A God Problem

[Muffled]

Cute......however, going along with the Adam and Eve story as though it were a factual accounting of a real-time event, once Eve and then Adam partook of that forbidden fruit, they did NOT die physically as most readers would presume.
According to the apologists, Adam and Eve suffered "SPIRITUAL" deaths.
Ok, if THAT be the case, how was it possible for God to have communicated with their spirits, if indeed their spirits were DEAD?

I believe then you are saying Adam and Eve are still alive. You have evidence to support that? If they had not eaten the fruit they would still be alive.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

ACEofALLaces said: ↑
"Cute......however, going along with the Adam and Eve story as though it were a factual accounting of a real-time event, once Eve and then Adam partook of that forbidden fruit, they did NOT die physically as most readers would presume.
According to the apologists, Adam and Eve suffered "SPIRITUAL" deaths.
Ok, if THAT be the case, how was it possible for God to have communicated with their spirits, if indeed their spirits were DEAD?"

I believe then you are saying Adam and Eve are still alive. You have evidence to support that? If they had not eaten the fruit they would still be alive.

I take it that you are not all that familiar with the scripture to even make that suggestion.

Ok, just to bring you up to date...the scripture says God told Adam and Eve that they would "die that very day" if they ate the forbidden fruit.

The talking snake told Adam and Eve they would NOT die....which according to scripture was only a HALF lie, in that they did NOT die THAT DAY as God has warned, but rather, they DID die some SEVEN HUNDRED YEARS LATER.

The INFERENCE there, is that if Adam and Eve had NOT eaten the forbidden fruit, that (apparently) they would NOT have died, EVER.

It is a messed-up story, no matter how it is looked at, regardless if the person reading it, is a 'believer', or NOT a 'believer'. However, 'believers' have become conditioned to accept it unquestioned.

The apologists who intervened with their "spiritual deaths" notion, did not make the story any more plausible....they actually make it worse.

 

[night912]

That is right. Logically valid doesn't automatically mean that it is true. Now, tell me WHY my reasoning is not sound. That sounds like a personal opinion of yours, not something you can actually prove. I have been down this road many, many times. Either prove what you assert or do not state it as an assertion, because it is a bald assertion unless you have proof. It is a bald assertion and a personal opinion.

This isn't just my opinion nor is it an assertion. It's not a sound argument because it is circular. Your evidence for the existence of god is contingent on the scripture and the scripture is contingent on the existence of god. Neither have been shown to be true.

I was not being dishonest. I posted only what was pertinent to what I was saying. You implied that because I used circular reasoning my argument cannot be logical, and I just pointed out that a circular argument is often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true.

Yes, you were being dishonest. Even in your reply, you are dishonest. I already said that a logically valid argument doesn't automatically make it a sound argument. And by omitting the part about being sound, you are dishonestly attempting to make it support your claim.

FYI, I am not trying to WIN anything here. I am just trying to have a respectful discussion. Why do some nonbelievers always have to make it about winning?

You just showed that it is you, who making it about winning. And when shown that your argument fails, you are poisoning the well by accusing me of making it about winning. If you're hurt because someone disagree with your belief and show that your argument was fallacious, then I suggest you shouldn't be discussing your belief in a public forum. I am having a respectful discussion. But I will object to the things that I see that are wrong with your argument.

Of course I need evidence to back up any premises I have or any conclusions I have come to. But if it fails to persuade YOU or anyone else, that does not mean it is not evidence. It is evidence to whoever is persuaded by it because it indicates that the belief is true TO THEM.

Giving a circular argument is not providing evidence.

It is the claim of the Messengers that God exists and that they represent God. It is not MY claim.

No. That is your claim as pertaining to this discussion. And it would be a moot point if you are denying that it's your claim.

Their lives, their mission, what they wrote or what was written by others on their behalf, and how their coming impacted civilization as well as the religions that were established is evidence that the Messengers spoke for God, but it is not proof. Evidence is not the same as proof.

Evidence: the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. https://www.google.com/search

Evidence: anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true:
EVIDENCE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

Proof: evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of a statement: https://www.google.com/search

No, it's not evidence that the messengers spoke for god. It's just evidence that the religion exist. There's no evidence showing whether the religion is true or not. And the point is show that it is true.

Nobody can ever prove that the Messengers of God spoke for God; only they know that since they were the only ones who experienced the communication. We can prove that to ourselves by looking at all the evidence but it can never be an established fact, it will always be a belief.

You just contradicted yourself. By saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "nobody can prove it except for themselves, followed by saying , we can prove it ourselves with the evidence," is a contradiction.

I never said I had evidence from my attorney that God cannot and will not betray humans, I said I had evidence that humans can and do betray humans.

Therefore you have no evidence that god cannot and will not betray humans. So it's irrelevant, therefore is dismissed. This is why I wanted to ask your lawyer why you would even bring it up .

Of course not, anything is possible. I did not make an assertion, I shared a belief.

Yes, it's your belief, aka, an assertion .

You did not refute anything I said, because you cannot prove that God thrives on human suffering. Your argument was an argument from ignorance because there is insufficient information to prove the proposition that God thrives on human suffering is true.
Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

I am not arguing that the proposition that “God thrives on human suffering” is false, I just believe that it is false. There is no reason to believe it is true since there is no evidence whatsoever.

Yes, I did refute your argument. I showed that you made an argument from ignorance by showing that your claim is not the only possibility just because you don't have evidence for something else. That's what an argument from ignorance is, and not what you think it is. I suggest that you read the whole article so that you will understand what a particular fallacy is instead of reading parts of it.

And if claim to wanting to have a respectful discussion, then stop being dishonest by lying that you are not arguing for the proposition. We are are engaged in a discussion, so your belief is your argument.

And whether you dislike being called a liar, it's the truth.

 

[Riders]

The New York Times doesn't usually run pieces of interest on the topic of religion, but there was an opinion piece in there today that I felt was worth sharing. It discusses the problems inherent to classical monotheism but also couches it in the philosophical history of the idea by a few well-known thinkers. It provides some interesting and valuable context for those of you who might be perplexed by the logically contradictory one-god as often characterized by followers of various Abrahamic traditions. I'd suggest reading the article in its entirety, but to highlight a paragraph or two:

"Does the idea of a morally perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing God make sense? Does it hold together when we examine it logically?

....

What about God’s infinite knowledge — His omniscience? Philosophically, this presents us with no less of a conundrum. ... if He knows what we know, then this would appear to detract from His perfection. Why?

There are some things that we know that, if they were also known to God, would automatically make Him a sinner, which of course is in contradiction with the concept of God. As the late American philosopher Michael Martin has already pointed out, if God knows all that is knowable, then God must know things that we do, like lust and envy. But one cannot know lust and envy unless one has experienced them. But to have had feelings of lust and envy is to have sinned, in which case God cannot be morally perfect.

...

It is logical inconsistencies like these that led the 17th-century French theologian Blaise Pascal to reject reason as a basis for faith and return to the Bible and revelation. It is said that when Pascal died his servant found sewn into his jacket the words: “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob — not of the philosophers and scholars.” Evidently, Pascal considered there was more “wisdom” in biblical revelation than in any philosophical demonstration of God’s existence and nature — or plain lack thereof."
Full article - Opinion | A God Problem​

Thoughts? What are your favorite logical inconsistencies from classical monotheism? Are there oddities from other types of theism that have also caught your attention?

Pascal ? Is that the one who invented Pascals wager? If so his beliefs are based on taking a bet.

 

[Trailblazer]

This isn't just my opinion nor is it an assertion. It's not a sound argument because it is circular. Your evidence for the existence of god is contingent on the scripture and the scripture is contingent on the existence of god. Neither have been shown to be true.

The thing is that it is not an argument at all; it is a belief that cannot be proven true or false, so why turn it into an argument? Beliefs can never be proven, so NO argument can ever prove them true or false.

So you are correct, the existence of God cannot be shown to be true and the scripture cannot be shown to have come from God… Now what?

If you're hurt because someone disagree with your belief and show that your argument was fallacious, then I suggest you shouldn't be discussing your belief in a public forum. I am having a respectful discussion. But I will object to the things that I see that are wrong with your argument.

I have no argument since beliefs cannot be proven. I am not hurt in any manner shape or form, but if you cannot understand that I am not making an argument for my beliefs I have then there is nothing to discuss.

I have evidence that indicates that my beliefs are true to me, and that is all I have. It serves no purpose to keep accusing me of having a circular argument because it just keeps going in circles.

No, it's not evidence that the messengers spoke for god. It's just evidence that the religion exist. There's no evidence showing whether the religion is true or not. And the point is show that it is true.

There is evidence that “indicates” that the religion is true, but there is no proof.

You just contradicted yourself. By saying, and I'm paraphrasing, "nobody can prove it except for themselves, followed by saying , we can prove it ourselves with the evidence," is a contradiction.

There is no contradiction at all. What I meant is that it cannot be proven as a fact that everyone would recognize as true, but we can prove it to ourselves.

Yes, it's your belief, aka, an assertion.

A belief is not an assertion because it cannot be proven as a fact. I only assert that I believe it is true, I do not assert that it is true, since it cannot be proven to be true. What about that do you not understand?

Yes, I did refute your argument. I showed that you made an argument from ignorance by showing that your claim is not the only possibility just because you don't have evidence for something else.

I never said that my claim that God does not thrive on human suffering is the only possibility, so I am not arguing for that. I only said that I believe that God does not thrive on human suffering.

If you are claiming that God thrives on human suffering your claim is an argument from ignorance because your claim is not the only possibility just because you don't have evidence for something else.

We are engaged in a discussion, so your belief is your argument.

My belief is not an argument because God cannot be proven to exist with a logical argument. Why do you have to turn a discussion into an argument? Arguments re used to prove things are true or false but no God beliefs can be proven true or false. That is why “circular argument” is irrelevant. I have a belief in God and my religion, but there are no premises or conclusions.

And whether you dislike being called a liar, it's the truth.

The only reason people call other people liars is because they cannot admit they are wrong. People criticize others because they are arrogant. People who define other people as if they know them better than they know themselves are arrogant. This is psych 101 stuff.

I won’t be answering any more of your posts if you cannot be respectful. Calling people a liar is against the forum rules on most forums I have posted on, but I hardly ever have a problem with that because most people on the forums I post on are respectful.

 

[night912]

The thing is that it is not an argument at all; it is a belief that cannot be proven true or false, so why turn it into an argument? Beliefs can never be proven, so NO argument can ever prove them true or false.

This is a discussion. You have your argument about your beliefs. Now that I have shown that your argument is fallacious and you cannot defend it, you're just being dishonest and trying to weasel your way out.

So you are correct, the existence of God cannot be shown to be true and the scripture cannot be shown to have come from God… Now what?

First of all, it shows that your argument was circular. Second, it shows that you are irrational especially when it comes to the existence of god. Believing in something that has no evidence is irrational .

I have no argument since beliefs cannot be proven. I am not hurt in any manner shape or form, but if you cannot understand that I am not making an argument for my beliefs I have then there is nothing to discuss.

Again, since you've been shown that your argument is irrational, you are desperately trying to weasel your way out. Trying to dismiss something as not being an argument while this whole thread you argued that your belief is true. You're now just being dishonest and a coward for refusing to even admit that .

I have evidence that indicates that my beliefs are true to me, and that is all I have. It serves no purpose to keep accusing me of having a circular argument because it just keeps going in circles.

I'm not accusing you of having a circular argument, I proven that your argument was circular. The purpose is to show that a rational person shouldn't accept your argument as being logically sound, therefore it cannot be accepted as being a fact. So someone rational shouldn't believe that your god exist until there are sufficient evidence to support it.

There is evidence that “indicates” that the religion is true, but there is no proof.

Wrong again. You haven't shown any evidence to indicate that the religion is true. Something that exist doesn't necessarily make it true. Take this statement, "You exist, and is being truthful and engaging in an honest discussion right now." Just because you exist, doesn't mean that you are not lying and being dishonest, evidence have been shown that you are a liar and being dishonest.

There is no contradiction at all. What I meant is that it cannot be proven as a fact that everyone would recognize as true, but we can prove it to ourselves.

Backpedaling again isn't going to help you. And you're still contradicting yourself no matter how you try to rephrase it. "Cannot be proven as true, but then it can be proven as true." Yea, you said it, no contradiction there. (Sarcasm)

A belief is not an assertion because it cannot be proven as a fact. I only assert that I believe it is true, I do not assert that it is true, since it cannot be proven to be true. What about that do you not understand?

Now you're just grasping at straws. Instead of accusing me of not understanding, you should go and read and really study it so you won't be ignorant of the word.

I never said that my claim that God does not thrive on human suffering is the only possibility, so I am not arguing for that. I only said that I believe that God does not thrive on human suffering.

Yes, and that's an argument from ignorance.

If you are claiming that God thrives on human suffering your claim is an argument from ignorance because your claim is not the only possibility just because you don't have evidence for something else.

Now you're really showing desperation. As I said earlier, shifting the burden of proof does not and cannot help you with your claim.

My belief is not an argument because God cannot be proven to exist with a logical argument. Why do you have to turn a discussion into an argument? Arguments re used to prove things are true or false but no God beliefs can be proven true or false. That is why “circular argument” is irrelevant. I have a belief in God and my religion, but there are no premises or conclusions.

Why are you being such a coward and butt hurt about this. If you get so easily hurt because someone disagree with your belief, then don't come on these public forums to discuss it. It's not my fault that you failed rationally defend your belief resulting in you being unable to have an honest and respectful discussion. And yes, I did say respectful discussion because of your lies about me and what I wrote.

The only reason people call other people liars is because they cannot admit they are wrong. People criticize others because they are arrogant. People who define other people as if they know them better than they know themselves are arrogant. This is psych 101 stuff.

Nope. That's a false dichotomy. People also call others "liars" because the other person have been proven to lie. Like you lying that I said that your argument was not logically valid, for one. People busting out others for lying and having proof, is not being arrogant.

"People who define other people as if they know them better than they know themselves are arrogant. This is psych 101 stuff."

And that's what you just did, to after I proved that you are a liar. Critical thinking to common sense. This is psych 205 stuff.

I won’t be answering any more of your posts if you cannot be respectful. Calling people a liar is against the forum rules on most forums I have posted on, but I hardly ever have a problem with that because most people on the forums I post on are respectful.

Showing that someone is a liar by presenting evidence is not against the forum rules, nor is it disrespectful. But lying like what you did is disrespectful.

And one more thing. Saying that you're a liar is not just an assertion, belief or opinion. It's a proven fact with evidence to show for it. Just because you can preach your bs elsewhere, doesn't mean that you can do it here. And I'm not referring to the religious stuff either.

 

[Trailblazer]

This is a discussion. You have your argument about your beliefs. Now that I have shown that your argument is fallacious and you cannot defend it, you're just being dishonest and trying to weasel your way out.

I have no argument for my beliefs because I cannot prove they are true. Yet you keep contradicting me, telling me I have an argument. You want to have an argument but I don't. I have better things to do with my limited time on this earth.

This is not a discussion. It is just you telling me how wrong I am, speaking for me, calling me a liar, and judging me. I do not know why the forum moderators allow this kind of behavior.

I am finished talking to you. You will have to find someone else to bully and criticize. You have serious psychological and spiritual problems and you need help, but it won't be coming from me.

I will leave you with this wisdom that comes from God.

Matthew 7 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

“The most hateful characteristic of man is fault-finding.”
(‘Abdu’l-Bahá, Star of the West, Vol. IV, No.11, p. 192)

“O ye Cohorts of God! Beware lest ye offend the feelings of anyone, or sadden the heart of any person, or move the tongue in reproach of and finding fault with anybody, whether he is friend or stranger, believer or enemy.”
Tablets of Abdul-Baha Abbas, p. 45

26: O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 10

66: O EMIGRANTS! The tongue I have designed for the mention of Me, defile it not with detraction. If the fire of self overcome you, remember your own faults and not the faults of My creatures, inasmuch as every one of you knoweth his own self better than he knoweth others.
The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 45

 

[ACEofALLaces]

I will leave you with this wisdom that comes from God.

Matthew 7 Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

That's just astounding.....a person who time and again declares that the bible is not a reliable source of spiritual guidance/information......as this can ONLY come from Bahaullah....quotes the bible in defense of her actions.
Excuse me if I chuckle a bit over that.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

I have better things to do with my limited time on this earth.

Trust me when I say there are times when I would rather you DO those things that you say you have better things to do, than to be here espousing your 'beliefs' in such a manner as though they should be accepted by anyone naive enough to happen to come by and read them.
WHEN is enough, actually ENOUGH?

 

[Trailblazer]

That's just astounding.....a person who time and again declares that the bible is not a reliable source of spiritual guidance/information......as this can ONLY come from Bahaullah....quotes the bible in defense of her actions.
Excuse me if I chuckle a bit over that.

Well, well, well, look who showed up for dinner again.

First, I do not need a defense of MY actions because I did judge or criticize anyone.

Second, words are funny things... I might have said that the Bible is not reliable but what does that mean? One thing it means is that it cannot be relied upon to be the EXACT words of any Prophet/Messenger of God because we all know that the gospels came to us by way of oral tradition. But that does not mean they are not true. They just are not exactly what Jesus said because that would be logically impossible... Here is the official Baha'i position on the Bible from the Universal House of Justice (UHJ):

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words.
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)
The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

 

[Trailblazer]

Trust me when I say there are times when I would rather you DO those things that you say you have better things to do, than to be here espousing your 'beliefs' in such a manner as though they should be accepted by anyone naive enough to happen to come by and read them.
WHEN is enough, actually ENOUGH?

First, nobody held a gun to your head and told you to read anything I post.
Second, I do not expect anyone to accept my beliefs. I am not going to BUY a new car just because I saw an advertisement fly by on a forum. We all have a choice what we want to buy because we all have free will.
Third, enough is enough when I decide it is enough.

So, what you need to ask yourself is why MY beliefs bother you so much.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

So, what you need to ask yourself is why MY beliefs bother you so much.

Why? because you spend in inordinate amount of time presenting what you "believe" to the spiritual truths, and when challenged on them as to their veracity, you come up with all sorts of excuses and explanations for why you do NOT have proof for them...just that it is what you BELIEVE, and expect it to be left at that.

You're ASKING for trouble, and then when you get it, you complain because you are getting it.....alluding that you have "better things that you could be doing"......which brings me BACK to my remark/suggestion, as to WHY DON'T YOU DO WHAT YOU COULD/SHOULD BE DOING, and stop wasting your time here?

 

[ACEofALLaces]

Here is the official Baha'i position" on the Bible from the Universal House of Justice (UHJ):

Just curious....is there also an "official Bahai position" on the Book of Mormon?, or the Hindu Vedas?, or the Islamic al-Qurʾān?

 

[ACEofALLaces]

First, nobody held a gun to your head and told you to read anything I post.

I feel compelled to read what you post, if for no OTHER reason than to see what additional fantastic things you can come up with.

Second, I do not expect anyone to accept my beliefs.

Then why do you present them in such as way as to BE challenged? Seems "almost" like BAIT to me.

I am not going to BUY a new car just because I saw an advertisement fly by on a forum

Non sequitur

We all have a choice what we want to buy because we all have free will.

For all practical purposes and intents, the concept of "free will", is at best, a cruel illusion.

Third, enough is enough when I decide it is enough.

So YOU feel you are the soul, judge, jury, and executioner? Nice 'job', if you can get it.

 

[Trailblazer]

Why? because you spend in inordinate amount of time presenting what you "believe" to the spiritual truths, and when challenged on them as to their veracity, you come up with all sorts of excuses and explanations for why you do NOT have proof for them...just that it is what you BELIEVE, and expect it to be left at that.

Rather than have to rewrite what I just said, I would suggest you go and read what I just said to Pudding on the thread entitled Does it really matter if we believe in God?
#324 Trailblazer, 2 minutes ago

You're ASKING for trouble, and then when you get it, you complain because you are getting it.....alluding that you have "better things that you could be doing"......which brings me BACK to my remark/suggestion, as to WHY DON'T YOU DO WHAT YOU COULD/SHOULD BE DOING, and stop wasting your time here?

I am not asking for trouble and there is no reason I should be getting it, IF people can have a respectful boundary between themselves and me, and if people can be respectful of me and allow me to have my beliefs. After all, I am NOT telling anyone what they should believe.

I have better things I could be doing than listening to posters telling me how wrong I am, speaking for me, calling me a liar, and judging me. I do not have better things I could be doing than posting to respectful posters who really want to know the Truth about God.

Whether or not anyone derives any positive benefit from anything from what I post, only God knows. I do not know what other people are thinking unless they tell me. However, I am wasting my time here since I derive a positive benefit for myself.

 

[Trailblazer]

Just curious....is there also an "official Bahai position" on the Book of Mormon?, or the Hindu Vedas?, or the Islamic al-Qurʾān?

The official Baha'i position is that Joseph Smith was not a Prophet/Messenger of God and as such the Book of Mormon is not considered a Revelation from God. However, the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith gave high praise to Joseph Smith, and the official Baha'i position is that he was a seer because he could see into the future. In fact some of his prophecies predicted what happened during the life of Baha'u'llah.

There is no official Baha'i position on the Hindu Vedas, but they are recognized as the scriptures of Krishna, who we believe was a Prophet/Messenger of God/Manifestation of God.

There is an official Baha'i position on the Qur'an. It is considered a Revelation from God, and more authentic than the Bible, albeit less authentic than the Writings of Baha'u'llah, since it was not actually written by Muhammad.

From Letters Written on Behalf of the Guardian:

...The Bible is not wholly authentic, and in this respect is not to be compared with the Qur'an, and should be wholly subordinated to the authentic writings of Bahá'u'lláh.
(28 July 1936 to a National Spiritual Assembly)

We cannot be sure of the authenticity of any of the phrases in the Old or the New Testament. What we can be sure of is when such references or words are cited or quoted in either the Quran or the Bahá'í writings.
(4 July 1947 to an individual believer)
The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

 

[Trailblazer]

“First, nobody held a gun to your head and told you to read anything I post.”

I feel compelled to read what you post, if for no OTHER reason than to see what additional fantastic things you can come up with.

I am kind of like a good novelist then…

“Second, I do not expect anyone to accept my beliefs.”

Then why do you present them in such as way as to BE challenged? Seems "almost" like BAIT to me.

I cannot imagine why you think that, but perhaps my absolute certitude causes people to fight back and challenge me to PROVE what I am so sure of.

“We all have a choice what we want to buy because we all have free will.”

For all practical purposes and intents, the concept of "free will", is at best, a cruel illusion.

That is up for grabs. Some things we are free to choose, some not. There is no way you can KNOW if you were free to choose until you chose. To say you have NO free will to make choices in life is simply irrational though. If we could not make choices we could not be held responsible under the law.

“Third, enough is enough when I decide it is enough.”

So YOU feel you are the soul, judge, jury, and executioner? Nice 'job', if you can get it.

No, I just know I am the one who makes the decisions about what to do in my own life. Sometimes I wish “someone” would help me make them, but I am on my own since God has His phone off the hook.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

I am not asking for trouble and there is no reason I should be getting it, IF people can have a respectful boundary between themselves and me, and if people can be respectful of me and allow me to have my beliefs.

Then why do you suppose you are catching so much flak ABOUT your beliefs? Besides, I don't feel that ANYONE has denied you your right to 'believe' whatever you want to believe.
It SHOULD be a 'personal thing' between you and your God. Once you present those beliefs where there are competing beliefs, you are BOUND to get some flak...it's inevitable.

After all, I am NOT telling anyone what they should believe.

Weelllll, in a passive sort of way, that IS what you are doing.....you kind of DO expect people to accept what you believe, if for no OTHER reason, that it is what YOU believe..otherwise why even present what you believe here?

I have better things I could be doing than listening to posters telling me how wrong I am, speaking for me, calling me a liar, and judging me.

Yet, here you are, doing just that!

I do not have better things I could be doing than posting to respectful posters who really want to know the Truth about God.

See?.....there's that arrogance peeking out again....YOU have the TRUTH about God, inferring that (they) do NOT.

Whether or not anyone derives any positive benefit from anything from what I post, only God knows.

And of course YOU don't know, because God is ineffable, right?

I do not know what other people are thinking unless they tell me. However, I am (not) wasting my time here since I derive a positive benefit for myself.

I bet you do.....you, just like ALL the various believers, seem to be "commissioned" to present their beliefs, as though THEY ALONE are in possession of religious and spiritual TRUTH.

It actually becomes almost comical at times.
I myself am glad that I never succumbed to the sugar-coated enticements that all those religions offer, if I would ONLY come and be with THEM....all my troubles would be over.

Gee whiz, now WHICH one should I CHOOSE?

 

[ACEofALLaces]

I am kind of like a good novelist then…

You have to admit that you DO come up with some real doozies at times.

I cannot imagine why you think that, but perhaps my absolute certitude causes people to fight back and challenge me to PROVE what I am so sure of.

I feel the problem is that you have become SO convinced in your 'certitude', that you are unwilling to even CONSIDER the possibility that you could very well be WRONG.

That is up for grabs. Some things we are free to choose, some not. There is no way you can KNOW if you were free to choose until you chose. To say you have NO free will to make choices in life is simply irrational though. If we could not make choices we could not be held responsible under the law.

Just the simple fact that there could be and usually ARE unforseen repercussions resulting from some of our 'freely chosen' decisions/choices, puts a very intimidating damper on the notion that we really, honestly, and truly, have "freedom to choose"/"free will.
It is "conditional" at best...and even THEN, there are those 'unforseen repurcussions'.....due to our having "interfered" with someone ELSE's 'free will'.

No, I just know I am the one who makes the decisions about what to do in my own life.

If it is any consolation, I am glad to hear you NOT saying something like "the devil made me do it", or god told me not to do it, or something equally as foolish.

Sometimes I wish “someone” would help me make them, but I am on my own since God has His phone off the hook.

Yep! God is like that, ain't (He)?

 

[Trailblazer]

Then why do you suppose you are catching so much flak ABOUT your beliefs? Besides, I don't feel that ANYONE has denied you your right to 'believe' whatever you want to believe.
It SHOULD be a 'personal thing' between you and your God. Once you present those beliefs where there are competing beliefs, you are BOUND to get some flak...it's inevitable.

I never minded getting any flak about my beliefs. What I do mind is disparaging comments about me, people calling me a liar and saying I meant things that I never meant… That is disrespectful and I won’t tolerate it anymore. You do not do this, only a numbered few atheists have done it. But I do not have to put up with that anymore.

Weelllll, in a passive sort of way, that IS what you are doing.....you kind of DO expect people to accept what you believe, if for no OTHER reason, that it is what YOU believe..otherwise why even present what you believe here?

I absolutely do not expect ANYONE to accept what I believe, not actively or passively.

In case you have not noticed, I am not “presenting” my beliefs on this forum; I am just responding to posts. Once in a while I start a thread, but it is not about MY beliefs. It often leads to people asking about them, but that is not anything I did.

Yet, here you are, doing just that!

I absolutely am not doing that. Show me where I EVER told people they were wrong, spoke for people, called anyone a liar, or judged anyone.

See?.....there's that arrogance peeking out again....YOU have the TRUTH about God, inferring that (they) do NOT.

I did not infer that anyone DID NOT have the Truth about God. If they do not know anything about God and they are asking me what I believe about God and I tell them what I believe, HOW is that arrogant?

And of course YOU don't know, because God is ineffable, right?

Of course I do not know because I am not All-Knowing.

I bet you do.....you, just like ALL the various believers, seem to be "commissioned" to present their beliefs, as though THEY ALONE are in possession of religious and spiritual TRUTH.

It actually becomes almost comical at times.
I myself am glad that I never succumbed to the sugar-coated enticements that all those religions offer, if I would ONLY come and be with THEM....all my troubles would be over.
Gee whiz, now WHICH one should I CHOOSE?

It is up to you which one to choose, or whether to choose any one at all.