God is the only person who cannot sin or be tempted and tested to do so.

[Nearly Sane]

You, for one tend not to like the Biblical god when His existence was clear to all in a way which no one can deny

Did you put that in italics just to draw attention to it being mince?

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

As I have asked many times, if the Biblical god exist why does it play silly beggars and not make its existence clear to all in a way which no one can deny?

You, for one tend not to like the Biblical god when His existence was clear to all in a way which no one can deny

God's existence has never been clear to ALL, that is why there are unbelievers!

Eh?

You mentioned the Biblical god. That'll be the God that's mentioned in the Bible...right?

Are there any parts in the Old Testament where belief in the God (mentioned in the Old Testament) were not necessary? (clue: e.g. the Israelites?)

[Brownie]

I agree with you, Sword, that God was extremely evident to those living in Biblical times.

[Nearly Sane]

I agree with you, Sword, that God was extremely evident to those living in Biblical times.

in what way do you justify this as fact?

[floo]

Eh?

You mentioned the Biblical god. That'll be the God that's mentioned in the Bible...right?

Are there any parts in the Old Testament where belief in the God (mentioned in the Old Testament) were not necessary? (clue: e.g. the Israelites?)

Just because something is believed to exist doesn't mean it does, unless you can prove it, which you can't where the Biblical god is concerned.

[Hope]

Just because something is believed to exist doesn't mean it does, unless you can prove it, which you can't where the Biblical god is concerned.

Oddly enough, Floo, people can prove the existence of God, but only by means that do not use naturalistic methods, suggesting that naturalistic methods of proof aren't the sole form of proof.

[Nearly Sane]

Oddly enough, Floo, people can prove the existence of God, but only by means that do not use naturalistic methods, suggesting that naturalistic methods of proof aren't the sole form of proof.

what are these methods?

[Hope]

what are these methods?

Experience and observation, to name but 2.

[ippy]

God's existen

I'm not an unbeliever Floo, I've never seen any sensible reason given nor any viable evidence that could support such an unlikely thing as a god or even think that there's any such thing as a god or gods, so why take up or be bothered by all of that nonsense? 

ippy

[wigginhall]

Experience and observation, to name but 2.

My local shaman says that those guide her in her views about sacred animals.   She will be pleased when I tell her that Christians validate her views.

[Nearly Sane]

Experience and observation, to name but 2.

They are naturalistic

[floo]

Oddly enough, Floo, people can prove the existence of God, but only by means that do not use naturalistic methods, suggesting that naturalistic methods of proof aren't the sole form of proof.

Of course they are the sole form of realistic proof, mere belief is NOT evidence

[Gordon]

Oddly enough, Floo, people can prove the existence of God, but only by means that do not use naturalistic methods, suggesting that naturalistic methods of proof aren't the sole form of proof.

Then, since your claim is so precise, you'll have no trouble setting out these methods for us all to review: if they are sufficient to 'prove' God then surely it is your responsibility to enlighten us.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#28

I agree with you, Sword, that God was extremely evident to those living in Biblical times.

in what way do you justify this as fact?

No-one's trying to justify anything as fact Nearly Sane. By Floo mentioning the biblical god, so the detail in the Bible can be used.

Just because something is believed to exist doesn't mean it does, unless you can prove it, which you can't where the Biblical god is concerned.

But your question was this:

As I have asked many times, if the Biblical god exist why does it play silly beggars and not make its existence clear to all in a way which no one can deny?

So I was just using a biblical situation where no belief was necessary for the biblical God, to see if that would be a situation you would prefer, were it to be the case (i.e. a hypothetical one). If such a situation did exist, no belief would be necessary.

[floo]

#28No-one's trying to justify anything as fact Nearly Sane. By Floo mentioning the biblical god, so the detail in the Bible can be used.
But your question was this:So I was just using a biblical situation where no belief was necessary for the biblical God, to see if that would be a situation you would prefer, were it to be the case (i.e. a hypothetical one). If such a situation did exist, no belief would be necessary.

Belief shouldn't be necessary!

[Gordon]

Experience and observation, to name but 2.

These are both naturalistic.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

Belief shouldn't be necessary!

Would you prefer then a situation where you had no choice and just had to do whatever you were told (e.g. the Israelites from Exodus onwards, where God ruled over them until He allowed them to have a king; again speaking from the biblical perspective about the biblical God)

[wigginhall]

But I don't have any choice in my beliefs.   I don't control them. 

[Gordon]

Would you prefer then a situation where you had no choice and just had to do whatever you were told (e.g. the Israelites from Exodus onwards, where God ruled over them until He allowed them to have a king; again speaking from the biblical perspective about the biblical God)

You can't choose what you believe: for example, try choosing to believe that Swindon is a suburb of Lisbon.

In addition, you seem to be referring to compliance.

[Hope]

You can't choose what you believe: for example, try choosing to believe that Swindon is a suburb of Lisbon.

In addition, you seem to be referring to compliance.

I'd disagree, Gordon.  Your example of Swindon and Lisbon is a very different animal to deciding what is right and what is wrong; what is good for society and what isn't.  The very fact that you drop to the quality of example as you do here suggests a weakness in your argument.  A better example along your line of argument would be 'is Baruca a suburb of Lisbon?'

[trippymonkey]

Surely that's the very nature of BELIEF in that one can't prove it as it's a belief & not a fact.
So I COULD believe that Swindon is a suburb of Lisbon if I so wish.

Nick

[Ricky Spanish]

For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Or.... as the Septuagint says:

Isaiah.9:5 [i.e.9:6] ὅτι παιδίον ἐγεννήθη ἡμῖν υἱὸς καὶ ἐδόθη ἡμῖν οὗ ἡ ἀρχὴ ἐγενήθη ἐπὶ τοῦ ὤμου αὐτοῦ καὶ καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος ἐγὼ γὰρ ἄξω εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας εἰρήνην καὶ ὑγίειαν αὐτῷ


Which is traditionally translated as: "Because a child was born for us, a son also given to us, whose sovereignty was upon his shoulder; and he shall be named Messenger of Great Counsel, for I will bring peace upon the rulers, peace and health to him."

[Nearly Sane]

I'd disagree, Gordon.  Your example of Swindon and Lisbon is a very different animal to deciding what is right and what is wrong; what is good for society and what isn't.  The very fact that you drop to the quality of example as you do here suggests a weakness in your argument.  A better example along your line of argument would be 'is Baruca a suburb of Lisbon?'

What does the 'drop to the quality of example' mean? Why is an example some drop in quality?

BTW want to address the issue that experience and observation are naturalistic?

[Gordon]

I'd disagree, Gordon.  Your example of Swindon and Lisbon is a very different animal to deciding what is right and what is wrong; what is good for society and what isn't.

As usual you miss the point. The example was simply to point out the difficulty of believing something you know to be factually incorrect. That you extrapolate from this factual example to 'right' and 'wrong' is, of course, utterly ridiculous and seriously muddled thinking on your part.

The very fact that you drop to the quality of example as you do here suggests a weakness in your argument.

Further evidence that you struggle to read for comprehension - the example I used was factual and was chosen to illustrate a particular point so your notion that this a 'drop to the quality' (whatever this means) is just your muddled thinking once again in seemingly conflating facts with subjective opinions.

 

A better example along your line of argument would be 'is Baruca a suburb of Lisbon?'

Don't be silly!

[NicholasMarks]

I agree with you, Sword, that God was extremely evident to those living in Biblical times.

Believing in Jesus Christ means believing in a God who is loving and caring towards those who follow his loving, caring laws towards our Deity and towards our neighbours.

Anyone who is watching world events must realise that their are people who live among us who have the appearance of being nice...even God fearing...but are in fact wolves in sheep clothing. These are the war-mongers who are seeking the downfall of everyone but their own  kind.

The only positive laws that conflict with these evil doers and expose them are the righteous laws of Jesus...and the only person doing anything positive about these evil beings is Almighty God, through his son Jesus Christ...and the only hope we've got for beating these oppressors who support mass slaughter, mass starvation, and mass destruction is by following Jesus accurately and in doing so showing evil everyone isn't fooled and especially Almighty God and Jesus Christ are not fooled and who offer us all an escape route from the impending danger that will have the last say in these matters.

Sinners who refuse to repent will see this God as a despicable God, full of nastiness and sin but those who have suffered oppression, over many years, will see him as their saviour...and their sins will be considered less sinful.