How to know the true God

@cicerone imposter,

Apparently, when it comes to the god's wrath, not even babies are safe.

@Glennn,

Quote:

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please

Glennn wrote:

This does not address the point concerning your belief that the god will not interfere with our free will choices. That's why I reminded you of the flood and the parting of the Red Sea, which were both an interference in the free will choices of humankind.

How was this an interference?

I wrote:

Actually, you are the one presuming the thoughts and personality of God.

Glennn wrote:

No. Don't you recall making up the story about the god having the ability to know what's going to happen, but not being obligated to do so in the interest of not interfering with our free will choices? I asked you to provide a reference for that supposition of yours, and you failed to do so?

I showed you a reference showing that humans have choice. You are apparently unable to comprehend that foreknowledge nullifies free will.

I wrote:

You have inserted your own thinking here.

Glennn wrote:

Wrong again. I correctly pointed out your failure to view the god's decision to wipe out humans in a fit of rage as a blatant interference with the free will choices of those humans. So, my thinking is based on the contents of the book.

Explain where fit of rage was involved.

You apparently think that free will allows license without consequence.
I understand.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"the idea that man could offend God is like saying an ant a thousand miles away could offend me when it does something wrong."

This is another example of inconsistent reasoning. The god was definitely offended by humans. That was the reason for the flood. So, your statement is patently false.

Only if you assume that offense was his primary motivation. To me it looks more like a strategic move. He was concerned that his most promising people (few as they were at the time) would be consumed by the malignant society around them. Rather than let that happen, he wiped out the society and preserved the few.

It was love for the few, not offense at the many.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

Re: cicerone imposter (Post 6138683)
Apparently, when it comes to the god's wrath, not even babies are safe.

It's called the cycle of life. Not every Lion cub born in the wild lives to adulthood. As a matter a fact, if you look around, you can see the cycle of life everywhere, in just about everything. So why must death automatically be the Creators fault or doing?

0 Replies

@neologist,

Quote:

I showed you a reference showing that humans have choice. You are apparently unable to comprehend that foreknowledge nullifies free will.

No, you are once again assigning to the god its parameters and limitations when it comes to the matter of time. If the god exists in eternity (always was, and always will be), then you have no idea of the effects of its foreknowledge on its creation. You superimpose your mind onto the mind of the god. And then you accuse others of not being able to comprehend.

Quote:

How was this an interference?

That is a silly question. But I will humor you. Humans were exercising their free will. The god didn't like what they were doing, and so he destroyed them. That was interference in the free will decisions of the humans. Please don't pretend that you cannot see this.

Quote:

You apparently think that free will allows license without consequence.

No. You're not thinking. You're forgetting that you said: This assurance that God will not interfere in our choices is essential to our quality of free will. So, you can now see that the flood was a definite interference in the free will actions of humans. We cannot escape the consequences of our actions as they pertain to our relationship to our fellow man.

Quote:

Explain where fit of rage was involved.

Well, let's see. The god regrets creating humans. So, it decides to screw free will and destroy the bunch of them. Fit of rage? Yes. But since the god was the clay master, it was basically lashing out at itself.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

He was concerned that his most promising people (few as they were at the time) would be consumed by the malignant society around them.

It looks more like the story of a god that tried its hand at creation, and learned the hard way that it just wasn't up to the challenge. It looks like the clay master blamed the clay.

Quote:

Rather than let that happen, he wiped out the society and preserved the few.

And now we have the results of its angry interference.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Sorry.
Free will comes with limits and consequences.
You can't ignore moral imperatives any more than you can thumb your nose at the law of gravity.

1 Reply

@neologist,

Quote:

Free will comes with limits and consequences.

Yes, I've already stated as much. Remember me saying that we cannot escape the consequences of our actions as they pertain to our relationship to our fellow man? However, we're not discussing the consequences of our choices as they pertain to our relationship to our fellow man. We're talking about your statement: This assurance that God will not interfere in our choices is essential to our quality of free will. So, I hope you can now see that, contrary to this that you have said, the god did indeed interfere with the free will choices of humans when it decided to act on its emotions by killing everything on Earth but a few humans.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

You guys are getting all tangled up in a story written two thousand years ago based on fiction. Geological scientists have already shown that there never was a world flood. So, let's move forward.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

That's a good point. I never did stop to ask them whether or not they believe the story of the flood. But I would think that they would have cleared that up by now if they believed that it didn't happen.

I suppose I should ask them what their stand on that is.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Quote:

It looks more like the story of a god that tried its hand at creation, and learned the hard way that it just wasn't up to the challenge. It looks like the clay master blamed the clay.

That all did not turn out as he had hoped is a consequence of free will, not failure.

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"Rather than let that happen, he wiped out the society and preserved the few."

And now we have the results of its angry interference.

I wouldn't call it that, but apparently it was a success. There was a remnant who went on and made the choices he hoped for.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

That all did not turn out as he had hoped is a consequence of free will, not failure.

What does it say about the god when it grants humans free will, but then decides to destroy them because things didn't go as planned? And what does that make of Neologist's claim that this assurance that God will not interfere in our choices is essential to our quality of free will?

Quote:

I wouldn't call it that, but apparently it was a success.

Really? So, we have unending wars, nuclear pollution, etc., and you call that a success story?

1 Reply

@onevoice,

Shakespeare knew all about the 'void' with his....

"Life is a tale told by an idiot - full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" (Macbeth 5/5)

...and Shakespeare did not even have knowledge of the scale of modern cosmology which underscores the breathtaking insignificance of humanity.

1 Reply

@neologist,

so animals have free will too, could they rightfully claim to have been created in god´s image?
God will not interfere in our choices? The Pope is supposed to be infallible because god assists and enlighten him about important decision or acts. so considering how much the Catholic Church have interfered, changed and controlled kings decisions, wars and conquests all over the world for ages now, it could be said that: all those decisions a Pope made that changed a country´s destiny were God´s will to interfere in our choices as human race?

0 Replies

@fresco,

Life is about perspective. Shakespeare chose that one, and that perspective has influenced the thoughts of many I am sure. It's kinda sad really. How weak-minded humanity is. I mean, let's think about this for a second... Christianity is harped on repeatedly for gathering beliefs from "a book", yet I wonder... Just how many " books" they , the ones harping about Christians, read to form their current perspective on life?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

What does it say about the god when it grants humans free will, but then decides to destroy them because things didn't go as planned? And what does that make of Neologist's claim that this assurance that God will not interfere in our choices is essential to our quality of free will?

Don't confuse free will with the main point of God's plan. You do have free will to choose anything for your own life but that by no means trumps God's purpose. He has always promised destruction if you used free will to take the wrong path. If that threatens the very object of his intent it should not be a surprise if he terminates that threat.

Free will is an important ingredient of his plan but it is not the object of it.

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"I wouldn't call it that, but apparently it was a success."

Really? So, we have unending wars, nuclear pollution, etc., and you call that a success story?

The triumph of good in the very worst of circumstances is the heart and soul of any good success story.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

He has always promised destruction if you used free will to take the wrong path. If that threatens the very object of his intent it should not be a surprise if he terminates that threat.

Taking the wrong path is its own consequence. What you're saying is that the god will terminate any threat to its intent. However, that flies in the face of Neologist's claim that this assurance that God will not interfere in our choices is essential to our quality of free will. So . . .

You are refusing to see the inherent contradiction in the proposition of being granted free will choice as long as it doesn't interfere with the free will choice of another. You are also failing to understand Neologist when he says, "This assurance that the God will not interfere in our choices is essential to our quality of free will."

Quote:

The triumph of good in the very worst of circumstances is the heart and soul of any good success story.

What good comes from wars in which hundreds of thousands of innocent people are murdered?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

After "Good" triumphs ovef "Evil" I wonder what will be its use...
I know that if I lived in a place without challenge risk and problems I would probably be trying to find ways of killing myself out of boredom.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

Leadfoot Quote:
"He has always promised destruction if you used free will to take the wrong path. If that threatens the very object of his intent it should not be a surprise if he terminates that threat."

What you're saying is that the god will terminate any threat to its intent. However, that flies in the face of Neologist's claim that this assurance that God will not interfere in our choices is essential to our quality of free will. So . . .

I will let Neo explain what he means if he cares to but if you are saying that means that free will trumps everything else, I simply disagree with anyone who takes that position.
If the kids want to burn the house down, he won't let free will prevent him from stopping them.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I will let Neo explain what he means if he cares to but if you are saying that means that free will trumps everything else, I simply disagree with anyone who takes that position.
If the kids want to burn the house down, he won't let free will prevent him from stopping them.

You're not listening. When a human exercises their free will to burn down a house, another human will exercise their free will to respond to the arsonist's action. That's not what's being contested here. What's being contested here is the idea that the god will terminate threats to its will (flood) while at the same time not interfering with the free will choices of humans. You're refusing to acknowledge the inherent contradiction in your thinking.

1 Reply

How to know the true God

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know