Why Is God So OBSCURE to Us?

[FriendofGod]

Brian said:

If one insists on claiming that his sheep hear voices, it helps to remember this . . .

Good point. I’m not saying every voice you hear is God’s, not by a long shot. But one of the marks of maturity for a believer in Christ it the ability to discern the difference between your own thoughts, the devil’s temptations, and God speaking to your heart. There is a difference.

Ben said:

Did you read the “Could you Believe” thread I directed you to?

I didn’t realize it was directed to me. Is it still on page 1? I will look for it after I post this response.

For that matter, you’ve already proven yourself to be quite able to mistake your own imagination for the voice of God, when you uttered false prophecies.

Where on earth are you getting ‘false prophesies’ from? I’ve seen you mention that several times. Are you talking about last summer when I missed hearing God? How was that a false prophesy? Why do you call it that?

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by aynrandlover *
No, you did.

OK. I’m sorry if I confused you. If I wanted to say God exists, I’d just say it. The point of my analogy was to counter Brian’s assertion that somehow it was a false idea to claim you couldn’t perform an action and get a certain result, and contrariwise – that you couldn’t not perform a certain action and not get a certain result.

I didn’t need to cite an example when you had already done it for me. The John passage above did that quite nicely.

I still don’t see what you are seeing.

As well, I covered Jesus’s commandments. They were in relation to a divine power…that is, “Do <this> because <god said so>.” Thus, implicit in the teachings and commandments of Jesus is the idea of God."

You and I appear to have a different definition of the word “implicit.” The “because” clause isn’t a part of the commandment proper, which is the “do this” part.

Jesus as a man in no way implies a God, much like my existence does not imply God’s existence. Jesus argued from a position of authority as being the son of God, and so anything which relies on the teachings, opinions, or commandments therein imply divinity.

Are you trying to say that anyone who keeps any of his commandments automatically believes in God? I don’t buy it.

*Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt *
The Christ-Satan love-hate experiment you speak of was conducted fully for a thousand years during the dark ages, and is currently being conducted in about 80 countries where I would not want to live.

Love is being done in many countries, but in truth, God’s kingdom is all one kingdom.

Furthermore, there are third-world non-religious spinoff successors to the opposition control theories of the messianic eschatology concept, namely dogmatic communism.

I was under the impression that Communism was a spin off of capitalism, not Christianity. By all mean, start a new thread on this idea.

Currently and locally, the massive worldwide experiment of socially low expectations and anti-intellectualism (employing self-righteousness) is being conducted in segments of the American population, ie, ultra-conservatives.

OK. What does that have to do with the topic at hand?

Everywhere it goes, it fears the facts presented by realism as it spreads the foreign idea of hierarchy, and accordingly attempts to deny government services to economic victims of elitism (yet blames crime on the lack of top-down morality they are selling).

What is “it” and how can “it” fear? Can you give some examples of these “foriegn ideas of hierarchy” which “it” spreads? You seem to have switch gears entirely now to talking about capitalism. Did you perhaps post this to the wrong thread?

Fo course, they tend to offer feelings instead, perhaps knowing no other way to figure the world, but these are hostile feelings, towards others (blaming the victim), the environment (end of the evil natural world) and ourselves (guilt).

Ah, I see. You are talking about capitalism. If you are so hostile to this system, why are you a part of it?

This experiment of [Jesus’s] is toxic and poisonous, and your special Christology is worse than addictive drugs and likewise feeds on ignorance and passion, including all the negative passions.

If one was not ignorant, one would never need to conduct an experiment. Is it my fault people are ignorant?

Did you ever stop to consider that you are selling blindness with your gospel of renunciation?

Blindness to what, exactly?

No one will ever see your hybrid point of view, it is ineffective by being unique, because it is not pure enough nonsense.

Oh, my point of view is hardly unique. I’ll admit that I don’t know if love will triumph over hate in the end.

Christ is an empty life-raft for desperate and diseased mass ignorance to float forever without direction or power, it is not a sane luxury for healthy people.

It is the ultimate power because a Christian is directed by no one. One you perfect the commandments, you are a completely free spirit, and you have the dangerous power of a voice, and a real presense. You have never had this freedom, so you can not appreciate it.

I don’t expect you to see it this way, of course, not with two sets of values to draw from, one being objective, the other being necessary.

I don’t see it your way because you are wrong and ignorant. If you were only willing to love, you would keep Jesus’s teachings, and then the Holy Spirit would teach you the truth. If not, you can continue being a slave to those who do love, and save yourself that way. I don’t have a problem with that.

[Brian_Bunnyhurt]

*Originally posted by jmullaney *
**I don’t see it your way because you are wrong and ignorant. If you were only willing to love, you would keep Jesus’s teachings, and then the Holy Spirit would teach you the truth. If not, you can continue being a slave to those who do love, and save yourself that way. I don’t have a problem with that. **

Bravo, Jmull,

You gave me the bingo. You never needed to contradict yourself to expose your delusion so much as condescendingly assert your own moral superiority to prove my point. Notice the seamless blame, the effortless appeal to personality cult, the fateful conclusion to spiritual possession, the symbolism of slavery, and the assumptions of condemnation and salvation. So, is this the dogma of love-hate? As they say in Utah: You betcha! Save yourself, Jmull, Mormonism and such cults make a heathen out of you all over again. It never ends.

(BTW, I never switched gears, all dogmas of opposition are related by their assumptions, in this case absolutism, and the NT teaches communism accordingly. Absolutism leaves nothing to nature, and imposes will and order on the entire universe–control theory. In a nutshell, personality cults are never about the personality, but submission itself. And, did I say blindness? Correction: Self-absorbed thought leads the victim to roll their eyes back into their head and see their own world, like in the zombie movies).

[erislover]

You and I appear to have a different definition of the word “implicit.” The “because” clause isn’t a part of the commandment proper, which is the “do this” part.

Ok… I think we’re getting lost here. The point of keeping Jesus’s teaching is to know God. If I <do this> then <something occurs>. There is no reason to follow Jesus’s commandments otherwise.

If we are following Jesus’s commandments because jmull said so then that’s fine, and we’ll know nothing of God in that case. It seems to be your position here, though, that we will come to know God merely by following Jesus’s commandments because you said so. That is a teneble position. Right now my bible isn’t handy so I can’t elaborate more. I’ll check back later.

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt *
Bravo, Jmull,

You gave me the bingo. You never needed to contradict yourself to expose your delusion so much as condescendingly assert your own moral superiority to prove my point.

My own moral superiority? But I’m not even a Christian. What are you talking about?

Notice the seamless blame, the effortless appeal to personality cult, the fateful conclusion to spiritual possession, the symbolism of slavery, and the assumptions of condemnation and salvation.

Oh, I appreciate you don’t believe it, nor do you feel any need to love your fellow man. I understand.

all dogmas of opposition are related by their assumptions, in this case absolutism, and the NT teaches communism accordingly.

Where does the NT teach communism? If it does, what is wrong with the form of communism it teaches?

Absolutism leaves nothing to nature, and imposes will and order on the entire universe–control theory.

A will of freedom isn’t a will of control.

In a nutshell, personality cults are never about the personality, but submission itself.

What do you have to complain about a system which gives more freedom than any other? You have to submit to something – why not submit to that which makes you most free? Propose an alternative if you think I’m wrong.

Self-absorbed thought leads the victim to roll their eyes back into their head and see their own world, like in the zombie movies

Renunciation is the complete opposite of self-absorbtion though. How can you claim Jesus taught both at the same time?

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by aynrandlover *
The point of keeping Jesus’s teaching is to know God. If I <do this> then <something occurs>.

I don’t think that is the point, only a biproduct. You can always do an action without a reason. But, yes, as an experiment, that is an hypothesis which can be tested, and a possible reason for doing the experiment is to see what the results are.

If we are following Jesus’s commandments because jmull said so then that’s fine, and we’ll know nothing of God in that case.

If that is your counter-hypothesis, run your own experiment.

It seems to be your position here, though, that we will come to know God merely by following Jesus’s commandments because you said so.

I am saying I have run such an experiment and seen the results. I can tell you other things – like the sky is blue, the earth circles the sun, water freezes at 32 degrees, and so on, all of which I have also run experiments to show to myself and which I believe should you run experiments yourself you would have similar results.

[Brian_Bunnyhurt]

http://pearly-abraham.tripod.com/htmls/myth-bible.html

*All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need.(Acts 2:44-45).

All the believers were one in heart and mind. No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had … There were no needy persons among them. For from time to time those who owned lands or houses sold them, brought the money from the sales and put it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to anyone as he had need. (Acts 4.-32,34,35)

“But woe to you who are rich, for you have already received your comfort. Woe to you who are well fed now, for you will go hungry.” (Luke 6:24,25)

“Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.” (Luke 18:25)

People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is the root of all evil. (I Timothy 6:9,10)

Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich and to be generous and willing to share (I Timothy 6:9,10 )

“Listen, my dear brothers :
Has not God chosen those who are poor in the eyes of the world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom he promised those who loved him? But you have insulted the poor. Is it not the rich who are exploiting you? Are they not the ones who are dragging you into court? Are they not the ones who are slandering the noble name of him to whom you belong?” (James 2:5-7)

“Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming upon you. Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. Look! The wages you failed to pay the workmen who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourself in the day of slaughter. You have condemned and murdered innocent men, who were not opposing you.” (James 5:1-6) *
Note 1: It is noted among many histories of Marx that he was deeply indebted to an 19th Century work on the life of Jesus (last name of Strauss, I believe) which had a tilt towards social reform. Like I said, it is not about Jesus, it is about submission to a primitive ideal.

Note 2: These accounts, as I read through them, lacked the specific one I had in mind where God struck two people dead for holding onto a portion and not giving the communist cult of Jesus everything they had, as commanded. Also, Jesus commanded a young prince to divest himself of everything, also signifying that the Christian movement was intended for the poor, even by institutionalizing it.

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by Brian Bunnyhurt *
Note 1: It is noted among many histories of Marx that he was deeply indebted to an 19th Century work on the life of Jesus (last name of Strauss, I believe) which had a tilt towards social reform. Like I said, it is not about Jesus, it is about submission to a primitive ideal.

Oh, so you mean socialism. But, socialism has all the wealth controled by the government. It Acts said people sold their houses and gave the money to Pontius Pilate you might have a valid point. Note that the apostles didn’t take the money – they merely left it for those who had a need. That is no way discribes the way communism or socialism work. (I suppose I could tell you to go to a communist counrty and see for yourself, as I myself have done and seen, but I know you’ll say that is an illogical false analogy for me to suggest you might want to do so before making such claims.)

The teaching of the Catholic Church is quite clear:

The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies
associated in modem times with ‘communism’ or ‘socialism.’ She has
likewise refused to accept, in the practice of ‘capitalism,’ individualism and the
absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor.[Cf. CA 10;
13; 44.] Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the
basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails
social justice, for ‘there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by
the market.’

Note 2: These accounts, as I read through them, lacked the specific one I had in mind where God struck two people dead for holding onto a portion and not giving the communist cult of Jesus everything they had, as commanded.

I vaguely remember that. Yeah, people die. I believe Herod is struck dead in Acts as well.

Also, Jesus commanded a young prince to divest himself of everything, also signifying that the Christian movement was intended for the poor, even by institutionalizing it.

I don’t recall that. You mean Herod’s son? I know his daughter is in the story. No one is poor who has God, for what or who is greater than he?