Define God

@Romeo Fabulini,

That's because I'm having a discussion with neo and not you. You can Ignore my posts.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . . Since a "sin" is simply something a human does that offends your god,

Is that your definition of sin, Frank? Have we humans continued not knowing good from bad? Perhaps Jeremiah was correct in saying it does not belong to man to direct even his own step (Jeremiah 10:23)

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . .Neo...why doesn't your god simply stop being offended by so damn much???

If your own child were to commit a serious crime, would you stop loving him? Most of us would continue our love in spite of the pain we might feel. Now you know how God feels about our sins.

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . .We are humans.

Apparently we do things your god does not like.

Tell the god to go play with the other perfect beings and leave us the hell alone.

You tell Him, Frank. I think He will just continue to try to straighten us out.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

. . . Such respect for what he created is conflicted by how he treats us. It's like our congress of today; he doesn't give a damn. Disease, poverty, starvation, wars, natural disasters, rape, molestations of children, and the list goes on. Where's the love of man? The sufferings doesn't equate to "love."

I know this hard take hold of. For centuries, righteous men have felt as did Habakkuk: "How long, O Jehovah, must I cry for help, and you do not hear? [How long] shall I call to you for aid from violence, and you do not save? 3 Why is it that you make me see what is hurtful, and you keep looking upon mere trouble? And [why] are despoiling and violence in front of me, and [why] does quarreling occur, and [why] is strife carried? 4 Therefore law grows numb, and justice never goes forth. Because the wicked one is surrounding the righteous one, for that reason justice goes forth crooked." (Habakkuk 1:2-4)

Habakkuk was well aware of God's promise to make things right, a promise stated and restated as far back as Genesis 3:15, yet he wrote the above in his despair. What we must keep in mind is we are not in control of God's timepiece. There is a reason God has endured so long. One question we must ask ourselves is "are we willing to learn the reason?"

2 Replies

@neologist,

Why god endured so long is not a logical answer; the human suffering could be ended now. More human suffering doesn't equate to love; more births isn't based on god's love.

1 Reply

Cicerone Imposter wrote:

Quote:

That's because I'm having a discussion with neo and not you. You can Ignore my posts

But mate you've made 86,000 posts, so you should have learnt enough by now, it should be YOU teaching HIM, not the other way round!
Anyway he's a Jehovah's Witness so all you'll get from him is the usual JW junk.. Wink

2 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

neo and I go back many years - and I have the same discussions with my siblings after "all these years."

I'm not sure why you need to criticize the continuation of our discussion. I know that my siblings will continue to pray for me, and make attempts to "return me to god." It's all part and parcel of being alive.

0 Replies

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

... your god, Neo...

Where do you know from that God belongs to Neo?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

Why god endured so long is not a logical answer; the human suffering could be ended now.

Do you mean why God has endured so long is not a logical question?

cicerone imposter wrote:

More human suffering doesn't equate to love; more births isn't based on god's love.

Think for a moment about the big picture. Even if you accept it only as allegory. Adam and Eve were promised the opportunity to live forever. Had they not sinned, they would still be here and we would not have war and crime and sickness and death. Do you think their error caused God to change his mind? Not hardly. Beginning with God's statement in Genesis 3:15, He promised to set things straight. The entire Bible is a document relating to God's purpose which includes giving all who never knew him the chance to live again and learn his ways. (See John 5:28)

Suppose a person from the past lived a life of hardship and died an excruciating death. In the future, he will live again. After 3 or 4 hundred years of comfortable life among the family and friends he had always known, would he curse God for the pain he no longer remembers, or thank Him for what he has?

I know I have not addressed the reasons why it has taken so long. As far as I am concerned, God can act today. But, If he had acted just a few months ago, I would not have been able to help my friend Joe to save himself. (Not Joe Sixpack, BTW, another Joe) That is one reason right there.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
... your god, Neo...

Where do you know from that God belongs to Neo?

To be correct, it is I who belongs to God. (I hope)

0 Replies

@edgarblythe,

Thanks for the musical interlude, Edgar. We are dating ourselves, you know

0 Replies

@Romeo Fabulini,

CI wrote:

That's because I'm having a discussion with neo and not you. You can Ignore my posts

Romeo Fabulini wrote:

But mate you've made 86,000 posts, so you should have learnt enough by now, it should be YOU teaching HIM, not the other way round!
Anyway he's a Jehovah's Witness so all you'll get from him is the usual JW junk..

Thanks for reminding CI that JWs have a message that does not vary regardless of the language in which it is spoken. BTW, we now reach folks in over 500 languages, far more than any other religious group.

And don't think I never learn from CI. You, unfortunately, never learn from anybody.

0 Replies

@neologist,

cicerone imposter wrote:

. . . Where's the love of man?

neologist wrote:

"How long, O Jehovah, must I cry for help, and you do not hear?

Why so often people imagine God as some nanny who is 'obliged' to provide care services upon call? How does that happen ... so often?
IMV all these come from the misinterpretation of God and the misinterpretation of the message of the Cross ... and the misinterpretation of the visions of the prophets.
We simply don't understand the whole psychotronic theatre that has been going on from 50 B.C. - 20 A.D. Who how and why organised all this? Was this some kind of a muppet show ... directed by God or what? Who is God ... or even maybe who are they?
What is the message? If we organise our life on the grounds of Love Justice and Mercy (whatever this might mean) we will achieve our Salvation (whatever this might mean). Salvation from what? What is the message?
It is obvious that we are not going to Hell after death (Venus or s.th.) as a punishment for cheating investors at the stock exchange during lifetime. If we have done this we will go to hell right here, down on the Earth and sooner than expected ... because of the wasted time, opportunities ... money and resources.

1 Reply

@Herald,

cicerone imposter wrote:

. . . Where's the love of man?

neologist wrote:

"How long, O Jehovah, must I cry for help, and you do not hear?

Actually, that was Habakkuk, not me. I was simply relating.

Herald wrote:

Why so often people imagine God as some nanny who is 'obliged' to provide care services upon call? How does that happen ... so often?

Who does that? I don't believe I recommended it.

Herald wrote:

IMV all these come from the misinterpretation of God and the misinterpretation of the message of the Cross ... and the misinterpretation of the visions of the prophets.
We simply don't understand the whole psychotronic theatre that has been going on from 50 B.C. - 20 A.D. Who how and why organised all this? Was this some kind of a muppet show ... directed by God or what? Who is God ... or even maybe who are they?
What is the message? If we organise our life on the grounds of Love Justice and Mercy (whatever this might mean) we will achieve our Salvation (whatever this might mean). Salvation from what? What is the message?
It is obvious that we are not going to Hell after death (Venus or s.th.) as a punishment for cheating investors at the stock exchange during lifetime. If we have done this we will go to hell right here, down on the Earth and sooner than expected ... because of the wasted time, opportunities ... money and resources.

OK, now I'm beginning to wonder what is your message?

0 Replies

@neologist,

neologist wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
. . . Since a "sin" is simply something a human does that offends your god,
Is that your definition of sin, Frank? Have we humans continued not knowing good from bad? Perhaps Jeremiah was correct in saying it does not belong to man to direct even his own step (Jeremiah 10:23)

Are you saying there are sins that are not "something that offends your god?"

If so...what are they?

Frank Apisa wrote:

. . .Neo...why doesn't your god simply stop being offended by so damn much???

If your own child were to commit a serious crime, would you stop loving him? Most of us would continue our love in spite of the pain we might feel. Now you know how God feels about our sins.[/quote]

But we are not talking about "serious crimes."

We are talking about what offends your god.

Transfusing blood, for instance.

Why doesn't your god simply stop being offended by that?

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
. . .We are humans.

Apparently we do things your god does not like.

Tell the god to go play with the other perfect beings and leave us the hell alone.

You tell Him, Frank. I think He will just continue to try to straighten us out.

Okay.

Hey...Neo's god...why don't you go somewhere else and let us decide what is right and wrong. You wanna help us...

...DON'T HELP.

0 Replies

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
... your god, Neo...

Where do you know from that God belongs to Neo?

Can you translate that sentence for me, Herald?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Can you translate that sentence for me, Herald

By 'sentence' you most probably mean your sentence (not my question to it, for in this case it would be: '... that question for me').
By '... your God, Neo ...' you implicitely state that:
1. God is problem only to the believers, and the non-believers are released of this issue.
2. We can inhume lightly things that have plastered the minds of so many people for so many years without making even a convincingly plausible interpretation of the case and investigating it to the end.
3. If by 'your' you don't mean exactly of you(r beliefs), but rather 'much talked of, well known, familiar' God may really be much talked of, but we could hardly claim that He is well known (as feasible and plausible interpretation, having passed successfully the verification and validation tests) ... let alone 'familiar'.
Hence, IMV '... your God, Neo ...' is not only disrespectful (to the seriousness of the event and the problem embedded in it), but also does not reflect the actual standing of the things.

2 Replies

@Herald,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Can you translate that sentence for me, Herald

Herald wrote:

By 'sentence' you most probably mean your sentence (not my question to it, for in this case it would be: '... that question for me').

Not really. He was asking about your inscrutable answer.

Herald wrote:

By '... your God, Neo ...' you implicitely state that:
1. God is problem only to the believers, and the non-believers are released of this issue.
2. We can inhume lightly things that have plastered the minds of so many people for so many years without making even a convincingly plausible interpretation of the case and investigating it to the end.. . .

Let stop right there; inhume points #1. and #2.; throw away the shovel, and sod over the grave. No headstone; never to be exhumed, lest we become dizzy in the circumlocutions and inhume ourselves.

1 Reply

@Herald,

Herald wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Can you translate that sentence for me, Herald

By 'sentence' you most probably mean your sentence (not my question to it, for in this case it would be: '... that question for me').
By '... your God, Neo ...' you implicitely state that:
1. God is problem only to the believers, and the non-believers are released of this issue.
2. We can inhume lightly things that have plastered the minds of so many people for so many years without making even a convincingly plausible interpretation of the case and investigating it to the end.
3. If by 'your' you don't mean exactly of you(r beliefs), but rather 'much talked of, well known, familiar' God may really be much talked of, but we could hardly claim that He is well known (as feasible and plausible interpretation, having passed successfully the verification and validation tests) ... let alone 'familiar'.
Hence, IMV '... your God, Neo ...' is not only disrespectful (to the seriousness of the event and the problem embedded in it), but also does not reflect the actual standing of the things.

Can you translate this translation?

Would you do so?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Be careful what you ask for, Frank. Drunk

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know