This is so obviously a false conclusion, as it is based on nothing whatever.thedoc wrote:I really don't know if my particular church has the correct interpretation or not, I have just come to the conclusion that belief in God is the most important and basic belief, ....SpheresOfBalance wrote: People that believe this also tend to believe that it's theirs that's the one true religion, you? And if so, can you say selfish bias?
How God could fail to convey His message?
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: How God could fail to convey His message?
Re: How God could fail to convey His message?
So be it.Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are not making sense.ken wrote:To make you think about WHY you pity this one yet you wish others dead.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Screen Shot 2016-08-20 at 08.29.16.png
Can you tell me what an omnipotent God is trying to convey here?
WHY do you only care about some and not ALL?
To you it may not make sense. But, if you were really interested, then you would have asked some sort of inquisitive questioning.
Re: How God could fail to convey His message?
No, I base my conclusions on my observations, therefore they are not false, however I understand that you have not observed the same things that I have, so you assume that there is nothing.Hobbes' Choice wrote:This is so obviously a false conclusion, as it is based on nothing whatever.thedoc wrote:I really don't know if my particular church has the correct interpretation or not, I have just come to the conclusion that belief in God is the most important and basic belief, ....SpheresOfBalance wrote: People that believe this also tend to believe that it's theirs that's the one true religion, you? And if so, can you say selfish bias?
Re: How God could fail to convey His message?
If you have read some of My other posts in this forum, then you may have noticed I continually say I neither believe nor disbelieve (in) any thing, besides in the Self. That is believing in the ability to do and and achieve any thing that One truly wants to do and achieve.thedoc wrote:I have just come to the conclusion that belief in God is the most important and basic belief, all the rest is window dressing,SpheresOfBalance wrote: People that believe this also tend to believe that it's theirs that's the one true religion, you? And if so, can you say selfish bias?
When human beings are able to and actually start correctly answering the question Who am 'I'?, i.e., discover who the true Self really IS, then how much truth is in your statement will also be fully realized.
Re: How God could fail to convey His message?
There is a difference between one who is trying to harm you and the other who means you no harm at all. Do you understand the difference?ken wrote:So be it.Hobbes' Choice wrote:You are not making sense.ken wrote:
To make you think about WHY you pity this one yet you wish others dead.
WHY do you only care about some and not ALL?
To you it may not make sense. But, if you were really interested, then you would have asked some sort of inquisitive questioning.
Re: How God could fail to convey His message?
God can be derived within the scope of personal conclusions only since what by its very nature cannot be proven or disproven, impervious to any probability test, is of no consequence and zero significance except in one's personal views where the idea does make a difference.
Re: How God could fail to convey His message?
You seem to be saying that the only thing you can be sure of are what you can experience internally, and I have heard that before. However I have had an experience that, I believe, was external to myself, and I could only attribute to the Holy Spirit, and I reasoned that if the Holy Spirit existed then so did God. I also understand that the experience would only be valid for those present, and not for those who were not there.ken wrote:If you have read some of My other posts in this forum, then you may have noticed I continually say I neither believe nor disbelieve (in) any thing, besides in the Self. That is believing in the ability to do and and achieve any thing that One truly wants to do and achieve.thedoc wrote:I have just come to the conclusion that belief in God is the most important and basic belief, all the rest is window dressing,SpheresOfBalance wrote: People that believe this also tend to believe that it's theirs that's the one true religion, you? And if so, can you say selfish bias?
When human beings are able to and actually start correctly answering the question Who am 'I'?, i.e., discover who the true Self really IS, then how much truth is in your statement will also be fully realized.
Re: How God could fail to convey His message?
Yes I do, BUT what has that got to do with anything I wrote and what I was actually replying to?thedoc wrote:There is a difference between one who is trying to harm you and the other who means you no harm at all. Do you understand the difference?ken wrote:So be it.Hobbes' Choice wrote:
You are not making sense.
To you it may not make sense. But, if you were really interested, then you would have asked some sort of inquisitive questioning.
Re: How God could fail to convey His message?
Try read the end times, that a dude comes from the heavens on a white sky/horse and slays the wicked, bring peace to the world ..etc, most religions has a very similar end prophecy.bahman wrote:So God lied to us if we accept the fact that all religions are from God?HexHammer wrote:Diversity is good!bahman wrote: We believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent. This means that there should be one true religion. There are about 4000 religions. How God could fail to convey his message?
It may not be a lie, but misinterpetation.
Re: How God could fail to convey His message?
Thanks, good to see you around too!SpheresOfBalance wrote:Hexy, how you doing buddy? It's good to see you're still alive, despite the fact that we've locked horns in the past. I agree, diversity is good!HexHammer wrote:Diversity is good!bahman wrote:We believe that God is omniscient and omnipotent. This means that there should be one true religion. There are about 4000 religions. How God could fail to convey his message?
Re: How God could fail to convey His message?
The moment the words "He" and "His" are used to refer to God, it tells you that the writer believes in the Big Sky Man version of God. It's blatant anthropomorphication, based on the innocent notions of ancient people.
- SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5688
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: How God could fail to convey His message?
It's you that doesn't understand that in all actuality there is no difference. All humans suffer from some deterministic force, some worst than others, such that in truth we are all really victims to varying degrees. Is not someone that has been blinded of the truth of our equality, that harms someone, additionally setting up the probability that he too shall be harmed for doing so, not just as much a victim?thedoc wrote:There is a difference between one who is trying to harm you and the other who means you no harm at all. Do you understand the difference?ken wrote:So be it.Hobbes' Choice wrote:
You are not making sense.
To you it may not make sense. But, if you were really interested, then you would have asked some sort of inquisitive questioning.
- SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5688
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: How God could fail to convey His message?
Most people seem to believe that the case is only ever black or white, when in fact it is only ever multitudes of shades of gray.
Re: How God could fail to convey His message?
Ahh, you're a determinist, then I'll leave you to your predetermined destiny, and go on with my freely willed future.SpheresOfBalance wrote:It's you that doesn't understand that in all actuality there is no difference. All humans suffer from some deterministic force, some worst than others, such that in truth we are all really victims to varying degrees. Is not someone that has been blinded of the truth of our equality, that harms someone, additionally setting up the probability that he too shall be harmed for doing so, not just as much a victim?thedoc wrote:There is a difference between one who is trying to harm you and the other who means you no harm at all. Do you understand the difference?ken wrote:
So be it.
To you it may not make sense. But, if you were really interested, then you would have asked some sort of inquisitive questioning.
- SpheresOfBalance
- Posts: 5688
- Joined: Sat Sep 10, 2011 4:27 pm
- Location: On a Star Dust Metamorphosis
Re: How God could fail to convey His message?
No doc, you got it all wrong, determinism exists for everyone. Freewill exists in the framework of determinism. It's a fact! That you don't know any better, is indicative of your not attending college.thedoc wrote:Ahh, you're a determinist, then I'll leave you to your predetermined destiny, and go on with my freely willed future.SpheresOfBalance wrote:It's you that doesn't understand that in all actuality there is no difference. All humans suffer from some deterministic force, some worst than others, such that in truth we are all really victims to varying degrees. Is not someone that has been blinded of the truth of our equality, that harms someone, additionally setting up the probability that he too shall be harmed for doing so, not just as much a victim?thedoc wrote:
There is a difference between one who is trying to harm you and the other who means you no harm at all. Do you understand the difference?
Considering philosophy, no man can be held accountable for his ignorance, unless he likes it, choosing to remain that way!