Difference between God and Heavenly Father

Virtuosity, goodness, kindness are relative to the organism. For instance Porky might consider us the most evil creature on Earth (which indeed we are), intelligence a vice, hanging him up by his back feet and then cutting his throat so he bleeds to death before slaughtering and eating him

'God and 'Heavenly Father' are titles. The true God has a name which can be found as Psalms 83:18 in the King James Bible, although it has been redacted from other Bibles. In fact, it has been removed from many Bibles, even though it appears thousands of times in the original texts. Causes one to wonder. . . .

Who is the subjective: ". . . who don't have to be . . . " and "higher entity who is sought . . . " Whom is the objective. A good way to remember is to use who where you would use he, and to use whom where you would use him.

Sacrilege mr Neo sir! That name is too sacred to be spoken. It should be buried and removed from all the history books, never to be spoken again.

>.>

Many religious leaders, from Jewish scribes to modern translators and ecclesiastics, have believed and still believe the same. This is, of course, contrary to Jesus' teaching. . . Wonder why? . . .

Here's one for you.

After Jesus spent his time in the wilderness The devil approached him and offered him all the kingdoms of the earth, which was a clever plan, as with Gods own son as his accomplice and figurehead of his regime, he would be able to divert worship from YHWH, aka Jehovah and no one would know the wiser.

Jesus turned him down

Is it possible that Satan is going ahead with the plan anyway?

Delusion knows no bounds.

from your perspective Set, I understand it appears that way

So long as you cannot demonstrate to a certainty that there is a god or a satan, then delusion is the only appropriate name for it. What's sillier, though, is to claim that you god is omnipotent, and yet that the so-called satan can prevail in producing "evil" in the world. Either your god, then, is not omnipotent, or is sufficiently capricious and arbitrary as to inflict cruelty on mankind for a petty point of order. You folks really don't think these things through.

I respect your argument as it makes sense from your point of view. I will try to address it from mine.

Your first scenario, an omnipotent God is not so much what I believe, as I only believe in a God that is more powerful than I. My definition of the word evil is a little different to some but material to the discussion. Evil is neither a force nor a power no more than darkness is, which is a relative term defined by a lack of light, rather, evil is the name given to a lack of righteousness. Without Gods direction of right and wrong "evil" is basically intrinsic with mans rule.

As for the Devil, his MO and policy drive is godlessness, a world where every man can live his own way, in the beginning man wanted to decide for himself the difference between right and wrong, so yes, God allowed man who made a choice to rule himself to the point of suffering so that the question of mans need for direction would not need to be raised again. All the while keeping a restoration project in mind for some date in the future.

In this world, no matter how powerful you are, it is considered unjust and an abuse of power to destroy any opposition without first allowing it to prove its position folly.

The question is does God have the right to rule. By not ruling, he is allowing the scenario to play out in a just way, so that following this period it never needs to be asked again.

You will consider me a nut, I do understand your perspective but Im not crazy, my mother had me tested.

You assume, of course, that there can be no understanding of right or wrong without your "god." This is like that nasty garden of eden fairy tale, where your god suckers the two humans. This is another example of not having thought through the implications of your argument--and this can be seen without going into the really nasty **** your god is according to the so-called old testament. By your standard, even if a n0n-theistic human governor or government did exactly what you claim your god would require of a government directed by him (her/it), they will still be intrinsically evil. That is nonsense. One does not judge others (if one has an ounce of sense) by their philosophical or religious affiliations, but by their actions. Many truly bad rulers have professed themselves to be christian, and have been accpeted as such by their own world. We get back to a conundrum which i have never known theists to be willing to address. Want of religion never made a good man bad, and the profession of religion never made a bad man good. If the theists respond at all, they fall back to that feeble claim that if someone is bad, then they are not a "true" __________ (fill in the blank).

Do you suggest that there were no moral men and women until someone thought up the idea of god? What about the concept of "a false god?" Are the adherents of such a false god immoral, or amoral? This is what your god has to say on the subject of false gods:

You shall have no other gods before me.

You shall not make for yourself a carved image or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above or that is on the earth beneath or that is in the water below. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, responding to the transgression of fathers by dealing with children to the third and fourth generations of those who reject me, and showing covenant faithfulness to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.

Leaving aside the inferential possibility that your god may not be the only god, this is a portrait of a capricious, arbitrary and vengefully cruel god. Your god is OK with dashing out the brains of children against rocks. Your god is OK with killing all the men among your enemies and enslaving the women and children. Your god was willing to order Abraham to kill his son just to prove a point of order. Your god was OK with Lot pushing his daughter into the street to distract the crowd. Your god was OK with Lot screwing his daughters because his wife had a single regret and was turned into a pillar of salt (what a bizarre old tyrant!).

There are more than a billion of you goofy christians out there. Which version of god is the true version? Are the other 999,999,999 true believers in fact laboring under delusions, and therefore immoral or amoral? Once again, you jokers don't think these things through. This is not about being a nut, this is about muddled thinking. If a child does not understand the world, if a child has an imaginary friend, or believes in the monster under the bed, a decent parent doesn't punish them for it.

As a heavenly father, your god is a prime candidate for a restraining order.

By the way, if your god is not omnipotent (what a sad attempt to weasel), who or what created the cosmos?

How can you say no one would be the wiser? Certainly Jehovah would know. Presumably, the angels. And if, in fact, Jesus' purpose included a propitiatory sacrifice for our sins, mankind would have lost all hope. He still has control over the kingdoms he offered to Jesus. Jehovah promised him a head bruise in Genesis 3:15, so he will probably continue until that time.

Whether you wish it or not, we have now entered into the subject of free will, a thing you have not thought through.

Thousands of years certainly seems like a long time for a court case; but we don't keep the clock. True. Satan did not question Jehovah's power, only his truthfulness and right of sovereignty.

You guys should be more careful in your on-line arguing. These threads are read by impressionable young minds who might take you at your word,actually take you seriously and think that you are speaking of an actual situation that is somehow "real." These young minds don't understand the concepts of allegory, myth and personification. Watch your steps, dudes and dudettes.

The world is full of good people; I believe a majority. I have pointed this out to you before:
(Romans 2:13-15) . . . "For the hearers of law are not the ones righteous before God, but the doers of law will be declared righteous. 14 For whenever people of the nations that do not have law do by nature the things of the law, these people, although not having law, are a law to themselves. 15 They are the very ones who demonstrate the matter of the law to be written in their hearts,. . ." (That's conscience, BTW)Considering your rejection of any Bible accounts, it has always been slightly amusing to me that you use those accounts to impeach the Bible. For a change, I invite you to consider the reasoning of one who not only believes the accounts but also has considered the explanations.

That's why I'm here; to keep it all reasonable.

His son, actually.