In gambling you can look for weighted dice, in statistical analysis there are methods to limit bias in sampling and even then it’s taken into account with SD.
But as far as all coincidences, like running over a cat named fluffy and that very same night you come home and you daughter got a new cat and is going to call it fluffy, I’m not entirely sure that it’s possible. All humans are left with is the ability to weigh odds and assume the most likely.
What data did you receive to convince you your particular deity alone is responsible for everything?
David42 you mentioned one of the reasons perhaps for this thread was for help with drinking, It is a aspect of my flesh I don’t like so I would accept your prayers on my behalf and thank you for them.
To me, “stretching it out” such that the folks in question can spend the following years walking and talking in between making a bunch of babies and thinking up names for 'em didn’t in fact die “that day” but rather kept eating and breathing and carrying on interesting conversations until the day they, y’know, died. I think calling someone a ‘lire’ for saying they wouldn’t die “that day” is, as it were, far more of a stretch than calling someone else a ‘lire’ for saying they would die “that day”.
a) Yes I have read it, the gods are all of mankind, each his own god, though all sons of Most High. Their system (this world’s system) will be judged.
But they are still all sons of the Most High.
b)
Jesus did claim oneness with the father, though it was interpreted as Jesus claimed to be God fully as man.
Again Jesus never claimed that verse was a lie specifically. I do thank you and accept this for your point.
Jesus also called Satan the father of lies, as such Satan would be the one to plant the seed, which, through selective omission* to Eve allowed all lies.
Satan certainly committed selective omission with Eve.
“And he made two rings of gold for it under the crown thereof, by the two corners of it, upon the two sides thereof, to be places for the staves to bear it withal.”
Thank you, I know that there are differences between the Jewish and traditional Christian translations.
But that other verse was way out there about the rings
The way I read that verse in John is that Jesus claimed to be the son of God, but also in the context that we all are. He also claimed to be one with the Father, this I believe is the position of a son who loves God, any such son of God would be one with God by default. It is through this oneness that the prophets spoke, this is how I understand how it works, That oneness are the gifts of the Holy Spirit as described in the NT. If you are one with the God described in the Bible, then how is that worshiping another god?
I asked that scripture because it is similar to some on the NT, but was hoping for more of a direct that God lives inside us, the temple is us and that God chooses to dwell inside us instead of a structure temple complex. Though Ez 37:27 can be taken as such it is not as explicit as I have hoped.
This brings us to the stated charge in John, claiming to be the son of God, I see that the point as described in scriptures, the God we want to worship, the one that will be ‘God with us’, and therefor does not violate the Law.
I can see how Ez 37:27 can be interpreted as God accessible to the people without a physical dwelling, and at least at this time nothing more is coming to mind except to say thank you looking into this aspect of the trial of Jesus, it was interesting to hear it from a Jewish faith perspective.
This was one time many years ago where a set of circumstances lined up just right, and I don’t even know if I exceeded the limit.
When such things as this happen with the rarely of many years that’s not selfish, that is life. And I for one am very thankful for a loving magical being looking after me when those things happen.
If I find myself on a jury on such a case I would find the person not guilty on the basis that they are a human and just living. Now if it’s a ongoing issue that is another story.
Hopefully you, if caught in a moment of weakness, will find such mercy.
And those drunk drivers who run up onto the sidewalk and kill a child, or crash headfirst into oncoming cars and kill or maim their passengers? Are they not humans who are “just living” too? Did they not have a moment of weakness too? Shall we show them mercy? And if they do it again, shall we be merciful a second time? How many times should we let them kill before we decide it’s an “ongoing issue”?
Or shall we be merciful to their future victims and stop them the first time we catch them driving drunk, before they have killed anyone?
The way I read John, Jesus patiently explains that “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” He elaborates: “I am the resurrection, and the life; He who believes in Me shall live even if he dies.” He specifies that unless you believe in him “you shall die in your sins.” The way I read Mark, Jesus (a) goes around forgiving sins, (b) gets told that God alone has the power to forgive sins, and (c) replies that “the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins.” The way I read Matthew, Jesus declares himself “Lord of the Sabbath.”
He’s setting himself up as an entity separate from the Father who is to be treated like another god before thee – in a way, as the ***exclusive *** god, since the Father is now supposedly off-limits to Jews unless they first acknowledge the divinity of this new Lord and Savior, the one who can forgive sins on earth and hold sway over life after death. How would you react if I made that claim, holding myself out as the all-new all-different god who now happens to be the only deity with such authority?
I don’t want that child to grow up in a world so strict with rules they are afraid of living, guilty for just being human with the law is set up so that is it humanely impossible to follow it because all humans have weaknesses, that is a form of death too, and that reaches far to many people, far more then the drunk driving fatalities. A very gray society, a shade of hell. And make no mistake that is exactly what hell is, impossible to follow rules and strict punishment for any violation without any mercy.
How do you reconcile the bold above with ‘I and the Father are one’?
And if Jesus is one with the Father, only doing what He sees the Father doing (so the Father, not Jesus is in control), what else would you expect Jesus to be doing but exactly the above?
You should face the possibility that there is no magical being. That you hallucinated him, or just added him into your memories after the fact through sheer wishful thinking.
The implication of your imaginary meeting with the super-angel, is that every person who is arrested for drunk driving is less valuable than you are. For that matter, when a plane crashes, you can safely assume that those people were less useful to God than you. All those children starving in Africa, less worthy of life than you are of no points on your license.
That’s a pretty repugnant view.
That the God you believe in will rescue dangerous drunks instead of feeding children isn’t a point in his favor. If He existed, your God would be a sociopath. Like a child with an ant farm and a magnifying glass.
How do you reconcile that with a “let not my will, but Thy will, be done” statement that emphasizes they’re like you and me when it comes to being separate entities who will different things? It strikes me as readily fitting a “No one comes to the Father except through me” phrasing, but doesn’t seem to fit his “I and the Father are one” phrasing – unless we read that as being of a piece with the bit in Matthew 25, where folks deny ever feeding and clothing him and visiting him in prison, and he explains that whatever they did to the least of these they did to him.
Again, help me out, here: how would you react if I patiently explained that neither the Father nor Jesus is any longer a position to forgive sins and decide your fate in the afterlife, but that it’s all up to me: pray in my name, accept me as your mighty lord and savior, go spread the word that nobody gets to them except through me – and, when pressed for details, imagine that I say, hey, what else would you expect from someone like me, brimming as I am with heavenly authority and one with God, who nevertheless sometimes wills differently than I do?
You were saved, they are not. He didn’t intervene in their problems, but let you off from yours. If I shoot three people in the leg and give you a thousand dollars, who do you think I care about more?
You said that God sent an agent to get you out of a non-lethal inconvenience. You getting written up for a DWI wouldn’t kill you. It might in fact shock you out of the stupid practice of driving while drunk. So God obviously thinks that your inconvenience is more important than some kid dying of hunger while his mother cries above him.
Your God is kind of an asshole.
It’s the obvious takeaway from the situation you suggest. God saved you from a night in the drunktank and losing your license. He lets children burn to death in plane crashes. Obviously your night in the drunktank is more important to God than children burning to death. He is supposedly omnipotent. He could do both.
You’re the one who made the claim that your imaginary friend thinks you’re such a VIP that He sends his agents to keep you from being moderately inconvenienced. God lets those same agents stand by while parasitic worms fill the stomachs of helpless children, while cancer eats away at good men’s brains, while mothers die in childbirth, while the Earth opens up and destroys buildings, while planes crash, while violent men rape, while famine crosses the land, while other people suffer and die, you skate away from a night in a drunktank with a smug smile on your face. Your God is a douchebag.
)