questioning GOD's design decisions

[bobevenson]

My friends, as it says in "The Ouzo Prophecy," "Recently, an obscure local firm, in its eternal quest for a universal game, unlocked the secret of Revelation 13:18. The evil that lurks in the minds of men is manifested in the collective evil of the beast. Understand the man and you cannot be deceived by his institutions." It goes on to say, "A simple bidding game of numbers provides an allegory." Revelation 13:18 is virtually a description of the game: "Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast:" (the total number of a particular digit in everybody's hand combined) "for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six" (666); each group of digits, 0-5 and 7-9, adds to a number whose digits add to six. The game of Ouzo offers help in understanding Revelation 13:18 as well as spiritual salvation.

[Arising_uk]

It's not God's decisions you should be questioning, it's our religious, cultural and social institutions you should be questioning, which prevent God's will from reaching our minds: "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." -Revelation 17:17

So according to the above we can fulfil this 'god's' 'will' with our hearts but 'it' also wants us to agree with our minds to give this 'kingdom' to this 'beast' until such times as some words of this 'God' are fulfilled? So 'its' basically saying be 'Beastists' until some words are fulfilled, who's doing the word fulfilling as apparently its not us? Sounds all a bit confused if you ask me but then if you ask me this whole idea that there's a 'God' around paying attention to us is pretty much anthropomorphic hubris.

[bobevenson]

It's not God's decisions you should be questioning, it's our religious, cultural and social institutions you should be questioning, which prevent God's will from reaching our minds: "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." -Revelation 17:17

So according to the above we can fulfil this 'god's' 'will' with our hearts but 'it' also wants us to agree with our minds to give this 'kingdom' to this 'beast' until such times as some words of this 'God' are fulfilled? So 'its' basically saying be 'Beastists' until some words are fulfilled, who's doing the word fulfilling as apparently its not us? Sounds all a bit confused if you ask me but then if you ask me this whole idea that there's a 'God' around paying attention to us is pretty much anthropomorphic hubris.

I guess you don't understand the point that while it's in our hearts to do good, our institutions preempt it.

[Arising_uk]

I guess you don't understand the point that while it's in our hearts to do good, our institutions preempt it.

I guess you can't read, "... and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, ..." then again your selective reading ability is outstanding.

[bobevenson]

I guess you don't understand the point that while it's in our hearts to do good, our institutions preempt it.

I guess you can't read, "... and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, ..." then again your selective reading ability is outstanding.

Even if they agree to give their kingdom unto the beast, the impossibility of it prevents the words of God from being fulfilled.

[Kuznetzova]

You guys have been going back-and-forth at each other for like 2 pages of replies now.

The fact remains, bobevenson is not conscious enough to have picked up the dripping sarcasm in the lead post of this thread. It's like he just saw the word "GOD" in the title, then he started posting his favorite bible quotes into the thread at random.

We have no indication from bobevenson that he even read the original post of this thread. None of his replies seem to refer to any of the particular details of it.

[Ginkgo]

You guys have been going back-and-forth at each other for like 2 pages of replies now.

The fact remains, bobevenson is not conscious enough to have picked up the dripping sarcasm in the lead post of this thread. It's like he just saw the word "GOD" in the title, then he started posting his favorite bible quotes into the thread at random.

We have no indication from bobevenson that he even read the original post of this thread. None of his replies seem to refer to any of the particular details of it.

Actually, I read the original post and I think it raises some very good questions. I did make an attempt to address at least one of the dot points.

[Kuznetzova]

Dear bobevenson,

I have no idea whether you will actually read this post and "digest" its message in the correct way in which I am intending its meaning to be received by you. But let's try this anyway and see what happens.

The entire point of this thread is that I have listed an extensive laundry list of things in nature. These things look suspiciously like processes that emerged totally naturally of their own accord in nature from laws which are totally unguided by any creative deity. Other things in the list are factually contrary to the bible. But if you adopt a naive form of biblical creationism, you would necessarily have to also believe that these states-of-affairs are precisely what your GOD actually made.

To adopt any other position would simply be denying facts or lying to a constituency. But more importantly, lying to your constituency about the facts of nature, (the way DNA actually is; the number and nature of ice layers on Antarctica; the number and age of stars) -- denying any of these would constitute questioning what GOD actually did. It would be second-guessing HIM. Because , at base, you have some personal reason for having the created world be different than it actually is in fact. You are second-guessing GOD. You are pretending your version of things is "better" than the very universe you say the GOD you worship created. Hence the title of this thread.

Maybe you picked that up, and maybe you did not. But as far as I can see, we are four pages into this thread and I have no words from you at all regarding the core topic of this thread. So there it is, and I hope you can somehow bring yourself to address the point made by my sarcasm.

[bobevenson]

Dear bobevenson,

I have no idea whether you will actually read this post and "digest" its message in the correct way in which I am intending its meaning to be received by you. But let's try this anyway and see what happens.

The entire point of this thread is that I have listed an extensive laundry list of things in nature. These things look suspiciously like processes that emerged totally naturally of their own accord in nature from laws which are totally unguided by any creative deity. Other things in the list are factually contrary to the bible. But if you adopt a naive form of biblical creationism, you would necessarily have to also believe that these states-of-affairs are precisely what your GOD actually made.

To adopt any other position would simply be denying facts or lying to a constituency. But more importantly, lying to your constituency about the facts of nature, (the way DNA actually is; the number and nature of ice layers on Antarctica; the number and age of stars) -- denying any of these would constitute questioning what GOD actually did. It would be second-guessing HIM. Because , at base, you have some personal reason for having the created world be different than it actually is in fact. You are second-guessing GOD. You are pretending your version of things is "better" than the very universe you say the GOD you worship created. Hence the title of this thread.

Maybe you picked that up, and maybe you did not. But as far as I can see, we are four pages into this thread and I have no words from you at all regarding the core topic of this thread. So there it is, and I hope you can somehow bring yourself to address the point made by my sarcasm.

I think you should just refer to the first reply to this thread: "Did you have a point to this rambling?"

[Arising_uk]

Even if they agree to give their kingdom unto the beast, the impossibility of it prevents the words of God from being fulfilled.

But it's what 'God' wants? "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, ...".

[Kuznetzova]

Did I have a point to this rambling?

I guess the point is that to be a "good christian" requires you lie about the facts, to other parishioners, even to yourself. This is ironic, because what could be more insulting to the creator than to lie about what he actually made?

If the bishops of the Catholic church in the 17th century Italy really worshiped GOD above all else -- if they really did have an iota of respect for GOD, they would have been profoundly interested in what Galileo had discovered about creation.

They would have been interested in what Galileo had to say, not hell-bent on throwing him in prison to silence him.

[Blaggard]

Whilst it amounts to pretty much the same thing Galileo was never imprisoned for his heresy, just to house arrest, for his entire life. It's bloody impressive, though that's something that is that logical and based on such Copernican, or should I say Copernican and his following advocates, undoubtable mathematics and real science, could lead such wise men in the church, many of who were mathematicians and scholars themselves to deny the obvious, I mean they must of crunched the numbers so painstakingly explained by Tycho Brahe and his young prodigy and advocate Kepler, and seen that both the maths and models were completely undeniable in picturing the heavens. The mathematicians and scholars in the church new full well Galileo was right, which is probably why he wasn't sentenced to jail, they just couldn't say so to their peers.

It just goes to show, if something that is obvious and real contradicts your beliefs the thing that is so profoundly confirmed by evidence and fact must be discarded in favour of the thing that makes no sense. Just goes to show the whole religion thing is so full of cognitive dissonance, it's perhaps a wonder these people could even function as so called mathematicians and scientists. You have to remember at the time most science was done by the educated or the clergy as well. So it wasn't unusual to see the Catholic faith wax lyrical on scientific matters, the way in which they did, though possibly impeded science for centuries, and all because they could not accept anything but an old fashioned text written clealry by humans, not divinely inspired people at all, that in actual fact as Galileo pointed out never claimed the Earth was at the center of the universe anyway. Read it, seriously there's nothing in it that claims that at all. It just says the Earth is set in place like a rock on four pillars and cannot move, this is not the same as saying the Earth is the center of the universe, neither is it the same as saying that it is the center about which the planets or the sun revolve. Also the passages about the sun holding still in no way contradict a heliocentric Earth.

It's kind of Ironic that Copernicus only faced scholarly skepticism from both the Church and scientific advocates of more prosaic theories, and was never really called a heretic for his views, but a few centuries later the Church had become so adverse to contrary opinions, it had kind of devolved into a sort of despotism of knowledge.

[bobevenson]

Even if they agree to give their kingdom unto the beast, the impossibility of it prevents the words of God from being fulfilled.

But it's what 'God' wants? "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, ...".

When Rev. 17:17 says "For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled," it didn't address the difficulty of giving their kingdom unto the beast (our religious, cultural and social institutions). Fortunately, Bob the Baptist is here to help the world surmount this hurdle.

[Arising_uk]

... it didn't address the difficulty of giving their kingdom unto the beast (our religious, cultural and social institutions). Fortunately, Bob the Baptist is here to help the world surmount this hurdle.

lmfao!

Told you bob, anti-baptist. As what you've just said is that you are here to surmount the hurdle of giving our kingdom unto the beast. You almost make me believe in fraudianism.

[Kuznetzova]

(I cannot believe I would allow myself to get pulled into a bible study. Having said that,)


It is clear as glass. The book of Revelation refers to the Kingdom of Israel overcoming its enemies in a great and final military battle. It even tells you the place it's going to happen. The height of insanity is to pretend that the writer of that book did not intend it to be read by people that lived nearby, and who lived in the time in which the writer wrote it. But instead to parade around on the internet pretending as if the old letter is meant for some english-speaking person, living on a different continent 2000 years into the future.