Does God want everyone to believe in him?

[Justin108]

Does God want everyone to believe in him?

[bluethread]

[Replying to post 1 by Justin108]

This is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

Did you mean this God?

This is probably the most extreme example of a statement of Paul used to address this topic. If there is another, I would be happy to see it. It is important to look at consistency, context and word usage to see what is really being said. Interpreting this as a call for universal salvation creates a bit of a contradiction when compared to other statements made by Paul. In the book of Romans, he speaks hypothetically of "vessels fit for destruction". So, let's look at the context and word usage of these two verses.

When verse three says, "This is good . . .", what is he referring to? In the previous verse he speaks of prayers for all men, specifically for those in authority, so that we can live in peace. Now the term that is translated "all" generally does not mean each and every, but all kinds or all of a specific kind as a whole, in this case mankind. This same term is used in verse 4. So, he is saying that we should pray for social stability, but for what reason? Because, Adonai desires all kinds of men and mankind in general "to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." In context, this could be referring to being saved from a corrupt and immoral society. However, even if it is referring to eternal life, I would be referring to a remnant that is preserved in the present time to assure that salvation will remain a consideration in human discourse.

So, in short, this is not a justification for universal salvation, but an exhortation to pray "that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty."

[William]

[Replying to post 16 by Justin108]

Yes and despite being on the planet, we still can't find any evidence that the planet itself is alive as you believe.

Yes. There is a vast variety of life form on the planet, but none of it is generally regarded as being the result of the planet itself being a conscious entity. Also none of it is regarded as being the sum total of one conscious ongoing movement - flowing, as it were - through the time'space continuum.

That is something you can develop in congruity with the relationship.

Can you perhaps give me a more direct answer?

My answer was direct. What you are now - perhaps - asking, is for me to expand on that answer?

What method should I use?

It is complicated, as is any form of relationship building.

For example, your and my relationship. On a scale of 1 (being poor) to 10 being excellent, how would you rate it?

The device being used in regard to our relationship is easy to use, but how are we using it to form relationship? That is the primary ingredient. Not the device, but how it is being used.

Synchronicity of what?

Event strings, for want of a better expression. The details of your subjective reality in relation to your thoughts and your actions. The internal in relation to the external, and those two realities aligning.

Serendipity, by definition, is a by chance occurrence.

All things happening are occurrences. You are correct that the definition is equated to chance, but it is also equated to chance in a 'happy or beneficial way'. This brings in the idea of intelligent reason as to why serendipity happens, related to the individual.
I would define it therefore as occurrence which has the appearance of chance

What makes you think serendipity is caused by the "Earth God"?

Its continuum coupled with her position in being able to manipulate events to that purpose. What good is that if I remain unaware of it, or in purposeful denial of it?

What makes you think it's a sign of communication?

Because of how it is unfolding. How would an entity who is experiencing being a planet be able to communicate with the conscious individual life forms on her body able to perceive that, using her form in order to do so?

How is this any different from concluding a rabbit's foot is lucky or that you must be wearing your lucky underwear because the traffic wasn't so bad this morning?

I don't understand your question in regard to forming a relationship with the EE. You are speaking about forming relationship with a rabbits foot or a pair of underwear?

How is this any different from the usual superstitions of lucky objects,...

Superstition is generally considered to be related to the supernatural. A relationship with the EE has nothing to do with the so-called 'supernatural'.

...horoscopes, etc.?

Devices. Tools. Ordinarily such are used in relation to - the so-called supernatural. Can such devices be used in regard to forming and maintaining a relationship with the EE? I see no reason why not, other than the individual may not wish to do so or has some particular (perhaps superstitious) issue with such devices.

I am stating that this is a necessary condition to adopt. Without it you might as well not bother.

You do see the flaw in this, right?

Nope. Having a genuine willingness to develop a genuine relationship with anyone, is a standard necessity, otherwise how can a genuine relationship actually have opportunity to unfold?

In order to commune with God, you already need to not only assume there is a God, but be massively invested in the idea that God communicates with people.

Obviously. That is the first step. One cannot claim to have made the effort and from that only being meet with a wall of silence, if the effort excludes the prerequisite. That is part and parcel of the recipe of wanting to form a genuine relationship with anyone.

You have to want to do so.

At this point, things like serendipity, fuzzy feelings, birds chirping, etc. become means of confirmation bias.

I would say that differently - these things become a means of confirmation, which in turn create the bias. Also, my understanding of the word bias is that it can be applied to positive rather than just the negative, as I stated in this post.

Relationship generally requires two individuals meeting halfway and getting on the same page.
If your expectations are the only ones you consider worthwhile and your demands won't budge in relation to that, then a wall of silence is the best you can hope for.

The silence of course, won't mean that this is evidence that the EE does not exist.

"I tried to communicate with God, and then I heard a car horn in the distance. Why, that must be God trying to say hello!"

If that is your attitude then I am happy to conclude that the utter silence you experience is of your own making.

Of course you're going to hear God in every bird, see God in every cloud, etc. if you expect to. This is known as pareidolia.

By whom is it this known as 'pareidolia'? Those seeking a genuine relationship with EE or those who have made up their minds already that EE does not exist?

thoughts aligned with external events - bird songs, insects symbolizing whatever symbols you wish to attach to them...there is nothing I know of which cannot be used for this purpose.

How the hell to you attribute any of this to God?

Firstly, it has nothing to do with hell.

I attribute all of this to do with EE AND my individual subjective experience as a human being.

You seem to be using random, trivial phenomena and assuming that these things are instances of God communicating with you.

You assume my thoughts are random, trivial phenomena? You assume that external events are random, trivial phenomena? What can I say, except to remind you of the silence of your own life?

Again, this can be summed up as pareidolia. You see these patterns because you want to see these patterns .

No I see the patterns because they exist, and I acknowledge their existence. They are noise, not silence, and the noise they communicate are like music to the eyes.

I write about this in more detail in my Member Notes;

♦ "It's Only Coincidence - The Brain Is Trained To recognize Patterns Which Aren't Really There"

[Justin108]

Can you perhaps give me a more direct answer?

My answer was direct. What you are now - perhaps - asking, is for me to expand on that answer?

I asked you what method I should use. You did not directly answer me on what method I should use. But if "please expand on your answer?" are the magic words to getting an answer from you, then please expand on your answer?

What method should I use?

It is complicated, as is any form of relationship building.

Babysteps. I don't want a relationship just yet. I just want to communicate first. Communication is normally quite simple. Sure, deciphering what's being said might not always be simple (if, for example, two people are speaking different languages), but it's usually obvious when someone is trying to communicate with you. This is not the case with your earth God.

For example, your and my relationship. On a scale of 1 (being poor) to 10 being excellent, how would you rate it?

That's irrelevant. I'm still communicating with you. There is no confusion on that fact. I know how to communicate with you and I know when I'm communicating with you. I want to know how to communicate with earth God and when will I know when he/she/it is communicating back? Or are you going to go with an "well God won't communicate with you unless you establish a relationship first" kind of answer as most Christians normally do?

The device being used in regard to our relationship is easy to use, but how are we using it to form relationship? That is the primary ingredient. Not the device, but how it is being used.

Upon the third time asking this on this thread, you have yet to answer me.

What method should I use to communicate with God?
You're response: "well it's very hard you know".

That's not an answer. I didn't ask how hard it is, I asked what the method is.

Synchronicity of what?

Event strings, for want of a better expression.

We're back to pareidolia. What makes you think the fact that things are connected is an instance of God communicating with you? You can use that exact same 'evidence' and conclude that this clearly means we're in one big computer simulator. Please explain how you draw the connection between seemingly synchronous events, and God communicating with you?

The details of your subjective reality in relation to your thoughts and your actions. The internal in relation to the external, and those two realities aligning.

Can you give a few concrete examples? Is this something like thinking about a bird and then suddenly a bird flies into your window?

All things happening are occurrences. You are correct that the definition is equated to chance, but it is also equated to chance in a 'happy or beneficial way'. This brings in the idea of intelligent reason as to why serendipity happens

Wait so just because something happening by chance ended up with a happy outcome, you suddenly conclude that it has to have some kind of supernatural or divine explanation? This makes no sense. What if something bad happens by chance? Is this God being mad at you? This is the same archaic line of thinking that resulted it people sacrificing goats to the gods, hoping it will end a drought.

Logically speaking, a chance event either has a good, bad, or neutral outcome. A bad outcome happens, and you think nothing of it. A neutral outcome happens, and you think nothing of it. A good outcome happens, and suddenly it's the work of God? Why?

What makes you think serendipity is caused by the "Earth God"?

Its continuum coupled with her position in being able to manipulate events to that purpose. What good is that if I remain unaware of it, or in purposeful denial of it?

So you think God communicates with you on the basis that "she" can communicate with you?

Well there are two problems with that reasoning.
1. Isn't the fact that you communicated with this God part of the reason you believe in "her"? It becomes circular. You believe in God because you've communicated with her, yet you believe that mundane things like serendipity is God communicating with you because you believe in God.

2. Even if we conclude that God exists and that God can communicate with you, that doesn't mean that she does. Assuming God does just because God can is illogical.

Quick question. Can God communicate with us in a more apparent way? Is it possible for God to just talk to me the way I talk to other people? Or is God only able to communicate through indirect and open to interpretation phenomena like serendipity, fuzzy feelings, etc.?

What makes you think it's a sign of communication?

Because of how it is unfolding. How would an entity who is experiencing being a planet be able to communicate with the conscious individual life forms on her body able to perceive that, using her form in order to do so?

Why do you believe this entity exists in the first palace? And if you answer with "well because it's spoken to me" then we're back to circular logic.

How is this any different from concluding a rabbit's foot is lucky or that you must be wearing your lucky underwear because the traffic wasn't so bad this morning?

I don't understand your question in regard to forming a relationship with the EE. You are speaking about forming relationship with a rabbits foot or a pair of underwear?

I am speaking about your rational in attributing mundane events to your earth God. Connecting these things to God is just about as likely as connecting these things to lucky underwear
- God communicates with me. I know this because this good thing happened to me today
- My underwear is lucky. I know this because this good thing happened to me today

How is this any different from the usual superstitions of lucky objects,...

Superstition is generally considered to be related to the supernatural. A relationship with the EE has nothing to do with the so-called 'supernatural'.

You're arguing semantics. To some, the very notion of the earth itself being alive is supernatural. It becomes even more seemingly supernatural once you claim that the earth is actually talking to you. That the earth is deliberately manipulating things to result in serendipitous outcomes for your benefit. These can certainly be seen as supernatural. You might argue that "well if God exists, then this will all be very natural occurrences". With that same logic I could argue that if magic, curses and spirits existed, they would also be natural. And so superstitious objects like a lucky rabbits foot stops being supernatural and instead becomes natural.

So again I ask, how is this any different from the usual superstitions of lucky objects?

Nope. Having a genuine willingness to develop a genuine relationship with anyone, is a standard necessity, otherwise how can a genuine relationship actually have opportunity to unfold?

Well for one, if you want to form a genuine relationship with someone, you would first need to know for a fact that the person exists? Or do you often form relationships with things you're not all that sure is real? Did you have many imaginary friends growing up?

In order to commune with God, you already need to not only assume there is a God, but be massively invested in the idea that God communicates with people.

Obviously. That is the first step. One cannot claim to have made the effort and from that only being meet with a wall of silence, if the effort excludes the prerequisite. That is part and parcel of the recipe of wanting to form a genuine relationship with anyone.

You have to want to do so.

Normally, you wouldn't need to do it. Specifically the part of assuming God exits. I don't just assume people exists before I start a relationship with them. I make damn sure they exist. It is essential to know someone exists before being able to form a relationship with them.

At this point, things like serendipity, fuzzy feelings, birds chirping, etc. become means of confirmation bias.

I would say that differently - these things become a means of confirmation, which in turn create the bias.

You can't call it confirmation when there are alternate logical explanations. Or do you believe that the only possible explanation for serendipity, fuzzy feelings, birds chirping, etc. is that God herself is communicating with you?

Relationship generally requires two individuals meeting halfway and getting on the same page.

Again, after both parties are absolutely sure one another exists.

If your expectations are the only ones you consider worthwhile and your demands won't budge in relation to that, then a wall of silence is the best you can hope for.

Is what you do equally as ambiguous as what the earth God does? If you shout "hey earth God!" will the earth God not properly understand what you mean? Or is the earth God fully aware of you, your existence, your thoughts, your intentions, etc.? Does the earth God understand English?

The silence of course, won't mean that this is evidence that the EE does not exist.

But a moment of serendipity is evidence that she does exist...? Me finding a coin on the floor is proof that the earth itself is a sentient entity?

Of course you're going to hear God in every bird, see God in every cloud, etc. if you expect to. This is known as pareidolia.

By whom is it this known as 'pareidolia'? Those seeking a genuine relationship with EE or those who have made up their minds already that EE does not exist?

Are you familiar with the concept of pareidolia? Do you believe pareidolia is a real phenomena outside of your EE? Or do you believe that all coincidences and patterns, by necessity, points to your EE? If you believe this by necessity, then your belief is a cocktail of of circular logic, confirmation bias, presupposition, and just a general lack of reason.

How the hell to you attribute any of this to God?

Firstly, it has nothing to do with hell.

I attribute all of this to do with EE AND my individual subjective experience as a human being.

I know you attribute this to the EE... Which is why I asked why you attribute it to the EE. Your answer amounts to "I attribute it to the EE because I attribute it to the EE".

You seem to be using random, trivial phenomena and assuming that these things are instances of God communicating with you.

You assume my thoughts are random, trivial phenomena? You assume that external events are random, trivial phenomena? What can I say, except to remind you of the silence of your own life?

What exactly is "the silence of my own life"?

Again, this can be summed up as pareidolia. You see these patterns because you want to see these patterns .

No I see the patterns because they exist, and I acknowledge their existence.

How do you know they exist? How do you know you're not just creating them in your head?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Does God want everyone to believe in him?

This seems to be a silly question. Anyone who knows a lick about the Bible/Christianity knows that God wants everyone to believe in him.

Seriously. SMH.

[Tcg]

This seems to be a silly question. Anyone who knows a lick about the Bible/Christianity knows that God wants everyone to believe in him.

If that is true, it is a shame that the god of the Bible/Christianity is such a failure. You'd think with it's omnipotence and all it could do a much better job of causing it's desires to actually happen.

[William]

[Replying to post 23 by Justin108]

What exactly is "the silence of my own life"?

I am referring to the comment you made in post#10. I quote;

Well I've asked God several times before, so I guess utter silence in response is essentially the same as "no".

[William]

[Replying to post 23 by Justin108]

For example, your and my relationship. On a scale of 1 (being poor) to 10 being excellent, how would you rate it?

That's irrelevant. I'm still communicating with you.

I would say no. You are communicating at me, would be more the truth.

I would say, and this is being generous... a '2'. Pretty poor.

You asked for method - I said it was complicated. Sincerely - in my own experience forming relationship with EE, communication with her brought about its own challenges as she slowly and surely peeled away the layers of attitude which comprised the costume I was not even aware I was wearing.

And that was my attitude.

Method isn't just about which device is best for the job. Method also involves approach. You seem to be under the impression that you can commune with others without any forming of relationship being necessary.

This is erroneous and therefore part of the method has to include - in my answering the question - that ones approach to relationship involving communication involves adjusting ones attitude. Without the willingness to be open to that idea of approach, the method won't/can't be of any use.

[For_The_Kingdom]

If that is true, it is a shame that the god of the Bible/Christianity is such a failure. You'd think with it's omnipotence and all it could do a much better job of causing it's desires to actually happen.

Actually, the real shame here is that you think that God can make someone freely believe in him.

That is a shame.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 28 by For_The_Kingdom]

A voice out of the sky, everyone hears, but/and says everyones name, but they only hear theirs, would convince me, freely.

It could say, [Name], there is a greater power in the Universe, follow the Bible.

I'd be converted, freely.
Actually this is just an over-the-top example.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 28 by For_The_Kingdom]

A voice out of the sky, everyone hears, but/and says everyones name, but they only hear theirs, would convince me, freely.

It could say, [Name], there is a greater power in the Universe, follow the Bible.

I'd be converted, freely.
Actually this is just an over-the-top example.

You are right, it is over-the-top...it is so over-the-top that it doesn't accurately reflect the context of what I said.

I was talking about being forced to believe in a free manner. It is a oxymoron. Fallacious.