific society) and I would never suggest we abandon them, I do however think that our sole reliance on them can lead us into the inevitable pitfalls that accompany them. Essentially what I'm saying is that a total reliance on science and philosophy as the sole means of discovering truth is not without serious flaws. There are problems with this epistemology. For example:

• the necessary insistence on primary sources when in many cases none can be found
• the underlying acceptance of anything that possesses the most compelling evidence
• the complete and utter rejection of anything that lacks necessary evidence
• the assumption that human biases (and the ego) can be completely circumvented to achieve absolute objectivity
• the appeal to scientific authority or especially the majority as a means of justification
• the need for funding as well as acceptance from scientific peers
• the mere fact that the mainstream scientific community has been proven totally wrong on a number of big things over the years
• and last but not least, the many assumptions necessary in order to even practice the scientific method in the first place, mainly that the laws of the universe remain the same and will continue to remain the same ad infinitum

I don't wish to sound anti-science, as science is undoubtedly a great source of good. However I don't believe it (as well as logic, philosophy, etc.) is the only way to arrive at the truth. Unfortunately there are many people who disagree, and claim that any other way is wrong by definition.

I know how much our intuition gets a bad wrap, and in many cases for good reason. It too isn't without serious flaws. However I personally believe when properly utilized in conjunction with science we can better begin to understand the world around us.

As I said, I could probably write a whole book on just this subject but will refrain for now. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

12 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Huh?! Meaning, if you hadn't got a call from us, that means everything is normal? Kind of like taking a medical lab test, and having it be normal. (Well, actually, I think that was in the past. I don't know if this is other's doctors ways of doing this, but even if test come out normal, I get something in the mail saying it.) 

Here's the thing with that, that's how you see it. Well, I'm not knocking it, but it just happens to be the way you're looking at it. I would have never looked at it that way. 

I feel that I need to break things down to the believers and the non-believers being proselytized to. I am really not sure, if a lot of believers, Christians more than likely, criticize about God being silent in the world where there is a lot of pain. I think this is one half group, where they may have their crisis in faith. I think that other group, the Non-believers would point that out, for one of the reasons why they don't believe. I would think here, if God wanted to be believed in by everyone, would consider the non-believer's reason and probably want to do something about it. 

I believe I expressed myself sufficiently here, so we'll just agree to disagree.

Although in order to not come off as dismissive of your point, I am well aware that this can often times be viewed very negatively, as many interpret it to mean that God plans for us to suffer and therefore it is in a sense 'God's fault' for why a little girl gets raped or a family gets murdered, etc. How could the holocaust be part of God's plan? And if it is, then wouldn't he/she/it in God's divine power be responsible for it if indeed he planned such an atrocity? Those a very valid objections to this. However, I think these objections operate under multiple assumptions, mainly that God is ultimately a separate entity from ourselves. This is where it's vitally important that we define what exactly 'God' is. Otherwise we may be disproving a God that doesn't exist while ignoring the God that does.

12 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Which I feel, is a subjective outlook you have come to. Which I can see, you have come to on your own. As I have said, I have never seen it looked that way before. It might be true, but it also might not be true. The way I see it, where does one get that feeling, that this is the way God works? Even then, he would try to convey, 'If I don't call you, everything is fine.' 

Well, that is how I look at it.  

I'd say I arrived at this conclusion due to a more open-minded approach to God, namely the acceptance of a more eastern pantheistic concept of everything is God. This isn't to say that I completely reject the notion of a more westernized view of God. Rather, I personally find that both eastern and western philosophies could in a sense both be simultaneously true at the same time. I believe they complement each other rather than contradict

It would be inevitably true that if God is strictly a separate entity from ourselves and is truly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then silence and inactivity in the face of this evil would undoubtedly be impossible because it would be contradictory to God's supposed nature. Of course there are those who argue otherwise (mainly the religious), but this is the inevitable result.

Well as you said, that is how I look at it.  I apologize for not responding formally before. I truly was rather busy with regular life stuff. I hope this response satisfies.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

37 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Well, since you subtly insist, I'll indulge you in as full a response as I can.

I thank you!  

38 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I think the intention for God's proof comes inherently more as a scientific question rather than an intention for conversion. Of course there's no doubt that the intent to convert is undoubtedly a strong motivating factor in trying to prove God. However the question of whether or not 'God' exists is a scientific question in the sense that it is a truth claim about the nature of reality. Therefore 'proving God' can come from the religious or otherwise.

The main thing I'm feeling within this part of your post, is confusion. I'm not sure how you are guiding your point here. Anyways, I can see how it can be a wish to be viewed into a scientific question, because thus looking at it that way, so one can get their proof to prove God, scientifically. 

Although, I am wondering if you are understanding what I'm trying to say, when I see the wish to prove God, came from attempts at converting the non-believers. I'm saying, it's not the wish of the ones, who are trying to prove God to get converts, or that it is really a wish from the non-believers to have them be converted. I feel strongly, it was a point, and justification that was brought up to show reasoning why non-believers feel they cannot honestly convert. In a sense, the asking for proof, seems to me, to be a by-product of dismissal of proselytizers. I feel, if I can put myself in place of the non-believers, it was probably thought that by reason of that asking for proof, they didn't think there was going to be an answer and thought that was going to be it, and then everyone can move on. 

Yes, I agree with you, it can be seen in a scientific sense, because when asked for proof, it would have to be scientifically, so the non-believers would then believe. Right? But, the kicker here I feel, is that it was probably believed, there wasn't going to be a scientific answer to that, and thus non-believers were going to have their reasoning to not convert, and again, for everyone to move on. 

Maybe you did understand my point, and I'm misunderstanding that you got my point, and I'm reading this wrong on first reading. *shrugs*  

48 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

Like I previously stated, I could write a whole book on this topic. However for the sake of brevity I'll try and do as you suggested and condense it as best I can.

I don't personally see logic, reason, and evidence (mostly, but not limited to, the scientific method) as the sole proprietors of all truth. There are a number of problems with them philosophically, and while they are undoubtedly beneficial to society (as they have helped build our modern scientific society) and I would never suggest we abandon them, I do however think that our sole reliance on them can lead us into the inevitable pitfalls that accompany them. Essentially what I'm saying is that a total reliance on science and philosophy as the sole means of discovering truth is not without serious flaws. There are problems with this epistemology. For example:

• the necessary insistence on primary sources when in many cases none can be found
• the underlying acceptance of anything that possesses the most compelling evidence
• the complete and utter rejection of anything that lacks necessary evidence
• the assumption that human biases (and the ego) can be completely circumvented to achieve absolute objectivity
• the appeal to scientific authority or especially the majority as a means of justification
• the need for funding as well as acceptance from scientific peers
• the mere fact that the mainstream scientific community has been proven totally wrong on a number of big things over the years
• and last but not least, the many assumptions necessary in order to even practice the scientific method in the first place, mainly that the laws of the universe remain the same and will continue to remain the same ad infinitum

I don't wish to sound anti-science, as science is undoubtedly a great source of good. However I don't believe it (as well as logic, philosophy, etc.) is the only way to arrive at the truth. Unfortunately there are many people who disagree, and claim that any other way is wrong by definition.

I know how much our intuition gets a bad wrap, and in many cases for good reason. It too isn't without serious flaws. However I personally believe when properly utilized in conjunction with science we can better begin to understand the world around us.

As I said, I could probably write a whole book on just this subject but will refrain for now. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

You know something, believe it or not, I agree with you whole heartily here!!!   That is how I would see it too.   In fact, this often comes up in various science fiction and fantasy shows, where the 'save the day' type answer, doesn't always come quickly to the straight up logical and factual characters like Spock (Star Trek) pretty much most of the town of Eureka(Eureka) Sheldon, Howard, Leonard, and Raj (Big Bang Theory), and that sometimes intuition and instinct, hunches, and such seems to add into that to help or even solely save the day. Like from the characters of these shows who end up adding to that mix, but does not meet the level of the other characters. McCoy and Kirk (Star Trek) Sheriff Carter (Eureka) Penny (Big Bang Theory) 

I myself, add both into the mix in my life, and it helps me a lot. 

The thing is, I don't see this as entirely objective, and there will be those who will see differently, and on times, come to successful conclusions at this. I have seen this, by observations through out my life. 

55 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I believe I expressed myself sufficiently here, so we'll just agree to disagree.

Although in order to not come off as dismissive of your point, I am well aware that this can often times be viewed very negatively, as many interpret it to mean that God plans for us to suffer and therefore it is in a sense 'God's fault' for why a little girl gets raped or a family gets murdered, etc. How could the holocaust be part of God's plan? And if it is, then wouldn't he/she/it in God's divine power be responsible for it if indeed he planned such an atrocity? Those a very valid objections to this. However, I think these objections operate under multiple assumptions, mainly that God is ultimately a separate entity from ourselves. This is where it's vitally important that we define what exactly 'God' is. Otherwise we may be disproving a God that doesn't exist while ignoring the God that does.

Well, yes, we could agree to disagree.      

Or, this could be seen, as something a lot more complicated to put into clear defining words. It also could be added on, there is probably a lot that you and I don't know, that would make it more complicated to just say in a post. 

As I have said before, a lot of the times, the pointing out of why God exists and doesn't intervene in a world full of pain, is their reasoning to not believe. Not to question God himself. If God is said to be caring, and he doesn't intervene when there is suffering, therefor one could conclude that he must not exist. For I think, it is easy to see a caring God to actually want and will intervene to eliminate pain and suffering. To sum that up, it's not questioning God why he ignores us, it's justification that he doesn't exist, because of seeing no evidence. 

I can maybe understand some asking, 'who are we to question God?', but, I also understand others in seeing there is no way he can exist for one to even question him. 

I can see how some cannot fathom that he doesn't exist, but I feel they should realize, that others who just do not believe, are not denying the existence of God, but seeing the reasoning of the lack of existence of God. I feel strongly, one cannot deny a belief. I feel, that you can deny the existence, if there is no evidence of it. So, if there are 'justifications' from some who feel there is a reason that God does exist and lacks interference in a pain and suffering filled world, OK, and I can understand they feel that way. But, I feel this is placed under the subjective outlook, and not for the objective outlook. 

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

I'd say I arrived at this conclusion due to a more open-minded approach to God, namely the acceptance of a more eastern pantheistic concept of everything is God. This isn't to say that I completely reject the notion of a more westernized view of God. Rather, I personally find that both eastern and western philosophies could in a sense both be simultaneously true at the same time. I believe they complement each other rather than contradict

Ahhhh!   I see.   You have had the experience of exploring more outlooks and background in various beliefs and religions, and that is how you came by it in your point of view. I find that is cool, and see how you have come to this conclusion. Like I said, this is the first time I have seen someone thinking this type of thought. I think it is actually refreshing too. 

1 hour ago, Aquila King said:

It would be inevitably true that if God is strictly a separate entity from ourselves and is truly omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent, then silence and inactivity in the face of this evil would undoubtedly be impossible because it would be contradictory to God's supposed nature. Of course there are those who argue otherwise (mainly the religious), but this is the inevitable result.

Well as you said, that is how I look at it.  I apologize for not responding formally before. I truly was rather busy with regular life stuff. I hope this response satisfies.

No, it's cool. And, I thank you on the more in depth response.     And your last part of your post, seems to come to a particular conclusion I mentioned in my post here. 

I thank you for a very reflective nature of your point of view and to looking at mine open minded like.   I think, in the end, as we as your op is questioning the motive of God and his intention of his existence, I think we learn other things, in how you, and I, and probably others see things and learn a little more about it. 

Frankly, I think us both still have a different outlook on the answer, (which is understandable and ok  ) but, I wonder if this is the first time the motive of God and how he is being seen. 

[Aquila King]

37 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

The main thing I'm feeling within this part of your post, is confusion. I'm not sure how you are guiding your point here. Anyways, I can see how it can be a wish to be viewed into a scientific question, because thus looking at it that way, so one can get their proof to prove God, scientifically. 

Although, I am wondering if you are understanding what I'm trying to say, when I see the wish to prove God, came from attempts at converting the non-believers. I'm saying, it's not the wish of the ones, who are trying to prove God to get converts, or that it is really a wish from the non-believers to have them be converted. I feel strongly, it was a point, and justification that was brought up to show reasoning why non-believers feel they cannot honestly convert. In a sense, the asking for proof, seems to me, to be a by-product of dismissal of proselytizers. I feel, if I can put myself in place of the non-believers, it was probably thought that by reason of that asking for proof, they didn't think there was going to be an answer and thought that was going to be it, and then everyone can move on. 

Yes, I agree with you, it can be seen in a scientific sense, because when asked for proof, it would have to be scientifically, so the non-believers would then believe. Right? But, the kicker here I feel, is that it was probably believed, there wasn't going to be a scientific answer to that, and thus non-believers were going to have their reasoning to not convert, and again, for everyone to move on. 

Maybe you did understand my point, and I'm misunderstanding that you got my point, and I'm reading this wrong on first reading. *shrugs*  

I actually agree with you whole heartedly in regards to the italicized above. ^

I think the confusion came from the fact that you were speaking from the perspective of origins of the intention to prove, whereas I was speaking from the perspective of the epistemological nature of how to prove. In other words, I was saying that if someone had the intention to go about proving God, it should be approached scientifically (at least to a degree) as it is a truth claim about the nature of reality. Where as you were explaining the origins of people's intentions to prove God, and the reasons why people have this intent in the first place.

I believe I understood what you were saying, we were both just speaking in different directions.  It's kinda my fault for going slightly off on a tangent. Sorry 'bout that.

38 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

You know something, believe it or not, I agree with you whole heartily here!!!   That is how I would see it too.   In fact, this often comes up in various science fiction and fantasy shows, where the 'save the day' type answer, doesn't always come quickly to the straight up logical and factual characters like Spock (Star Trek) pretty much most of the town of Eureka(Eureka) Sheldon, Howard, Leonard, and Raj (Big Bang Theory), and that sometimes intuition and instinct, hunches, and such seems to add into that to help or even solely save the day. Like from the characters of these shows who end up adding to that mix, but does not meet the level of the other characters. McCoy and Kirk (Star Trek) Sheriff Carter (Eureka) Penny (Big Bang Theory) 

I myself, add both into the mix in my life, and it helps me a lot. 

The thing is, I don't see this as entirely objective, and there will be those who will see differently, and on times, come to successful conclusions at this. I have seen this, by observations through out my life. 

I'm glad we could agree on that!  This always seems to be a strong point of disagreement with some people, so it's refreshing to know I'm not alone in that way of thinking.

I try to live my life in a state of balance. I think that's a general goal to strive towards in almost everything.

39 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Well, yes, we could agree to disagree.      

Or, this could be seen, as something a lot more complicated to put into clear defining words. It also could be added on, there is probably a lot that you and I don't know, that would make it more complicated to just say in a post. 

As I have said before, a lot of the times, the pointing out of why God exists and doesn't intervene in a world full of pain, is their reasoning to not believe. Not to question God himself. If God is said to be caring, and he doesn't intervene when there is suffering, therefor one could conclude that he must not exist. For I think, it is easy to see a caring God to actually want and will intervene to eliminate pain and suffering. To sum that up, it's not questioning God why he ignores us, it's justification that he doesn't exist, because of seeing no evidence. 

I can maybe understand some asking, 'who are we to question God?', but, I also understand others in seeing there is no way he can exist for one to even question him. 

I can see how some cannot fathom that he doesn't exist, but I feel they should realize, that others who just do not believe, are not denying the existence of God, but seeing the reasoning of the lack of existence of God. I feel strongly, one cannot deny a belief. I feel, that you can deny the existence, if there is no evidence of it. So, if there are 'justifications' from some who feel there is a reason that God does exist and lacks interference in a pain and suffering filled world, OK, and I can understand they feel that way. But, I feel this is placed under the subjective outlook, and not for the objective outlook. 

Yes, God's apparent silence as well as the mere existence of evil in this world would definitely lend credence to the belief that God does not exist. I merely suggest that under certain specific possibilities regarding the nature of God (a.k.a., defining exactly what 'God' is and how 'God' operates), it is possible for God's silence and the existence of evil to be congruent with his existence rather than contradictory. There are too many dogmatic assumptions made about the nature of God (mostly by the religious) that if strictly adhered to would cause confusion towards topics such as evil and suffering.

I've always found the question 'who are we to question God' to be a lazy excuse not to question him, or on a darker note, a lie taught by the church in order to maintain control. How will we ever know the answer to anything if we don't question it first? To the people that say that God cannot be understood or even proven, I merely ask 'how do you know?' I find there to be nothing more inherently wrong then to simply not ask questions, or to deny that there even are answers. Or worse, to consider questioning things a mortal sin.

Beliefs are not chosen. If someone were to strap me to a lie detector test, put a gun to my head, and say "believe in Santa Clause or I'll shoot!" I can't say for certain that I'll pass. Because I can't just 'choose' to believe in something. I have to be convinced of it first, and then I will subconsciously believe it as a result of convincing. And I find that a sad fact of life, because so many have spent so much time and effort to try and force people to believe certain things (the most commonly forced means of believing being brainwashing and indoctrination from birth) without simply using the most obvious (and frankly humane) way of getting someone to believe something: by convincing them. It seems to me to be a deeply rooted insecurity concerning the so-called factual nature of their arguments.

40 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Ahhhh!   I see.   You have had the experience of exploring more outlooks and background in various beliefs and religions, and that is how you came by it in your point of view. I find that is cool, and see how you have come to this conclusion. Like I said, this is the first time I have seen someone thinking this type of thought. I think it is actually refreshing too. 

Thank you.  I actually started out as a fundamentalist Christian, then a staunch atheist, and now I've leveled out a bit along the way.

41 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

No, it's cool. And, I thank you on the more in depth response.     And your last part of your post, seems to come to a particular conclusion I mentioned in my post here. 

I thank you for a very reflective nature of your point of view and to looking at mine open minded like.   I think, in the end, as we as your op is questioning the motive of God and his intention of his existence, I think we learn other things, in how you, and I, and probably others see things and learn a little more about it. 

Frankly, I think us both still have a different outlook on the answer, (which is understandable and ok  ) but, I wonder if this is the first time the motive of God and how he is being seen. 

I like that we're able to openly discuss controversial topics such as these, as well as various viewpoints, without any hateful arguments.  I find it refreshing.

[ellapenella]

On 9/1/2017 at 0:33 PM, Will Due said:

Think of the Urantia Book this way.

There have been rare occasions in our religious history when actual contact from above, on High if you will, was occasioned here on our world. Usually, achieved with the advent and physical presence of a superhuman personality, a Son of God.

The third time this happened, it was done through Melkizedek. He delivered the epochal revelation of God in those days to Abraham, who he recruited and trained to prepare the way, to spread the word that soon, very soon, another Son of God would be appearing to deliver a new and even greater revelation of God, which would be the fourth time epochal revelation would occur in our world and was accomplished through the life and teachings of the incarnate executive ruler and Creator of this very universe we live in, Jesus of Nazareth. 

Now today, for the fifth time, epochal revelation has appeared, but this time its physical manifestation is accomplished through a book, which purportedly has never occured on any other world in our local universe except ours.

This new revelation delivered to us in modern times is the greatest of all so far, because it includes a definitive outline of all the previous four epochal revelations, their history and how they have influenced and are a major part of all the monotheistic religions that have evolved down from ancient times until today.

So in that sense, yeah, the UB supports all the essential truths contained in the Bible as well as all the other ancient texts of the world's main religions.

But in my opinion, the main thing that the UB does is to re-state the epochal revelation that is Jesus, for a very important reason:

 

To "follow Jesus" means to personally share his religious faith and to enter into the spirit of the Master's life of unselfish service for man. One of the most important things in human living is to find out what Jesus believed, to discover his ideals, and to strive for the achievement of his exalted life purpose. 

Of all human knowledge, that which is of greatest value is to know the religious life of Jesus and how he lived it. 

 

 

But , to follow Jesus is not to personally share  his religious faith for he alone is the only way, there is no other.

[Will Due]

Of all the things I'm certain about religiously, the thing at the top of the list is that in following Jesus, I most definitely do share his religious faith, the very same way, that God is my Father and I am his son. 

Nothing will ever change this fact.

 

8 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

But , to follow Jesus is not to personally share  his religious faith for he alone is the only way, there is no other.

Please explain more what you're saying.

 

 

[ellapenella]

33 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Of all the things I'm certain about religiously, the thing at the top of the list is that in following Jesus, I most definitely do share his religious faith, the very same way, that God is my Father and I am his son. 

Nothing will ever change this fact.

 

Please explain more what you're saying.

 

 

Okay, I'll try.

I don't understand Jesus as being religious,it's so much more than that, religion was after original sin, right?  I understand Jesus as like, for example, in the book of Revelation chapter 22, are you familiar with it?

eta

the chapter

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22&version=KJV

Edited September 12, 2017 by Ellapennella

[Will Due]

5 minutes ago, Ellapennella said:

Okay, I'll try.

I don't understand Jesus as being religious,it's so much more than that, religion was after original sin, right?  I understand Jesus as like, for example, in the book of Revelation chapter 22, are you familiar with it?

eta

the chapter

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+22&version=KJV

Oh yes, I'm extremely familiar.

Do you fear God? 

 

 

[ellapenella]

14 minutes ago, Will Due said:

Oh yes, I'm extremely familiar.

Do you fear God? 

 

 

I read revelation again last week only it seemed to be more easier to understand this time. It's such a beautiful book & prophecy, it's not all doom & gloom as I once thought it was, I think a lot of people think of it that way.

I only fear sin.

Edited September 12, 2017 by Ellapennella

[Will Due]

1 minute ago, Ellapennella said:

I read revelation again last week only it seemed to be more easier to understand this time. It's such a beautiful book & prophecy, it's not all doom & gloom as I once thought it was, I think a lot of people think of it that way.

I only fear sin.

Well then, you're very close to having full religious liberty. Because sin is in your control totally. 

Sin is to deliberately and knowingly do the wrong thing. 

You can not do this if you decide to.

Nobody has to die. Just stop doing the wrong thing knowingly.

You don't fear that you can't or won't sin do you?

Somebody else's sin is their problem.

 

 

[ellapenella]

Just now, Will Due said:

Well then, you're very close to having full religious liberty. Because sin is in your control totally. 

Sin is to deliberately and knowingly do the wrong thing. 

You can not do this if you decide to.

Nobody has to die. Just stop doing the wrong thing knowingly.

You don't fear that you can't or won't sin do you?

Somebody else's sin is their problem.

 

 

I am not without sin, ever, I don't know anyone who is, it's why Jesus is the center of everything and the only way.

[ellapenella]

It all goes back to the beginning.