I was being polite. Conversations usually involve questions. But i should really be charging $60 an hour to ask you questions because there is a degree of work involved in psychological analysis, as well helping people honestly analyze their own psychology, their own motives. I should call this repentance therapy, helping people re-deem the notions they have decided to believe, so that Christ can be saved from a burial underneath several tons of masks and misrepresentations. Jesus: Why do you call me good? CNN: Jesus seems confused. Jesus: Who do you say that i am? Peter: Here is the answer to your question: You are the Messiah. The bible is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Jesus: Eli eli lama sabachthani? MSNBC: Jesus realizes he was a fraud. I'm well aware that posturing is paramount for those paragons of faith who stand behind their podiums, pointing at parables, bible in one hand, microphone in the other, voices booming over a reverbing sound system. I'm keenly aware that the faith-filled will eventually start posing as teachers who are keenly sensitive to challenges to their posture. This behavior tends to rub off on the less confident, sitting in the pews, who eventually grow up to imitate the confident posture, and begin to pose as teachers in turn. I used to talk to these people and noticed how really upsetting it was to them when i told them i was the teacher, and they were the student. I remember how they would start to spin off on long monologues filled with many quotes of the bible, and i'd be picking up on the vibes of a power play. What i would do is i'd have to interrupt, 'Whoa whoa woah. This needs to be a conversation.' I could see they were assuming they were the teacher in the exchange and could see i was not helping anybody by letting them assume that. Generally they launched into 'im the teacher' mode if asked any sort of question. I might have let them know that it's inappropriate to lord the bible over my head and/or that a conversation is closer to 50% input from each side. Any question i may have asked was meant to help them and i was surprised how many had not sense of introspection, but instead started acting like they were reading from a teleprompter. I would only tell the really rude one's that i was the teacher and they were the student. More oft than not that would end the "conversation" because the posture was more important to them than any information they might get from me for free. So in order to actually have a conversation, i will sometimes not tell the students that i am the teacher. Are you saying God is male? Which G/god do you reference: A) a G/god that makes man and man's world? B) a Good that does NOT make man, or man's world? (a Good beyond a material world). Even so, the initial questions were more about WHEN, or what moment you decided to assume the bible was infallibly a whole unit of unadulterated words, containing only the words of man's maker, and all the words of man's maker, to the exclusion of any other sources claiming same. Presumably, at that moment, you had already read the entire collection of literature, from cover to cover? No? You had read only 60% of it, and decided the remaining 40% was the truth, the entire truth, and nothing but the truth? Whatever was the percentage of familiarity you may have had with the sources (it is a collection) upon what authority, at that moment (it was indeed a moment), did you make a decision? Perhaps you are saying you did not make a decision? Are you not willing to admit that you made a decision upon your own authority? If you are not sure about whose authority made this decision, maybe your authority and man's makers (what you call God) authority are the same? Would you be willing to admit that your authority is the same as man's maker? Woah slow down there. Are you saying there was an element of fear in your decision? Were you a little bit worried about what might happen to you if you did not jump to the conclusion that the collection was, how shall we say, holy? Ok you do appear to admit it was not based on well weighed logic. Certainly no scientific tests involved. What you seem to be describing is an agreement. You read a description of man's maker, as well a description of what could happen to you if you did not believe the description (of man's maker)...and then you agreed. Ok. At the moment you agreed with the description, upon whose authority did you make the agreement? Or, more simply, who made the agreement? Besides who made the agreement, you, God, or both (if you are both the same authority), what did you agree to? For example, did you agree to only what is in the oldest part of the collection...to the newest part of the collection...to the Catholic collection...to the Protestant collection (shorter version)...or to what someone has said about the collection (to someone's interpretation)? Finally, why did you make this agreement? What was/is your motive? What do you want? Ok, now we might be getting to the bottom of this. At that moment, the moment of the agreement, and/or the moment of the decision, your: A) doubts turned to certainty? B) your faith transformed into knowledge? By "creator" do you mean man's maker, as well man's surrounds (stars, planets, seas, trees, bees)? So, by agreeing that all the words in the collection belonged, unadulterated, to man's maker, you did not have to worry anymore what might happen to you if you did not agree? Personally, i don't necessarily disagree with this because of the close collaboration between men and man's maker. My question goes more to, why were you afraid of man's maker? No doubt, it is now fashionable to boast about how much you are not afraid of man's maker, because, having made the agreement, you expect to be passed over come time for all the punishments to be dished out. Btw, i aced business law in school, and did you know that agreements made under duress are non-binding, null, and void? Are you saying that none of the agreements you've made were under any kind of duress? If you did make an agreement under duress, how did it happen that you now no longer feel you are under duress? Ok now we are getting down to it. You were persuaded, and fear was a looming factor in the persuasion process. "du·ress noun threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment." Can you explain how you were not subject to duress? Or, if you admit you were under duress, would you not agree that duress is illegal when it comes to the making of agreements? Would you agree with popular legal codes in the US that agreements made under duress are null and void? Ok, there was an offer. Yes, offers usually precede an agreement. In this case, there was an offer and a threat from what you believed was man's maker. At least that's what you believed. My question was upon whose authority, and exactly when, did you decide to believe (agree with) the offer. Presumably the offer included small print that required you to believe all the small print in the entire collection, whether you've read it or not, or whether you had any way to verify any of it or not. Is this right? Was believing the collection was, how shall we say, entirely holy, was this part of the agreement? Is that how you "know" the whole book is what you say it is? Or, is it possible the offer did not include a clause that required you to believe things you could not verify at that time? Or, was it the entire text that persuaded you to take what was offered in the latter part of the collection? Ok, so you are indeed saying that the prior duress is no longer duress. Is this because you feel you are keeping the agreement to the satisfaction of man's maker? Is that why you have nothing to fear? What happens if you break the agreement? Or, is it even possible to break the agreement? Is that why you no longer feel under duress? Ok. Just prior to this, you were in a state of fear. And you assumed that "Father" meant man's maker? Ok. Just prior to this, your mind was in a state of fear. And then you assumed that the Truth was a book? Ok. Did the fear you were experiencing have anything to do with what man's maker did to Jesus, with the implication that if you did not take the agreement offered, something similar, or worse, might happen to you? Just prior to this, your mind was in a state of fear. Then you started making agreements about who was man's maker, and who was man's maker's son? And you agreed that the son was also man's maker, along with man's maker? Well personally, it's my belief that Jesus walked out of a tomb after appearing to die. You could call that "rose from the dead" if you want. I don't know that for sure, but i hold high confidence in it. As you know from the CIA, high confidence means it must have happened, practically for sure. Was this part of your agreement? I mean, was this one of the clauses in the agreement, which, if rejected, you would be subject to similar torture as Jesus, if not worse, or for a longer time (forever)? So, in a moment, the moment of decision, you went from not knowing, to...knowing? Btw, it's also my belief that Jesus, as a teacher, did not feel pain during the intended torture, and only "died" to demonstrate how death is reversible, and/or not to be taken seriously. Arguably, he never died, and merely took a three day vacation from teaching. Also, why do you feel it necessary to believe that the Truth died? Or, why did you decide to agree that Life died? Personally, i don't agree that Truth or Life died. Do you have to agree to death in order to avoid the punishment that was going to be given to you? Ok. In the state of mind that you were in, that state of fear (i call it duress), you could not see any other way to have a positive relationship with man's maker? Ok. An offer was made to save you from a terrible punishment like what happened to Jesus, or worse, and you agree to take the offer. At that moment you were saved by the same entity that made the offer? Wait, who made the offer? Who saved you? Who are you? What was saved? Ok. Is this one of the clauses in the agreement? You have no fear anymore because this is an easy agreement to keep? Is quoting really old excerpts from the oldest part of the collection part of the agreement you've made? Is this an expression of the clause that requires you to accept the entire collection, old and new, as entirely, how shall we say, holy? If the old part of the collection is still valid, are you also keeping any or all agreements that pertain to that section of the agreement? No? Who (or what clause) redefines the current agreement and it's terms? Was this an aspect of the persuasion that induced you to make the agreement under duress? We can agree that the ancient Jewish literature generally envisioned a sort of "Messiah", although not always referenced by that term. Is this what you are referencing, these predictions of a Messiah? Are you aware those most familiar with Hebrew literature (scribes, lawyers, priests) mostly disagreed that Jesus was the Messiah? Are you aware Jesus himself disagreed he was the Messiah? Ok. Another reference to the oldest section of the collection. If a prophet speaks about something two thousand years into the future, you are supposed to believe him, wait two thousand years, and then decide if he told the truth or not? What if the prophet doesn't put any time limit on a prophecy? How would you be able to measure if it has come true or not? So they give some credence to the entire collection, but not to every word of the entire collection like you do? You are also saying that the words have authority now? What was the moment they gained that authority? Was it the same moment you decided to take the offer? Before you took the offer, they had no authority? And then, when the fear came upon you, they were given authority over you? Ok, so you are treating the collection as if it were a homogenous unified whole. So for example, at the very end of the book, there's a book that says don't add or take away from this book. This was a couple hundred years before the collection of books became a standardized set of books. Are you saying that anything said in the last book applies to the first books too? Is this why you feel that any and all words man's maker ever said, or intends to say, are captured within the collection?
The Bible says that God is both loving and a Righteous Judge. It also says that God cannot lie. Jesus specifically said, “I am the Truth.” According to Moses’ Law in Deuteronomy 19:15-21, if a false witness accused someone of wrongdoing, then both men would come before the Lord, the priests and the judges. There was to be a careful inquiry and if the witness was indeed false, then the false witness was to be punished with the penalty the accused would have been given. “Your eye shall not pity: life shall be for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. In that time, it would be right for one who had committed this sin of falsely accusing someone, to “fear” the judgment he was about to experience as determined by the judges. Any duress and suffering he feels are a part of the punishment. In the same sense, it is right for us to fear the consequences of God’s eternal judgment. The book of Daniel in the Old Testament mentions “some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt.” There are many other passages in both the Old and the New Testament that also describe a future judgment. God cannot lie. But we all know that people do lie. God’s response to all lies, is repulsion, to the point of being wrathful. In fact, God’s wrath is against all who suppress truth. Some day God will create a new heavens and a new earth and there will be no lying or any other sin in that place. There will also be no more suffering. That is how things ought to be. The sufferings and evil that are so overwhelming in this world, came as a consequence of Adam and Eve rebelling against God and all of us continue in sinful ways. In the case of a false accuser living in biblical times, it would be unusual for the one he had falsely accused to make the false witness an offer to take his punishment and let him go free. The only time I can think of something like that occurring might be in the case of a son or daughter accusing a parent. Yet God did this for us. "God proves His love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us." Romans 5:8 BSB God loved us enough to make a way to be restored to Himself, to repent from our rebellious condition of sin, that is so contrary to His Person. And He did it at a great cost of suffering to Himself. The Father sent the Son, who died in our place. For the one who repents and places their trust in Jesus and His substitution for them, we can say, “Having now been justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him.” Romans 5:9 The Scriptures, being inspired by God, stand apart from all other writings in many ways, but the most important of these is by its consistent truthfulness. A truthful message sent by a truthful God. For further study on God's character and judgment: 1 John 4:8 Psalm 7:11-12, Numbers 23:19 Daniel 12:2
It also says that God is a liar. "And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him..." Ezekiel 14: 9
This verse does not say that God has lied. This verse testifies to the unity of the Biblical message and it’s portrayal of God’s character and consistency in His dealings with His rebellious creation. First of all, God cannot lie. “God is not a man, that He should lie.” Numbers 23:19 The Bible contains many prophecies that came to be fulfilled and many testimonies of those who saw Him keep His promises. He is also called Faithful and True. However, God does bring judgment. In the beginning of this passage God gives the spiritual condition of His people: “...these men have set up their idols in their hearts, and put before them that which causes them to stumble into iniquity, should I let Myself be inquired of at all by them?” Ezekiel 14:3 Here is where careful study can lead to an appreciation of the steadfast character of God. He does not change. See Malachi 3:6. In several books, with different authors and written at different times, we see that God will give a person over to their own evil wishes to reject the One who alone is Good. Here are just a few verses: In a different book of the Bible, but written before Ezekiel, Isaiah records that the people did not want to hear the truth of their condition, but wanted the false prophets instead of the prophets God sent: “They say to the seers, “Stop seeing visions!” and to the prophets, “Do not prophesy to us the truth! Speak to us pleasant words; prophesy illusions.” Isaiah 30:10 BSB Another place in the Bible says that God will give people over to the desires of their hearts to be deceived and to reject Him: Therefore God gave them over in the desires of their hearts... They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator--who is forever praised... Furthermore, since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, He gave them up to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.... (taken from Romans 1 BSB) When answering the question of how God cannot lie and yet has said, “I the LORD have deceived that prophet, and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him” there is another passage that shows a similar situation: 19 And Micaiah said, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: fI saw the Lord sitting on his throne, gand all the host of heaven standing beside him on his right hand and on his left; 20 and the Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said one thing, and another said another. 21 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord, saying, ‘I will entice him.’ 22 And the Lord said to him, ‘By what means?’ And he said, ‘I will go out, and will be ha lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ And he said, ‘You are to entice him, and you shall succeed; go out and do so.’ 23 Now therefore behold, the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these your prophets; the Lord has declared disaster for you.” 1 Kings 22:19-23 ESV So here is where God is sending judgment upon a wicked man and used a lying spirit to do it. In this situation God Himself did not lie, but He did bring judgment upon Ahab for his sins and used the lying spirit to accomplish His purpose. The issue is that these are people who are looking for an excuse to accept a lie. They resist the truth when they hear it, but jump at a lie that agrees with what they want the truth to be. They make no effort to determine which statement is true, but are only interested in anything that they can use to justify what they have decided truth is. God gives them the lie as a test. It is an opportunity for them to reveal that what they are really looking for is some kind of lie to cover the truth than the truth itself. God does not force the person to submit to the lie. He does what He can to encourage him to make the right choice. However, when a person has rejected truth and won't even consider evidence that would support it, but jumps at the chance to believe a lie that is consistent with what he wants to be true without requiring legitimate evidence, then from God's perspective, that person has just justified God's pending judgment. This is a pattern consistent throughout Scripture. Although God must punish all lying and all sin, He loved us enough to die in our place and desires all to repent and turn to Him to be saved and freely forgiven and restored to a right standing with Him. “For God did not send His Son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world through Him might be saved. “He who believes in Him is not condemned; but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. John 3:17-19
That too is a lie. The verse makes it very clear God has lied. What!? Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, now you tell me God also used a 'lying spirit' to do his lying. So narcissist God admits to deceiving some prophet just because they wouldn't pay him the attention a narcissist demands. By definition of the word deceive, that causes this so called prophet to believe an untruth. And you think (or rather you believe, 'cause this isn't you thinking) that God is justified to send 'judgement' on the poor sap when... "I the LORD have deceived that prophet". Of course I understand you've bought into the religious belief protection racket con trick tits deep, but have to admit I could not bring myself to be dishonest enough to condone, never mind defend, the all too many basic moral standards which are broken in the Bible. One way or another, liars gonna lie. Even Gods apparently.
And here is revealed the root of the problem: you (and others) are not understanding that it is right for God to judge sin. The Bible is clear, over and over, that God WILL USE EVIL, by orchestrating the way that others choose to do evil are permitted to act out their evil desires. GOD HIMSELF DOES NOT DO ANY UNRIGHTEOUNESS. God will eventually punish every single act of evil, but for now, evil is given a time to be seen for it's very evilness. There is a very fine line here that must be understood: God is not Himself creating or doing any evil, but merely directing that which already is evil…..this is not just me understanding it this way, but those that I have studied are also in agreement with this interpretation. An example of this is the coming judgment, called the Tribulation Period that is going to come over the whole earth. There will be a one world leader, called the Antichrist. He is totally against God and speaks lies, yet during this time God has stopped restraining sin (from another verse) and allows people to do the evil they desire. God will send them a strong delusion....but in actuality, He is giving them what they want. "The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with how Satan works. He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness." 2 Thess 2:9-12 NIV They do not want the truth, so He gives them over to the Antichrist who will deceive them. This is part of God's judgment on them for rejecting the truth. God could just kill everyone off, but if He did that, then once dead, there is no more opportunity for repentance and salvation. In His mercy He exposes wickedness for what it is and lets it show it's devastating power, in hope that some will repent and turn to Him.
You are not understanding it is simply not right for anything to judge anything wrongly. There is no moral or ethical standing for anything, God or no God, to make someone believe what it knows itself to be a lie. To make that a reason to condemn is evil in itself. This isn't an all loving benevolent God you're describing. It is the description of a hateful, vindictive, insecure bully.
This is something we've discussed before. God does not and will not cause someone to choose to do evil. Sending them what they desire....they have chosen to reject the truth and want to believe a lie....is not forcing them to believe the lie, but it is a test. Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am being tempted by God,” for God cannot be tempted with evil, and he himself tempts no one. But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. James 1:13, 14 ESV
Except for those occasions when, in its own words, Bible God deceives and lies. "I the LORD have deceived that prophet". According to the Bible and by what you've said, should someone not already be fawning over this imaginary deity of yours, then it is your God which will deceive them into that "lie". It makes as much sense as a parent deceiving a child to encourage them not do what the parent wants, because the child already is evil for not doing what the parent wants. To confound that ridiculous situation and by extension your explanation of that Biblical scenario also, they're not forcing the child to believe their evil lie, but it is a test.. In other words, you're making no sense. No offense but I'd say it does look like that imaginary God of yours has managed to deceive you into a belief that lies are not lies. A test perhaps? Although if it were, in religious bizarro world, a pass would obviously not be a pass. Indeed and your only response seems to be yet another absurd argument. The enlightenment is already here. Human life and character has been improved through reasoning, logic and freedom of thought over blind religious faith and superstition. This is The Way.