@blinking spirit: I came in today to think I'd been double-crossed by your inconsistency. I left here last time to think I'd leave a message of God in the hearts of others and instead I find I'd been ignored by you; I also find that you'd been fighting ever so rudely to these Christians; I find the words that you speak make a sense only to yourself and not to people Christian, I also think you're being obtuse in these makings of an argument; it seems this is from being in this website solong. I ask for forgiveness in restitution, I also pray I obtain it, I pray I get answered. Amen.
Oookay.
Firstly, restitution is material compensation for wrongdoing. Asking for "forgiveness in restitution" means you're offering me money.
What are you even trying to say here? That the Bible is inconsistent? Well, given that it was physically written by people who may have had different interpretations of the words they were given by God,
Or may have believed completely different things as other people who wrote the writings.
@blinking spirit: I came in today to think I'd been double-crossed by your inconsistency. I left here last time to think I'd leave a message of God in the hearts of others and instead I find I'd been ignored by you; I also find that you'd been fighting ever so rudely to these Christians; I find the words that you speak make a sense only to yourself and not to people Christian, I also think you're being obtuse in these makings of an argument; it seems this is from being in this website solong. I ask for forgiveness in restitution, I also pray I obtain it, I pray I get answered. Amen.
Pray, I went back and looked myself. You never addressed Blinking Spirit about anything before making this post. You quoted cloudman and Renasce and made some general statements; but, nothing about, to, or at Blinking Spirit. So, my only guess would be this is an alternate account and you're getting your two accounts confused.
Regardless, on a different note (and generally speaking), if you're going to complain about someone else's clarity, you should probably be clear yourself. You're not being clear, but are being cryptic. I don't know a religion that smiles on hypocrisy.
But-the bottom line is- no one seems to understand what you are saying or referring to. Regardless of who or what is to blame for that misunderstanding, a good teacher will attempt to rephrase the lesson when it's not resonating with the students. My suggestion would be to restate what you're saying. Start from the beginning, as you seem to be coming in halfway into something.
Pretend we are blank slates with regards to this issue; explain it to us without "the words that you speak make a sense only to yourself."
disclaimer, I am mormon, so I'm not sure how that has colored my thinking.
I don't believe heaven is being one with anything, heaven is instead what I like to call "eternal progression". you are there, with your family, and your friends, and you are continually learning new things until eventually you can create your own universe and your own children and bring them to the same level of happiness that you are in.
on the subject of asking forgiveness rather than the bike, this is how I feel it works: I ask for a bike, God will give me opportunities to earn that bike. If I pray for family unity, he isn't going to just say "o.k, your all in synch now." He will give you opportunities to build that unity. After all, we are saved by the grace of god after all that we can do. We try as hard as we can, and then God makes up the rest.
while we do live in a rather crapsack world, that is a very pessimistic view of things. yes, there is death. yes, there is war. but that is nothing new, humans have been killing humans and being cruel to humans for all of history. Instead, focus on the positive. outlook is half of anything. The technological advances in the last few decades alone is incredible.
Another way to look at it is: if you're going to blame God for all of the bad, you have to give him credit for the good as well.
My shift is about to start, so I'll post more when I have time.
. I am Mormon too, and can affirm all that was just said.
Also, as humans, we don't have a clue what is best for us. God knows all, and what might not make sense to you now, will make sense in a few eternities.
[quote from="Walker Boh »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/religion/565437-a-debate-with-christians-what-makes-you-think-god?comment=2"][quote]Another way to look at it is: if you're going to blame God for all of the bad, you have to give him credit for the good as well.
No, that's absurd.
Let's take a look at a playground with an adult supervisor. Some kids are playing nicely. Some kids have tied up another kid and are beating and kicking her, and she's screaming for help. The adult supervisor is watching impassively, maybe thinking to herself "Man, after recess is over I'm going to punish those bullies - unless they apologize to me before recess is over".
Some kids are being good on their own, some kids are being bad on their own. The supervisor, however, HAS to take responsibility for NOT STOPPING the violence. She has the power to stop it, bu she's not doing so. She absolutely gets blamed for the torment continuing. The aggressive kids get blamed to, but she gets the blame for not stopping it. The bad events *are* her fault for continuing to let them occur. And if she said, "well, I also didn't stop the good stuff from happening - so I should get equal credit for that" you'd have to question her sanity.
The Epicurean Riddle
The Greek philosopher Epicurus posed an argument against the existence of God (which was also cited by David Hume). It is as follows:
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
God gives us trials. "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" If there is no evil, there can be no good. For example, if you ate a hot dog every day, every meal, you would wish for more. If your life is perfect every day, all the time, you wouldn't be able to be grateful for it. Its like mama from heaven to reference the bible.
So, I believe there's a God, but one that cares nothing about us.
I may have missed your point, and if so I apologize, but -- as a father of two (soon to be three), there are *many* times where I do not give my kids what they want, but instead I give them what they need. That doesn't mean I don't love them, it in fact means the opposite. I Love them enough to be willing to put their best interest before my own desire to make them happy in the short term.
I would love nothing more than for my kids to always be smiling and happy. But, giving them candy for dinner, and avoiding the temper tantrum now is detrimental in the long run. Even though it will make them upset in the short term.
Another who shares my logic.
Public Mod Note
(Jay13x):
Informal Warning for Spam
And highroller, when u say god is good without evil.. ever heard of Satan?
The myth of Satan is an interesting one that has evolved over time. As we can see from Job, Satan was in older traditions an angel of the Heavenly Host, a sort of prosecutor or accuser to humanity, but nonetheless an angel. The tradition of a fallen angel comes later.
But let's just go with the latter for a bit. What difference does Satan's existence make?
As stated, God is good without any evil. There is, or at least there is supposed to be, zero evil within God. Therefore, the necessity for there to be evil for there to be good is rendered invalid by the mere assertion that God is good and not evil. As Augustine wrote:
On the other hand, the good can exist without evil. For a man or an angel could exist and yet not be wicked
Moreover, God created Satan, right? Therefore, there was a time in which Satan did not exist and God did. Therefore, there was a time in which God existed, and was good, but there were no evil things. Ergo, it cannot be valid that evil must necessarily exist for good.
Moreover, is not the entire point of apocalyptic eschatology that an event will occur in which good and evil do battle and good triumphs? Is not Satan defeated? Will not evil be vanquished and destroyed? So not only do we have a time at the beginning of creation in which there was no evil, but we will have a time in the future in which there is no evil. And in both cases, goodness is asserted to exist regardless of the absence of evil.
Thus, the idea that evil is necessary for good to exist does not hold.
Sorry to intrude on this conversion, I'm jumping in late, and as someone who was not raised in an Abrahamic religion, I may not entirely know what I'm talking about... but, doesn't it strike anyone else as rather petty and arbitrary that God requires people to "accept"/"believe in" him, or else they are damned? Why would he even care? Why does it matter? It just seems kind of arrogant to me, I guess.
No, I'm not saying God wants our gratitude. Im saying we couldn't enjoy life with no trials.
I could go two different ways with this.
I could take the theological approach and ask you whether those who have undergone exaltation will still suffer trials. If they won't, obviously life can be enjoyed without trials, and if they will, then what's the point of exaltation?
Or I could take the empirical approach and ask about the many, many people in the world today who manifestly don't enjoy life because of the suffering brought by their trials. If God is benevolent, he should have given every human being a life filled with just enough trials for them to enjoy it, and no more. For a child dying of a painful cancer, however, the trial is defeating its own alleged purpose. Maybe the occasional skinned knee will give her a better life in the long run, but cancer? Are you willing to argue that the kid would not enjoy her life as much if she were healthy?
And highroller, when u say god is good without evil.. ever heard of Satan?
Satan is not God. Under standard Christian premises, God is purely good and devoid of evil. Satan is a distinct and separable entity. You can imagine removing Satan from the universe and being left with God - God's existence is not dependent on Satan's. Indeed, mainstream Christian belief holds that this was the actual state of affairs at the moment of Creation and before, and it will again be the state of affairs after the end once Satan has been destroyed. I am not aware that Mormons diverge substantially from the mainstream in this regard. So you are going to have to make a concession here. Either (a) God is not purely good; (b) God is dependent on Satan to exist, did not create him and will not defeat him; or (c) it is possible for good to exist without evil.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Sorry to intrude on this conversion, I'm jumping in late, and as someone who was not raised in an Abrahamic religion, I may not entirely know what I'm talking about... but, doesn't it strike anyone else as rather petty and arbitrary that God requires people to "accept"/"believe in" him, or else they are damned? Why would he even care? Why does it matter? It just seems kind of arrogant to me, I guess.
Bingo. (to me not attempting to be mean or anything)Abrahamic religions are so full of logical fallacies and holes that it is impossible to believe them as being true and have any sort of an open mind. Its all gods plan and god loves us yet we suffer and constantly pray for things.(very frivolous things)If I was god and someone prayed to me for something I would smite that ******** because he is questioning the divine plan I have had for ******* centuries because for whatever reason I only care about joe somebody if he is going to my church and spends time on his knees for me instead of actually living. God is all knowing and has a plan all figured out yet you wear seatbelts and look both ways before crossing the road? If you where truly faithful you would jump into a woodchipper and if it was gods plan you would live.
If god does exist and isn't some intangible thing like mother nature it doesn't care about us in the least. It would be like us looking at a microbial mat saying a protozoa is going to hell for eating a bacteria. I think Einstein says it best
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. (Albert Einstein)
This type of belief in god is known as deism and most of the "founding fathers" of the united states were deist.
In life all we can do is try to make things better. Sitting lost in old ways and fearing change only makes us outdated and ignorant.
Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.
Albert Einstein
Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.
This type of belief in god is known as deism and most of the "founding fathers" of the united states were deist.
I would not equate Spinozanism with the deism of Jefferson and Adams. (I would also not so swiftly dismiss the rest of the Founding Fathers who were not expressly deist.) The deists imagined a "watchmaker God", who created the universe then stood back to let it run along according to the laws he set down. For Spinoza, there's some controversy about how to interpret him, but he seems to have instead equated God and the universe: the universe is not a creation of God's, but is God, or exists within God as a part of God. This is called pantheism (all-is-God) or panentheism (all-is-in-God). The watchmaker God exercised his will in designing the universe to achieve his intentions, but the Spinozan God does not have free will, designs, or intentions, instead acting at all times according to his own perfect nature. To the deist, the laws of reality are like a blueprint, but to Spinoza, they're more like a heartbeat. Big difference.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
but, doesn't it strike anyone else as rather petty and arbitrary that God requires people to "accept"/"believe in" him, or else they are damned?
This thought most certainly has struck other people besides you. You are correct, if God damns people who do not believe in him, then God has behaved monstrously.
Indeed, I would personally argue if God damns anyone ever, he has behaved monstrously.
Personally, I believe in the existence of God, but do not believe God damns anyone precisely because of the above.
understand this, you will bible
Or may have believed completely different things as other people who wrote the writings.
Or just made stuff up outright.
Regardless, on a different note (and generally speaking), if you're going to complain about someone else's clarity, you should probably be clear yourself. You're not being clear, but are being cryptic. I don't know a religion that smiles on hypocrisy.
But-the bottom line is- no one seems to understand what you are saying or referring to. Regardless of who or what is to blame for that misunderstanding, a good teacher will attempt to rephrase the lesson when it's not resonating with the students. My suggestion would be to restate what you're saying. Start from the beginning, as you seem to be coming in halfway into something.
Pretend we are blank slates with regards to this issue; explain it to us without "the words that you speak make a sense only to yourself."
No, that's absurd.
Let's take a look at a playground with an adult supervisor. Some kids are playing nicely. Some kids have tied up another kid and are beating and kicking her, and she's screaming for help. The adult supervisor is watching impassively, maybe thinking to herself "Man, after recess is over I'm going to punish those bullies - unless they apologize to me before recess is over".
Some kids are being good on their own, some kids are being bad on their own. The supervisor, however, HAS to take responsibility for NOT STOPPING the violence. She has the power to stop it, bu she's not doing so. She absolutely gets blamed for the torment continuing. The aggressive kids get blamed to, but she gets the blame for not stopping it. The bad events *are* her fault for continuing to let them occur. And if she said, "well, I also didn't stop the good stuff from happening - so I should get equal credit for that" you'd have to question her sanity.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
The Greek philosopher Epicurus posed an argument against the existence of God (which was also cited by David Hume). It is as follows:
If God is willing to prevent evil, but is not able to
Then He is not omnipotent.
If He is able, but not willing
Then He is malevolent.
If He is both able and willing
Then whence cometh evil?
If He is neither able nor willing
Then why call Him God?
Seriph0 on cockatrice
EDH Decks
WBGKaradorWBG
I thought it was supposed to be "I know it" not "I learn it"
Or, to ask the question I'm really getting at, why would anyone be Mormon?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Isn't that precisely what heaven is? Perfect all of the time?
Manna from heaven.
You're thinking of regular heaven. Mormon heaven is way cooler. It's in space and you get to be a god.
But let's just go with the latter for a bit. What difference does Satan's existence make?
As stated, God is good without any evil. There is, or at least there is supposed to be, zero evil within God. Therefore, the necessity for there to be evil for there to be good is rendered invalid by the mere assertion that God is good and not evil. As Augustine wrote:
Moreover, God created Satan, right? Therefore, there was a time in which Satan did not exist and God did. Therefore, there was a time in which God existed, and was good, but there were no evil things. Ergo, it cannot be valid that evil must necessarily exist for good.
Moreover, is not the entire point of apocalyptic eschatology that an event will occur in which good and evil do battle and good triumphs? Is not Satan defeated? Will not evil be vanquished and destroyed? So not only do we have a time at the beginning of creation in which there was no evil, but we will have a time in the future in which there is no evil. And in both cases, goodness is asserted to exist regardless of the absence of evil.
Thus, the idea that evil is necessary for good to exist does not hold.
I could take the theological approach and ask you whether those who have undergone exaltation will still suffer trials. If they won't, obviously life can be enjoyed without trials, and if they will, then what's the point of exaltation?
Or I could take the empirical approach and ask about the many, many people in the world today who manifestly don't enjoy life because of the suffering brought by their trials. If God is benevolent, he should have given every human being a life filled with just enough trials for them to enjoy it, and no more. For a child dying of a painful cancer, however, the trial is defeating its own alleged purpose. Maybe the occasional skinned knee will give her a better life in the long run, but cancer? Are you willing to argue that the kid would not enjoy her life as much if she were healthy?
Satan is not God. Under standard Christian premises, God is purely good and devoid of evil. Satan is a distinct and separable entity. You can imagine removing Satan from the universe and being left with God - God's existence is not dependent on Satan's. Indeed, mainstream Christian belief holds that this was the actual state of affairs at the moment of Creation and before, and it will again be the state of affairs after the end once Satan has been destroyed. I am not aware that Mormons diverge substantially from the mainstream in this regard. So you are going to have to make a concession here. Either (a) God is not purely good; (b) God is dependent on Satan to exist, did not create him and will not defeat him; or (c) it is possible for good to exist without evil.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Bingo. (to me not attempting to be mean or anything)Abrahamic religions are so full of logical fallacies and holes that it is impossible to believe them as being true and have any sort of an open mind. Its all gods plan and god loves us yet we suffer and constantly pray for things.(very frivolous things)If I was god and someone prayed to me for something I would smite that ******** because he is questioning the divine plan I have had for ******* centuries because for whatever reason I only care about joe somebody if he is going to my church and spends time on his knees for me instead of actually living. God is all knowing and has a plan all figured out yet you wear seatbelts and look both ways before crossing the road? If you where truly faithful you would jump into a woodchipper and if it was gods plan you would live.
If god does exist and isn't some intangible thing like mother nature it doesn't care about us in the least. It would be like us looking at a microbial mat saying a protozoa is going to hell for eating a bacteria. I think Einstein says it best This type of belief in god is known as deism and most of the "founding fathers" of the united states were deist.
Albert Einstein
Thomas Jefferson
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Indeed, I would personally argue if God damns anyone ever, he has behaved monstrously.
Personally, I believe in the existence of God, but do not believe God damns anyone precisely because of the above.
As Blinking pointed out, you're ignoring a lot of Congregationalists and Presbyterians in making that statement.