God's Ways

[Paul of Tarsus]

Many have said that "the Lord works in mysterious ways." If we were to outline the ways of the Christian God, then how would we describe those ways? Those ways are indeed often mysterious, and here's a partial outline of what I have been told about God and his ways:

1. He created the world, but when that world proved to be imperfect, he blamed us for its faults.
2. Although he has worked countless wonders, he never bothered to do so under circumstances in which we can all be confident he did so.
3. If we doubt any of those miracles that we cannot be sure happened, he will punish us for doubting.
4. To let us know he loves us he sent his son Jesus into the world demanding that Jesus die a horrible death.
5. He very often neglects details.
6. When people argue about him he doesn't bother to resolve the issues.
7. He "chose" the Jews never bothering to explain what's special about them leaving many of them wishing he had chosen somebody else.
8. Although his son Jesus reputedly despised commercialism especially commercialism tied to places where people worship God, God ended up creating a religion that makes very good use of commercialism making many members of that religion very wealthy.
9. He prefers to talk to men.
10. He can make people act as if they are mentally ill.

[JoeyKnothead]

.... at this point I'm going to take up your practice of not answering questions.

A wise decision on your part; when face with an untenable position retreat is a virtue. As you have admitted you have no evidence God created bad religions or good ones . Thus you yourself have underminesd your own accusation. If you have a claim to make about religion feel free to make it (preferably without innuendo we have to un package before addressing), but accusing a God you don't believe exist of a something you dont believe he did is in my opinion, a lesson in futility.

JW

"You have you no evidence God created him a good religion or not, but here I am, aswearing me up and down, I Witnessed me Jehovah, and how bout that!"

Assuredly, there's some good 'religion' to come from having witnessed whatever the heck it was, Jehovah had him to do. Let's not get pedantic.


But what about that whole stone the homos deal there?

That notion there, it's, if we will, written it in stone. It remains in the holy book of Jehovah's 'witnesses'.

It remains in how they preach their preachings.

I mean, I get it, I dont wanna kiss me no man, and I don't want me no man to kiss me neither. I get it. But how arrogantly proud must I be to declare a god I can't show exists gets him disgusted at the man kissing too?


And to declare I witnessed me him atelling it?

"You have no evidence God created him a good religion or not!"

Naw, but I got me good evidence you created you a hateful one of you one of em!

[Paul of Tarsus]

.... at this point I'm going to take up your practice of not answering questions.

A wise decision on your part; when face with an untenable position retreat is a virtue.

Thanks for the expert advice JW, but I plan to continue to debate fairly with all those who treat me fairly. Since you have refused to answer some of my questions, I will refuse to answer yours until you treat me fairly. From Galatians 6:7:

Do not be misled: God is not one to be mocked. For whatever a person is sowing, this he will also reap...

You've sown refusal to answer questions and reaping your questions going unanswered.

...accusing a God you don't believe exist of a something you dont believe he did is, in my opinion, a lesson in futility.

I'm not accusing God but am just repeating what I've read and been told about him. I've noticed that many Christians furiously deny what other Christians have told me or what I've read in the Bible or in other materials like Watchtower publications. I suppose I would be upset too if I was associated with such beliefs.

The source text does present Jesus baptism as the occasion of a supernatural experience, what happened just prior to that event is anyone's guess.

Actually, the whole story of Jesus is anybody's guess. Bible scholars make a living guessing what parts of the gospel are true if any of those parts are true.

All assumptions are not equal. As I pointed out, the narrative itself indicates that when he started his ministry it was surpising and even disturbing to those that knew him. That much is recorded.

The narrative also includes tales of devils, magical healings, stars floating over towns, a virgin being impregnated without a penis, and other things that any sensible person knows better than to believe. Using that narrative to prove a historical fact is less than convincing, at least to me.

[Purple Knight]

11. He's called a loving god but condones slavery

I don't think slavery is as bad as modern people say it is. I don't see how it can be. In the particular instance that it was one race enslaving and subjugating another race, completely one-sidedly, perhaps it's the travesty everyone sees it as, and I would agree that it is.

But in ancient times, what was it to be a slave? Did it mean you had to work hard when somebody else got to lounge around all day in his money pit high on crack and playing Fortnite because he has greater ownership of property? We have that now, and almost everyone is on the losing side of it. Without the permeating racial issue, to be honest I fail to see the problem. At least, I fail to see the problem that modern people can look down on.

I've read the Bible as you know, and much detail is omitted. For instance, aside from his talking in the temple as a boy, we are not told what Christ did before he started his ministry

No; we're told... it was just edited out. I have no idea why.

https://www.tonyburke.ca/infancy-gospel ... anslation/

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 32:

...
You've sown refusal to answer questions and reaping your questions going unanswered.
...

Don't that just put a hair in a biscuit?

I've repeatedly asked you to show you speak truth regarding your claims here, and now you wanna act all high and mighty accusing that'n there of not answering questions.

What really kills me about this, is that you're obviously possessed of a big intelligence. That aint to butter your biscuits, that's just to tell the truth. I just dont get it. I pray for the day I could be half smart as you, but you do the exact same thing you accuse others of doing so nefaritily. It just doesn't compute.

Why do you insist others answer questions, but refuse to answer you any that might cause discomfort?
What is it that upsets you about folks not answering questions, as you refuse to do the same?

[Tcg]

No; we're told... it was just edited out. I have no idea why.

https://www.tonyburke.ca/infancy-gospel ... anslation/

No. This was not "edited out" of any of the gospels accepted by orthodox Christianity as canonical. It is a gospel that was never accepted into the canon.


Tcg

[brunumb]

No; we're told... it was just edited out. I have no idea why.

https://www.tonyburke.ca/infancy-gospel ... anslation/

No. This was not "edited out" of any of the gospels accepted by orthodox Christianity as canonical. It is a gospel that was never accepted into the canon.


Tcg

When you read some of it you can understand why. Young Jesus was a total brat.

2 1 And the son of Annas the scribe had come with Joseph. And taking a willow twig, he destroyed the pools and drained out the water which Jesus had gathered together. And he dried up their gatherings.
2 And Jesus, seeing what had happened, said to him, “Your fruit (shall be) without root and your shoot shall be dried up like a branch scorched by a strong wind.”
3 And instantly that child withered.

3 1 While he was going from there with his father Joseph, a child running tore into his shoulder. And Jesus said to him, “You shall no longer go our way.” And instantly he died. At once the people, seeing that he was dead, cried out and said, “Where was this boy born that his word becomes a deed?”
2 When they saw what had happened the parents of the dead boy blamed his father Joseph, saying, “Because you have this boy you cannot live with us in this village. If you wish to be here, teach him to bless and not to curse.”

[tam]

Peace to you,

The WAY is Christ (I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life - no one comes to the Father except through me). If you want to know about God (the Father of Christ), then what Christ tells/shows us is what we should be listening/looking to. Christ is the one who reveals his Father as His Father truly is.

That's another mystery. Why does God insist on one and only one middleman? Why not two or three? We are not told why, but such exclusivism does serve to keep other religions out of the mix.

Perhaps because that middleman is His Son, whom He loves, who reflects Him perfectly, who loves Him in return, who always does what pleases Him, who is merciful, and FOR whom He created the universe and all things.

Has nothing to do with religion.

He created the world, but when that world proved to be imperfect, he blamed us for its faults.

The world did not prove to be imperfect...

How could the world God created be perfect when there was a devious snake in it?

Something being perfect does not mean that it cannot be corrupted. The 'devious snake' (not a snake at all, but a serpent, a drakon, a seraph: the Adversary), corrupted himself.

You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.
16
Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
17
Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.



**
And as I was just asked,

How could something be corrupted, if it was not perfect (without corruption) to begin with?

So the "blame" is just appropriate.

If people are to be blamed for the world's troubles, then doing so gets God off the hook, now doesn't it?

So? If God is to be blamed for the world's troubles, then doing so gets man off the hook, now doesn't it?

You just can't trust a God for salvation if he bungled the creation.

God (the God and Father of Christ) is the One who had the plan to counter mankind's 'bungling'. I can certainly trust Him and His Son for salvation. What you can or cannot do is not up to me.

That doesn't mean someone who doubts God's existance cannot receive life (even eternal life).

Then atheists will reign in heaven with Christ.

I hope you weren't expecting that statement to bother me, because it doesn't. That is not the promise, mind you, unless of course said atheist became Christian (called and chosen by Christ, anointed with holy spirit) before Christ returns. But not everyone who receives life (even eternal life) reigns as king-priests in the Kingdom for the thousand years. Some do (who are in Christ), and some are invited in as subjects of that Kingdom.

Good news.

If we doubt any of those miracles that we cannot be sure happened, he will punish us for doubting.

Like what? Do you have an example?

Try Mark 16:16 for starters.

What does that verse have to do with doubting miracles that you cannot be sure happened?

He sent his son Jesus into the world demanding that Jesus die a horrible death to let us know he loves us.

God did not demand this. Sending His Son to us was from love - to save us, to ransom us back from Death, to call and train us in peace, to teach us truth, lead us into all truth. God did not force man to torture His Son. Christ also had the choice to come, to not come, to refuse to go through with the arrest and subsequent execution. As Christ said, He could have called on an army of angels to prevent His arrest if He chose. Yet He did this also out of love, 'no greater love than to lay down one's life for one's friends', and yet Christ even did so for those who were yet His enemies.

It sounds like Christ committed suicide.

Is that what you think of anyone who lays down their life to protect and/or save others?

(though I am sure that you and I have had this conversation before)

He very often neglects details.

Did the person who told you this give you any examples?

I've read the Bible as you know, and much detail is omitted. For instance, aside from his talking in the temple as a boy, we are not told what Christ did before he started his ministry

The bible is a collection of books. How could it possibly hold every detail of the lives of the people written in it? Why would that even be necessary? Regardless of what Christ did before starting his ministry (and there is some insight into that anyway), what would that have to do with His words, His teachings, His witness? Unless of course one was hoping to find a way to discredit him (like digging up dirt on a rival politician)?

When people argue about him he doesn't bother to resolve the issues.
Resolve for whom? Because He did send His Son to bear witness to the truth, to reveal the Father. Whether one listens to that Son or not, well, that is another matter.

I suppose God never bothered to resolve the issues between the two of us.

I will repeat: God did send His Son to bear witness to the truth, to reveal the Father.

But 'issues' between people regarding Christ (and God) will continue until Christ returns. Sometimes because of the various lies that are out there, and/or, because of religion which too many people look to for truth (instead of looking to Christ), and/or, because of fear and hate that those religions have engendered in people, and/or, because there are also enemies (of Truth) in the world.

There will also be differences between people with faith and people without faith, regarding matters of Christ, God, faith, etc. But those differences don't have to result in anger or fear or judgment or hatred. One can disagree with others in peace and with respect.

He "chose" the Jews never bothering to explain what's special about them leaving many of them wishing he had chosen somebody else.

Someone told you that many Jews wish that God had chosen someone else? I'm not sure that is true, but even if many do wish that, there are many who do not wish that.

I remember seeing a Jewish man on television who, referring to the Holocaust, quipped that he wished God had chosen somebody else. It's safe to say that the Jews in the concentration camps would have agreed.

Some may have, some may not have.

But the Holocaust is something that man committed against his fellow man. Nor was it just Jews in the concentration camps.

Although his son Jesus reputedly despised commercialism especially commercialism tied to places where people worship God, God ended up creating a religion that makes very good use of commercialism making many members of that religion very wealthy.

So who told you that God created such a religion?

The writers of the New Testament wrote of the new religion.

Where did they write of 'the new religion'?



Peace again to you, and to you all,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Paul of Tarsus]

That's another mystery. Why does God insist on one and only one middleman? Why not two or three? We are not told why, but such exclusivism does serve to keep other religions out of the mix.

Perhaps because that middleman is His Son, whom He loves, who reflects Him perfectly, who loves Him in return, who always does what pleases Him, who is merciful, and FOR whom He created the universe and all things.

You're not answering the question. Why only one son? If God got one young girl pregnant, then surely he could impregnate as many young girls as he pleased.

By the way, some scholars think Mary could have been as young as twelve when she was impregnated, and she was impregnated without her consent.

Has nothing to do with religion.

Yes. Aside from worship, prayer, heaven, hell, devils, angels, temples, sacred scriptures, miracles, prophecy and God, Christ is religion free!

How could the world God created be perfect when there was a devious snake in it?

Something being perfect does not mean that it cannot be corrupted.

I must disagree. Something that is perfect cannot be improved. Incorruptibility is an improvement over corruptibility, so an incorruptible creation would be better than a corruptible creation. So when God presumably created our corruptible world, that world could have been improved, and therefore it wasn't perfect.

The 'devious snake' (not a snake at all, but a serpent, a drakon, a seraph: the Adversary), corrupted himself.

Actually, Genesis 3:3 describes the serpent as a crafty wild animal, and it was not until later that Christians reinvented that snake as Satan.

How could something be corrupted, if it was not perfect (without corruption) to begin with?

Something that is corrupted can be more severely corrupted or corrupted in a different way. The creation, if we can believe the story, was created imperfect and corrupt because God created it with both a dangerous fruit tree and a crafty snake both of which jeopardized paradise for both Eve and Adam. When these potential dangers became actual dangers, God's world went from bad to worse.

Personally, if I was God, then I would have penned up the snake and fenced off the tree to assure that Eve and Adam would never have been harmed by either one of them.

Try Mark 16:16 for starters.

What does that verse have to do with doubting miracles that you cannot be sure happened?

We are to believe or perish, Tam. That would include belief in miracles as we all know.

It sounds like Christ committed suicide.

Is that what you think of anyone who lays down their life to protect and/or save others?

Sure, it's very possible to save others by committing suicide. A soldier who throws himself on a grenade to save his buddies is a good example. But unlike such a brave soldier, Christ never protected or saved anybody as far as I know. If he did save or protect anybody, it was to save them and protect them from his "heavenly Father."

...we are not told what Christ did before he started his ministry

The bible is a collection of books. How could it possibly hold every detail of the lives of the people written in it? Why would that even be necessary? Regardless of what Christ did before starting his ministry (and there is some insight into that anyway), what would that have to do with His words, His teachings, His witness? Unless of course one was hoping to find a way to discredit him (like digging up dirt on a rival politician)?

You know full well I'm not expecting every detail of any Bible character's life. If we had more details of Christ's life (if he had a real life at all), then we'd have a better idea about what his motive was in preaching what he did. Much of his doctrines have precursors in pagan mythology, for example. Did Christ study pagan religion? The only way we can know is if we knew what he was doing before he started his ministry.

I suppose God never bothered to resolve the issues between the two of us.

I will repeat: God did send His Son to bear witness to the truth, to reveal the Father.

Then I'd expect that revealed truth to resolve disagreements over Christ and God. You know--revelations are by definition the acquisition of knowledge. It appears to me that people are sorely lacking the truth they need to settle their religious disputes. God sending Christ evidently has done little to help if it hasn't made people even more confused.

But 'issues' between people regarding Christ (and God) will continue until Christ returns. Sometimes because of the various lies that are out there, and/or, because of religion which too many people look to for truth (instead of looking to Christ), and/or, because of fear and hate that those religions have engendered in people, and/or, because there are also enemies (of Truth) in the world.

You judge people very harshly. Somebody could accuse you of lying, but that wouldn't be very nice, now would it? As I see it, the large majority of people who come up with conflicting religious beliefs sincerely think they are right. They're not dishonest but are confused. So let's put the blame where it belongs: The Bible has got to be the most confusing work ever written.

I remember seeing a Jewish man on television who, referring to the Holocaust, quipped that he wished God had chosen somebody else. It's safe to say that the Jews in the concentration camps would have agreed.

Some may have, some may not have.

Some of the Jews in the concentration camps put God on trial for breaking his promises to them. Those Jews found him guilty.

But the Holocaust is something that man committed against his fellow man.

Yes--while God did nothing to save the millions of innocent victims who died there.

The writers of the New Testament wrote of the new religion.

Where did they write of 'the new religion'?

Sorry, Tam, but I'm not going to answer a question that we all know the answer to. I don't play that game.

[brunumb]

You were blameless in your ways
from the day you were created
till wickedness was found in you.
16
Through your widespread trade
you were filled with violence,
and you sinned.
So I drove you in disgrace from the mount of God,
and I expelled you, guardian cherub,
from among the fiery stones.
17
Your heart became proud
on account of your beauty,
and you corrupted your wisdom
because of your splendor.
So I threw you to the earth;
I made a spectacle of you before kings.

This is from the middle of Ezekiel 28. What do you consider it is about and why did you quote it in the context of your response?

[Purple Knight]

No; we're told... it was just edited out. I have no idea why.

https://www.tonyburke.ca/infancy-gospel ... anslation/

No. This was not "edited out" of any of the gospels accepted by orthodox Christianity as canonical. It is a gospel that was never accepted into the canon.

No, it wasn't edited out of the orthodox canon... it was edited out when the gospels became the orthodox canon. Anyway having that bit filled in feels the same as seeing a movie unedited for the first time, and realising that what seemed odd or just like bad storytelling before actually wasn't, because something was supposed to be there.

If people are to be blamed for the world's troubles, then doing so gets God off the hook, now doesn't it?

So? If God is to be blamed for the world's troubles, then doing so gets man off the hook, now doesn't it?

Not really. I can only speak for myself but the fault lies with me. I'm a faulty being and I know so. I'm a horrible person. But I can also ask (rightly) who would create such a horrible person, and for what reason?

I'm downstream, you see, so blaming the guy upstream doesn't let me off the hook at all. Yes, I was the inspector. I ought to have cast aside every defective part I saw come past me on that line. That's my job, after all. But when most of the parts are defective I'm still going to be looking upstream with an angry look on my face. I can take responsibility for every defective part I miss (read: for every sin I commit) and still be hella mad that the guy upstream is sending me so many defective parts.