God: more questions than answers

[Kenny]

which means you must necessarily expect how you appear to a person like myself when doing something like speaking in tongues. and there can, honestly, be little to no defense forthcoming from you except what boils down to "i like doing it."

ROFL.. Absolutely! Maybe you don't know it, but I didn't become a Christian until I was 28 and there is probably not many thoughts that you have that I didn't have also.

But please don't put words in my mouth.

"no defense forthcoming from you except what boils down to "i like doing it."

What about "Hey, Ken, how would you defend speaking in tongues?" vs determining what I would say.

oof... big and obvious problem here. sometimes the actions of parents toward their children based on what they felt the child did that was not "on point" can be disagreed with by everyone but the parents. ever hear of gabriel fernandez and his treatment at the hands of his mother pearl fernandez and her boyfriend? if anyone agrees with the treatment that boy received by those two absolutely disgusting monstrosities of human beings then they should have any and all contact with kids revoked from them for the rest of their lives. why else would there be cases in which the state deems it necessary to take children away from their parents, and do you honestly think that there are zero cases in which you would agree with the states decision, and that you ,personally, would instead rule that the parents were justified in their actions because "the father and mother determine if the statement or decision of the child is 'on point' or not." before you defend yourself with the idea that parents neglecting or making certain decisions is all the parents doing, and has nothing to do with decisions or judgments about what the child has done, please keep in mind that garbiel fernandez was locked in a cabinet, beaten, and ultimately killed partly because his mother and her boyfriend suspected he might be gay based on the fact that during a time he was taken away from his mother by the state, he was placed with two gay uncles. you can guarantee anything he decided to do to further that ridiculous, inconsequential narrative triggered them. not to mention the fact that gabriel several times "decided" to inform his teacher or other authorities what was going on... and when the cops showed up at their door and his mom talked them down out of any charges or repercussions every single time, they decided that his actions were not "on point" and would treat him even more severely for it. to the point that he just stopped telling people, and would reply to their questions instead that nothing they did would actually help. that is the possibility of parents... just other fallible people, like their children. the blind leading the blind. some of us apparently don't realize that the only chance either blind person in that scenario has is to help each other the best that we are able.

Woa there horsey . Of course there are always an exception. And certainly I would support you that in some cases there may be churches that are wrong. And the above is horrifying!

But, generally speaking we are talking about normal parents and normal churches. And one thing for sure, any family that has the children being the parents has got a lot of problems on both sides. I don't think your analogy quite fits.

So we are talking about principles here. Can we agree that normally parents are parent because they have more wisdom and children don't lead them? Unless one thinks that just because an 8 year old says "I think I can drive a car... give me the keys". (I exaggerate, of course, just to make the point) we should let him/her drive.

the answer to this seems incredibly obvious to me. i mean, he is talking about people when he mentions "brethren" right? done. there is your answer.

I'm a little confused here. Not sure what the point is. Yes, they are people (believers) but what was the application? I got lost on this one.

again, who decides what is decent? or what is in order? and what reality-based prescriptions or models can they point to as their justifications? without those... they have nothing. i can write stuff in a book all day, my friend. all day long. all night too. doesn't mean any of it is true. no matter how old that book ends up being when someone picks it up. that is simple, cold fact.

As I said... Paul delineated it pretty clearly. I think we are getting off on a tangent here. I don't think we are talking about the veracity of the word of God here. Unless I have misunderstood.

1) and if someone can't adequately describe something in order to get another to understand?)
2) who then is at fault?
3) is there a way we can verify with an impartial party?
4) ooh... there's an idea. unfortunately, that method would see religion falling on its face literally all the time. just "bam!" and then "bam!" and then "bam! bam! bam! bam!" it would be a wonder that the church had any face left after the number of falls it would take.

Again... I think you are going to far and too fast. But you are asking questions which is good.

1) If the person doesn't adequately explain, then it isn't the hearers fault.
2) It would be the explainers fault. However, there are other situations where the hearer didn't want to understand. Jesus encountered those.
3) I would say yes and no. When we go to a judge, we hope he is impartial but is it always so? Probably not. It isn't a "church" problem but rathe a "People" problem and it can be found in any sector of life. Usually the way it goes is you go to the person and see if you can resolve it. If that doesn't work, you take a witness with you. If that doesn't work you take the two parties and the witnesses and you talk to someone in authority. (Does that mean it will be unbiased? Like the judge... hopefully yes but people are people and sometimes no. By and large, however, it is resolved correctly (yes there are exceptions)
4) I wouldn't agree. But that is my perspective.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

ROFL.. Absolutely! Maybe you don't know it, but I didn't become a Christian until I was 28 and there is probably not many thoughts that you have that I didn't have also.

But please don't put words in my mouth.

"no defense forthcoming from you except what boils down to "i like doing it."

What about "Hey, Ken, how would you defend speaking in tongues?" vs determining what I would say.

my point is that it almost doesn't matter what you say if it doesn't have any real-world, reality-based justification and demonstration of validity. i like playing pokemon go on my walks... but i would never ever pretend in any way that pokemon go represented some truth, or try to argue that it was correct for me to play or anything. i like it, and that is all it boils down to. i have no real-world justification except that it entertains me. the way i worded this was to get you to realize this more than anything. you like doing it. that is basically all you're going to have when presented with a "reality-or-nothing" requirement on your justifications. tell me how that is entirely wrong if it is. but again - make sure that that justification is also based on real-world items of fact, logic, and necessities. otherwise it too boils down to "i like it." which, don't get me wrong - is a fine justification for all sorts of things! it's just admitting that that is the case that is hard for some people.

But,

generally speaking we are talking about normal parents and normal churches. And one thing for sure, any family that has the children being the parents has got a lot of problems on both sides. I don't think your analogy quite fits.

your statement was pretty absolute, and so this is what you get. communicate your points more clearly and fully, and this will not happen. and i never said "the children [were] the parents" - that's you putting words in my mouth now. the realities are these - anyone who gets pregnant, or gets a woman pregnant and births a child is a parent... whether you like it or not... whether you consider them a "child" or not. that is fact also. this all points to you using a very particular lens to view the world. id like to say that it is "rose colored" - but it a quite a shade darker i am afraid, you just don't seem to realize it.

So we are talking about principles here. Can we agree that normally parents are parent because they have more wisdom and children don't lead them?

nope. not at all what qualifies one as a parent. try again.

Unless one thinks that just because an 8 year old says "I think I can drive a car... give me the keys". (I exaggerate, of course, just to make the point) we should let him/her drive.

this is completely different than that. completely. some authority is in possession of the keys in your scenario, and can grant the intended user access or not. that's not how it is with penises and uteruses, is it ken? please admit this. there goes your tainted perspective again. please learn what is and is not fact and given. right now, you're just tromping all over the ice and shouting "look, i'm not falling in!"

I'm a little confused here. Not sure what the point is. Yes, they are people (believers) but what was the application? I got lost on this one.

of course you did. let me explain. paul - or whoever the spank it was, i don't want to bother looking back, because it isn't, at all, important, seemed so very perplexed that when people would come together many of them , of their own accord "hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation." he seemed genuinely perplexed by this... which is, quite frankly, juvenile. as if he had no experience whatsoever with human beings. what a green little mind he must have had. no joke. he must have just stepped off the bus, wide-eyed and fancy-free. that, or he didn't even understand how obtuse he was being. and, in fact, no one who quotes this inane passage would seemingly be at that level of understanding either. this passage is not a mark in anyone's favor, in other words, it is an embarrassment. to literally believe that people are not basically guaranteed their own opinions because they each have their own minds and can easily put forth their own justifications? and this is where having the real-world justification can trump those who don't have it, and show that your "psalm" or "doctrine" or "tongue" or "revelation" or "interpretation" is definitely the right one. without that, well then you have as little as paul had.

As I said... Paul delineated it pretty clearly. I think we are getting off on a tangent here. I don't think we are talking about the veracity of the word of God here. Unless I have misunderstood.

you did. the above paragraph explains how paul was not, at all even close to the mark in his quote. i honestly don't even know what target he was shooting it. i get a vague sense it was something along the lines of "you can't challenge god!" - where "god" is being substituted for "paul" in that paraphrase, or substituted for paul's interpretation of the bible, or something similar.

Again... I think you are going to far and too fast. But you are asking questions which is good.

1) If the person doesn't adequately explain, then it isn't the hearers fault.
2) It would be the explainers fault. However, there are other situations where the hearer didn't want to understand. Jesus encountered those.
3) I would say yes and no. When we go to a judge, we hope he is impartial but is it always so? Probably not. It isn't a "church" problem but rathe a "People" problem and it can be found in any sector of life. Usually the way it goes is you go to the person and see if you can resolve it. If that doesn't work, you take a witness with you. If that doesn't work you take the two parties and the witnesses and you talk to someone in authority. (Does that mean it will be unbiased? Like the judge... hopefully yes but people are people and sometimes no. By and large, however, it is resolved correctly (yes there are exceptions)
4) I wouldn't agree. But that is my perspective.

so you would likely say that because our court system doesn't allow things like spiritual testimony or "words of god" into evidence for any particular case (or no longer does, now that we have our wits about us), that it is somehow not being impartial in this regard? see... this is where having some reality-based, real-world examples or demonstrations of how all this "god" stuff is completely true would come in really, really handy. Note that I keep mentioning this... but you haven't even tried to produce anything. i believe that is because it fails to meet even what you, yourself would accept as reality-based evidence for nearly anything else you encounter in life. interesting, isn't it?

 

[Kenny]

my point is that it almost doesn't matter what you say if it doesn't have any real-world, reality-based justification and demonstration of validity. i like playing pokemon go on my walks... but i would never ever pretend in any way that pokemon go represented some truth, or try to argue that it was correct for me to play or anything. i like it, and that is all it boils down to. i have no real-world justification except that it entertains me. the way i worded this was to get you to realize this more than anything. you like doing it. that is basically all you're going to have when presented with a "reality-or-nothing" requirement on your justifications. tell me how that is entirely wrong if it is. but again - make sure that that justification is also based on real-world items of fact, logic, and necessities. otherwise it too boils down to "i like it." which, don't get me wrong - is a fine justification for all sorts of things! it's just admitting that that is the case that is hard for some people.

Notice... all you gave me was your conclusion with no questions. thus, as I see it, you really don't care (which is fine). But then it isn't because what was said didn't have import but simply the hearer wasn't interested.

your statement was pretty absolute, and so this is what you get. communicate your points more clearly and fully, and this will not happen. and i never said "the children [were] the parents" - that's you putting words in my mouth now. the realities are these - anyone who gets pregnant, or gets a woman pregnant and births a child is a parent... whether you like it or not... whether you consider them a "child" or not. that is fact also. this all points to you using a very particular lens to view the world. id like to say that it is "rose colored" - but it a quite a shade darker i am afraid, you just don't seem to realize it.

I have never claimed to be the expert communicator. That is why we dialogue to clear up misconceptions.

nope. not at all what qualifies one as a parent. try again.

Don't need to try. Just making a statement without supporting it within the context given is not a quality answer. The context was "parents are parents because they have more experience (generally speaking), and children are children because they haven't learned right from wrong (Or choose not to implement it)"

So generally speaking, and in context, it is the elders of the church that hold the reigns.

please admit this. there goes your tainted perspective again. please learn what is and is not fact and given. right now, you're just tromping all over the ice and shouting "look, i'm not falling in!"

this isn't dialogue.

of course you did. let me explain. paul - or whoever the spank it was, i don't want to bother looking back, because it isn't, at all, important, seemed so very perplexed that people would come together many of them , of their own accord "hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation." he seemed genuinely perplexed by this... which is, quite frankly, juvenile. as if he had no experience whatsoever with human beings. what a green little mind he must have had. no joke. he must have just stepped off the bus, wide-eyed and fancy-free. that, or he didn't even understand how obtuse he was being. and, in fact, no one who quotes this inane passage would seemingly be at that level of understanding either. this passage is not a mark in anyone's favor, in other words, it is an embarrassment. to literally believe that people are not basically guaranteed their own opinions because they each have their own minds and can easily put forth their own justifications? and this is where having the real-world justification can trump those who don't have it, and show that your "psalm" or "doctrine" or "tongue" or "revelation" or "interpretation" is definitely the right one. without that, well then you have as little as paul had.

No... a study of that chapter does not give that understanding.

If you read the whole of the book and even within the chapter, he was simply bringing some order to a disorganized church.

you did. the above paragraph explains how paul was not, at all even close to the mark in his quote. i honestly don't even know what target he was shooting it. i get a vague sense it was something along the lines of "you can't challenge god!" - where "god" is being substituted for "paul" in that paraphrase, or substituted for paul's interpretation of the bible, or something similar.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

but you haven't even tried to produce anything. i believe that is because it fails to meet even what you, yourself would accept as reality-based evidence for nearly anything else you encounter in life. interesting, isn't it?

No... you have explained to me why you will never believe and I quote," i have no real-world justification except that it entertains me. the way i worded this was to get you to realize this more than anything. you like doing it."

i gave an opening when I said, "

What about "Hey, Ken, how would you defend speaking in tongues?" vs determining what I would say.

Your response was simply why you don't believe with no real questions.

If you are interested... ask questions. I am happy to answer.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Notice... all you gave me was your conclusion with no questions. thus, as I see it, you really don't care (which is fine). But then it isn't because what was said didn't have import but simply the hearer wasn't interested.

note please that this is not you giving any other answer. again - just make sure that it is reality-based and not easily denied by a rational mind and i should basically be forced to accept your answer!

Don't need to try. Just making a statement without supporting it within the context given is not a quality answer. The context was "parents are parents because they have more experience (generally speaking), and children are children because they haven't learned right from wrong (Or choose not to implement it)"

and i don't accept your definition of "parent." not at all. that's what i was saying. i pointed you to exacting, undeniable facts of what the word "parent" literally does encompass - regardless who is using the term. you have now, for the second time, pointed me to fluff that you cannot substantiate outside of your opinion and whoever else you can get to agree with you. perhaps this is at the root of the issues we keep having in this back and forth. you literally seem to think that whatever you want to deem something is what it is for everyone. is that correct? now, notice how my definition of "someone who has provided a zygote in a union that created another human being" holds true for any and every situation known to man. that person was a parent in that moment. "one that begets or brings forth offspring" that's a definition of "parent", and it applies in every situation where this is the case. however, your chosen definition adheres more to this other definition: "a person who brings up and cares for another". now - is it always the case that someone who "brings up and cares for another" is a "parent" to that person? how about when it is the persons biological sister, or grandparent? you can't argue this as concretely - it doesn't hold as much sway, and does not conform to reality as we experience it in all cases. it is gray area, and i am not interested in your opinions on those gray areas unless you are willing to address them as such... opinions.

So generally speaking, and in context, it is the elders of the church that hold the reigns.

no one - not one, should take the word of the "elder" of any church without expressly requesting real-world justification that can demonstrate the validity of their statements. boom. say what you will against it... anyone who does this without is practicing the skills in gullibility.

this isn't dialogue.

wait... this was exactly my point. what's happening here?

No... a study of that chapter does not give that understanding.

so, am i not to take paul's question as confusion as to how this different in opinions and interpretations and such could possibly happen? was he being facetious? was he, perhaps, asking rhetorically because he believed he already had the answer figured out? i swear there was, a few posts ago, a quote you brought forth from the bible that admonished exactly this... thinking you have it figured out. if the question wasn't truly confusion, and was meant only to make them realize some truth that paul already felt he was privvy to, then that's him thinking he has it figured out. now, maybe he was just trying to get them to see their activities in a different light - i can understand this, i do it all the time... but it is usually only to point out to the other person that they don't have the answer they seem to think they do... not that i am positing some replacement answer. but paul is here caught saying that he knows that there is a correct "psalm" or "revelation" or "interpretation" and that all need adhere to this. boom. there it is. deny it all you want. it is there, plain as the nose your beliefs just fell on. "bam!"

If you read the whole of the book and even within the chapter, he was simply bringing some order to a disorganized church.

not this with the "context is key" stuff again. my paragraph above holds whether or not he had some ulterior motive i perhaps wasn't aware of. it changes nothing. if it does... please explain thoroughly. none of this "you wouldn't believe me" or "you wouldn't understand" or "you're closed to the possibilities." i don't want to hear it. i want to hear true justification. unadulterated and as simple as you can possibly make it.

Not sure how you came to that conclusion.

I just explained how paul was hinting that he knew which were the appropriate [psalms/revelations/interpretations] - how is this not purporting to know more about what is "god" versus the others? i included "paul's interpretation of the bible" - which very very obviously isn't the only one. so... demonstrate to me how paul knew that his interpretations of these items were the correct ones, and what would fix up the "order" of the church in question, etc. and then we can talk - otherwise, this is just more "you don't understand" phrased differently. i am providing you actual function and meaning of the words you have quoted, and you are providing me zero alternative explanation. that's what you are doing. stop doing that. start standing up for your beliefs. this is just sad currently.

No... you have explained to me why you will never believe and I quote," i have no real-world justification except that it entertains me. the way i worded this was to get you to realize this more than anything. you like doing it."

i gave an opening when I said, "



Your response was simply why you don't believe with no real questions.

If you are interested... ask questions. I am happy to answer.

got it. here goes: hey ken - how would you justify speaking in tongues? note that i will add the same caveat that has come with everything else - that the justification should adhere to reality and be demonstrable in a way that makes it nearly impossible to deny. kind of like a demonstration of the effects of gravity, or how you can show someone that 2 apples added to two more apples produces 4 apples. short of that, you will then also have to additionally describe to me and justify why you feel that i should accept what you have to say.

 

[DNB]

It was my quote that he was answering.

Thank you Ken. Yes, I saw that today, but yesterday it had my handle on it, and the reply was to me (in my alert box). I thought that he was employing some rather unscrupulous practices.
...by the way (as you're probably aware), I used all upper case as it was the subject matter of his patronizing remark.

 

[DNB]

May I ask Are you an angry Christian person?
I have looked around the forum, and every time your name is there when you answer other people's questions or you comment on their answers. All I see is anger Isn't Christianity about love and kindness? and to end the anger from within your own being?

I know you will probably attack me, but I will accept that. I do not mind. And I do not hold anger toward you.

Are you serious? You had my handle on a quote that I didn't make, on a public forum - what did you expect me to make of that?

 

[Spirit of Light]

Are you serious? You had my handle on a quote that I didn't make, on a public forum - what did you expect me to make of that?

If it was not yours, it would be enough to say. "This is not my qoute"
There was no need to get upset, was there?

 

[DNB]

If it was not yours, it would be enough to say. "This is not my qoute"
There was no need to get upset, was there?

Are you serious? How in the world did it happen? Like i said, what did you expect me think outside of that fact that it seemed deliberate on your part?

 

[Fallen Prophet]

I've been trying to de-familiarise myself with God - to put aside my old assumptions and beliefs about him and look at him with new eyes:

To approach him as though I have never heard of him

This has lead to more questions than answers!

I am hoping to construct a fresh understanding of God from the ground up, as though I've never heard of him

Very interesting approach.

I try to view everything from His perspective. Try to see us and the Universe through His eyes.

I'm going to try to answer these to the best of my ability according to my understanding..

Who - or what - exactly is he? What type of thing is he?

I believe that God is the literal Father of our spirits and the King of the Universe.

Is he even a "he" - is he a person or something else?

Yes - Our Father is a person.

What does he do?

He reproduces after His kind and gives His children everything they need to grow up and become like Him.

That is His purpose - to bring to pass our immortality and eternal glory. To make us gods - as He is.

What does he look like?

He is in appearance a Man - or rather Man is in His appearance - although He is perfected and eternal.

What does he want?

He wants us to show Him what we want in eternity. We reap what we sow.

Does he care about us?

His family - which includes us - his children - is literally all that He cares about and everything was created for the purpose of testing and perfecting His children so they can take their proper place in eternity.

Does he have a mind?

Yes.

Does he have a personality - and if so what is he like?

He is perfect and the Beatitudes mentioned by Christ in His Sermon on the Mount are the aspects of His personality.

What has he ever done for us?

Literally everything. His hand is in all things.

Who am I in relation to God?

His child.

Who are you in relation to God?

His child.

What does he do?

He procreates and brings order to chaos. His Kingdom is ever expanding and filling with His exalted children.

What does he want us to do?

He wants us to be perfect as He is - but He settles for us being happy.

Does he have a plan?

Yes - and the Lord Jesus Christ is integral to His plan.

Where does he come from?

Matter and Intelligence can neither be created or destroyed. He has always been - in some form - just as we have always been in some form.

Does he favour some people over others? Or some groups over other groups?

No - but He is subject to universal and divine Laws. These Laws dictate that the obedient receive blessings and the disobedient receive chastisements.

What is he going to do in the future?

There is no end to His work - for this is the source of His joy and glory.

But in regards to this world - eventually it will be celestialized and be the abode of all His children who lived upon it.

Is it possible to have a relationship with him?

We already do - but it is imperative that we seek Him - for that will help us live according to His plan.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Are you serious? How in the world did it happen? Like i said, what did you expect me think outside of that fact that it seemed deliberate on your part?

I dont understand why you get so upset

 

[DNB]

I dont understand why you get so upset

I don't understand how oblivious that you are?

 

[Spirit of Light]

I don't understand how oblivious that you are?

I just don't get upset or angry anymore

 

[DNB]

I just don't get upset or angry anymore

No, you just anger and upset everyone else with your rather overt oblivion.