Genesis 28:17

[Man of Steel]

No, sorry. You don't possess an "understanding" of anything. You claim that you received knowledge through some unknowable means, but your "knowledge" can't actually explain anything. Tell me one fact that you have learned through the unknowable means that you claim are available to you that I can verify without first needing to accept anything on faith. If you can't do that, then you don't have knowledge.

Well, I’ve never used the term “unknowable”….at least that I can recall.  In fact, all I attempt to do on these boards is make others understand that the reality of the God is fully knowable by anyone that genuinely wants to experience the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

What I did say is that I possess an understanding you do not, but again that same understanding is available to anyone that truly desires to know God.   It just requires some proactive participation on your part……we must come to God on his terms.  

I don't find it arrogant per se. I find it stupid for one very simple reason: even if you are completely convinced about your beliefs - and I don't doubt that you are - your testimony is meaningless. You have accepted something on faith, and even if your particular faith is right, you cannot, by definition, convince anyone of it since you eschewed the use of logic when you agreed to substitute it with faith.

What I find is that folks that are not believers do not fully grasp faith…that’s ok though.  Most understand faith from a perspective of “blindly following something with no reason to do so for the rest of your days”.  If that were the case it would be stupid.

As I’ve said so many times in recent years, faith often begins with a leap because prior to that leap what many know about God is typically through the testimony of believers, scripture, church exposure, religious tv/music, etc….

What so many miss (and sometimes ignore even after being made aware) is that faith doesn’t remain “blind”.  A believer’s faith solidifies and becomes something entirely different when the reality of God is presented to that person after coming to him in faithful surrender.  It is by grace through faith that we are saved, but that initial act of faith becomes something bigger, confident, solid and purposeful once the believers experiences God’s revelation in their life.

The deal is after some hear my testimony they’re ready for more…..I’m happy to help where I can.    Others take nothing from what I say or tell me what I’ve said is meaningless or crap…..that’s fine too.   Either way, the testimony of believers is very important....you won't like this but believers are an essential part of the evidence for God's truth. 

I'm sure your Lord is pleased by your unworthiness, but it only makes me more likely to completely ignore what you say.

Well, actually the opposite is true.  It’s our unrighteous, unworthy behavior that he seeks to resolve…..the resolution is Christ.    What I meant by “boasting in Christ” and me being “meaningless” is that I cannot align myself with God by myself….my actions are meaningless.  It’s only through him that I become worthy and it’s only through him that I can boast in the righteousness he gives me.  

[avxo]

Well, I’ve never used the term “unknowable”….at least that I can recall.  In fact, all I attempt to do on these boards is make others understand that the reality of the God is fully knowable by anyone that genuinely wants to experience the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

You haven't - I used it. Because that's what it is. You claim to possess a means of gaining knowledge about God which requires, as a prerequisite, unconditional belief on faith. Your means of gaining this knowledge are unknowable - since faith and belief aren't knowledge.

If I were to ask you to believe that there's a magical, invisible elf standing on my shoulder and that the magical, invisible elf is fully knowable if you want to experience it, and I can prove to you that it exists but only if you first believe that it actually does exist... if the absurdity of this is obvious to you, why is the absurdity of the situation it's based on not?

What I did say is that I possess an understanding you do not, but again that same understanding is available to anyone that truly desires to know God.   It just requires some proactive participation on your part……we must come to God on his terms.

No. That "understanding" you claim is available to anyone, is only available after one chooses to blindly believe on faith, and without evidence at all. At that point, what good is understanding?

What I find is that folks that are not believers do not fully grasp faith…that’s ok though.  Most understand faith from a perspective of “blindly following something with no reason to do so for the rest of your days”.  If that were the case it would be stupid.

That's exactly what faith is. Belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence.

What so many miss (and sometimes ignore even after being made aware) is that faith doesn’t remain “blind”.  A believer’s faith solidifies and becomes something entirely different when the reality of God is presented to that person after they come to God on his terms faith and surrender.  It is by grace through faith that we are saved, but that initial act of faith becomes something bigger, confident, solid and purposeful once the believers experiences God’s revelation in their life.

Take a leap of faith and believe that there is, actually, a magical invisible elf that's on my shoulder. Once you believe, your faith will "solidify" and become something entirely different when the reality of the magical invisible elf that's on my shoulder is presented to you. My magical invisible elf doesn't even require that you surrender!

The deal is after some hear my testimony they’re ready for more…..I’m happy to help where I can.    Others take nothing from what I say or tell me what I’ve said is meaningless or crap…..that’s fine too.   Either way, the testimony of believers is very important.

You can't even provide a consistent, rational definition of what being it is that you believe in, let alone proof... how is your belief anything other than meaningless?

Well, actually the opposite is true.  It’s our unrighteous, unworthy behavior that he seeks to resolve…..the resolution is Christ.    What I meant by “boasting in Christ” and me being “meaningless” is that I cannot align myself with God by myself….my actions are meaningless.  It’s only through him that I become worthy and it’s only through him that I can boast in the righteousness he gives me.

Why does your God - ostensibly one of love - require you to jump through hoops in order to get saved? Especially when he supposedly is the one that is punishing you to begin with?

Let's be very clear: according to your beliefs, it was your God that made sin a "death penalty" offense and he insists on keeping it a death penalty offense. His infinite love, supposedly, led this omnipotent being not to remove the death penalty from the table but to sacrifice himself to himself so that those who believe might live with the others must die - a fact that makes him so vewy sad, but sin is sin and sin makes him angwy.

Answer this one simple question: if your God loves me why is he the one who will punish me? Why doesn't he demonstrate his love by saving me unconditionally?

[Man of Steel]

You haven't - I used it. Because that's what it is. You claim to possess a means of gaining knowledge about God which requires, as a prerequisite, unconditional belief on faith. Your means of gaining this knowledge are unknowable - since faith and belief aren't knowledge.

If I were to ask you to believe that there's a magical, invisible elf standing on my shoulder and that the magical, invisible elf is fully knowable if you want to experience it, and I can prove to you that it exists but only if you first believe that it actually does exist... if the absurdity of this is obvious to you, why is the absurdity of the situation it's based on not?


No. That "understanding" you claim is available to anyone, is only available after one chooses to blindly believe on faith, and without evidence at all. At that point, what good is understanding?


That's exactly what faith is. Belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence.


Take a leap of faith and believe that there is, actually, a magical invisible elf that's on my shoulder. Once you believe, your faith will "solidify" and become something entirely different when the reality of the magical invisible elf that's on my shoulder is presented to you. My magical invisible elf doesn't even require that you surrender!


You can't even provide a consistent, rational definition of what being it is that you believe in, let alone proof... how is your belief anything other than meaningless?


Why does your God - ostensibly one of love - require you to jump through hoops in order to get saved? Especially when he supposedly is the one that is punishing you to begin with?

Let's be very clear: according to your beliefs, it was your God that made sin a "death penalty" offense and he insists on keeping it a death penalty offense. His infinite love, supposedly, led this omnipotent being not to remove the death penalty from the table but to sacrifice himself to himself so that those who believe might live with the others must die - a fact that makes him so vewy sad, but sin is sin and sin makes him angwy.

Answer this one simple question: if your God loves me why is he the one who will punish me? Why doesn't he demonstrate his love by saving me unconditionally?

You’ve repeatedly noted your irreconcilable contradictions about God and you’ve restated some of that again here, so I figure I may as well address that and cover the lot of it.   From what I recall, you’ve often entered the conversation and presented your contradictions after I’ve done a long, 6-on-1 round of dialogue so unfortunately I’m tired at that point and wait to respond, forget, give up or all of it LOL.   I’ll try and respond to that now.

Although, I will first address your comment that I am unable to present a consistent, rationale definition of God.   Well, I haven’t presented a definition within this discussion, but I’ll be happy to.  Now the conditions of “consistent” and “rational”I’ll also address.  Consistency I attempt to apply throughout different discussions about God, but often I’m not called upon to define God….that’s ok though.   Rationality is subjective and based upon experience so I can’t meet that criteria fully because what you deem rational may not align with me.  I’m also assuming that my inability to adequately define God is akin to a “Plato’s Chair” approach?   I’m not worried about it honestly.

How do I define God?  The God I refer to is the Christian God of the bible.  God’s nature is divine and he expresses his essence via a trinity of coeternal, coequal persons in Father, Son and Spirit.  The second person of the trinity of God is the Son who became flesh and entered his creation in the form of a man in Jesus Christ.  Christ took on the human nature of man while retaining his divinity and therefore has a dual nature which we refer to as the hypostatic union.  Primary qualities of God (although not the definition of God) are peace, grace, mercy, justice and love.  God is the creator of all there is.....the alpha and omega.  I could go on, but I think that is sufficient.
 

A chain of almost irreconcilable contradictions:

a God that claims to love us without bounds, but alas, not enough to save us unconditionally

Does a state of “unconditional” align with God’s nature?  God’s law? God’s covenants?  Or a relationship with him?

Now, for the sake of argument, if we acknowledge God as the all-powerful creator and that his creation is subject to the physical  and moral laws he’s set forth and because he transcends the entirety of his creation he can place onto his creation whatever conditions he chooses.   Your argument necessitates the need for a state of “unconditional”, but a relationship with God is based upon law and covenant with condition and consequence.  You may not like his law or his conditions, but that doesn’t make him unjust or unloving.  

Further, scripture does not say that God is all-loving or that his love is without bounds.  In fact, scripture clearly shows that God’s love does have a limit in so much as it pertains to those that remain in their sin.    Now,  his love is certainly vast and beyond our comprehension, but it is not boundless.    
 
First we need to ask?  What are believers “saved” from?  Is it death?  Is it sin?  

Salvation neither eliminates our sinful nature nor does it cause us to escape death.  We will all die before entering eternity.  

What we are saved from is God’s judgment.   We are saved by grace through our faith based upon Christ’s death on Calvary’s cross, his resurrection from the grave and our profession that he is the Lord, God and Savior.  We willfully submit to his will as regenerate, righteous believers now sanctified for his will and purposes for our lives.  

Why did he have to die?   Why did blood have to be shed at all?  

God designed - within his favorite aspect of creation - that life dwell in the blood.  Although blood is designed for both a physical and a spiritual purpose.  The Israelites of the OT sacrificed the prime specimens of their flocks and herds by shedding their blood so that their sin would be covered over and no longer acknowledged by God.  It is blood that contains life and that life trumps death which is brought about by sin (offenses against the very nature of God).  God is just.  His law is just.  He is the law.  To be “a law” requires a reaction for defying or breaking it.  That consequence is the shedding of blood….a righteous sacrifice of blood covers sin.   Jesus Christ - the incarnate Son of God and second person of divine, triune nature of God - lived a perfect, sinless life on Earth and became the perfect sacrifice for all of us.  His divine, holy, righteous shed blood covers over all of our sin.  

Is there another way we he could’ve handled the situation?  I suppose there is, but that doesn’t make it a better option.   Our curiosities about such circumstances are merely that…..curiosities.  They don’t negate what he’s established or render it unjust.  

a God that wants us to worship him but who doesn't unconditionally establish his existence

Once again, a state of “unconditionally” is a prerequisite you place upon God, but it’s inconsistent with his nature.

Now has God “established his existence”?  Absolutely.

The spirit of God literally traveled place to place with the early nation of Israel and God made his power evident and manifest both in miraculous works and via the traveling temple.
God entered his creation as the incarnate son in Jesus Christ and dwelt among his creation as a human being for over 3 decades before ascending back to his heavenly throne.
The apostle Paul, via divine inspiration in scripture, made it known that God reveals himself to all through his creation.  
God is made tangible and manifest to his body of believers (from Pentecost to the present) via the Holy Spirit that indwells them....his presence can literally be felt.  I’ve outlined some of my personal testimony in this regard for you already.
God does show some signs via visions, dreams and the miraculous (past and present).  In fact, many Muslims who left Islam and former members of occult religions that came to Christianity have professed visions and dreams of Jesus Christ prior to their conversions.   “And what of miracle claims from competing faiths such as Hinduism, Islam, etc….?”   Simply put, they are demonic in nature.   Devices of the enemy of God used to deceive mankind.  Spiritual warfare is strategic and the strategies employed clearly work.  

So I would ask, what is worship and why is God worthy of it?

Simply put, God is the essence of righteousness….the bar…..the creator…..the standard…..the law.   He is the greatest possible being there is, was and ever will be.

God created us in his divine image (a generous act on his part) and defined for us two important roles within his creation: one, a kingly role in which we govern over his creation; two, a priest type role in which we walk in faithful service with God and surrender to his will for our lives so that others may draw close to him as well.   The goodness of God flows to his creation and thereby becomes an extension of his church…..we are equipped with his attributes.

To worship God means to be included in his existence and to acknowledge his position in the order of all things and to also understand our role within his creation.   We are creatures that literally overflow with worship for things we love and admire and cherish most……worship and praise pours out of us.  God doesn’t need our worship though….his existence is not contingent upon it, but he created us so that we may enter into fellowship with him and engage in praise in worship for which is absolutely worthy.   As part of the created order we give praise for those things we value the most in life.  Believers enjoy the very presence of God and he enjoys ours as well….it’s a relationship.  Given his exalted status when we are given his approval it elicits our praise and worship….we almost can’t help it at times LOL.

As C.S. Lewis notes in reference to praise and worship:

“But the most obvious fact about praise – whether of God or anything – strangely escaped me. I thought of it in terms of compliment, approval, or the giving of honour. I had never noticed that all enjoyment spontaneously overflows into praise unless . . . shyness or the fear of boring others is deliberately brought in to check it. The world rings with praise – lovers praising their mistresses [Romeo praising Juliet and vice versa], readers their favourite poet, walkers praising the countryside, players praising their favourite game – praise of weather, wines, dishes, actors, motors, horses, colleges, countries, historical personages, children, flowers, mountains, rare stamps, rare beetles, even sometimes politicians or scholars. . . . Except where intolerably adverse circumstances interfere, praise almost seems to be inner health made audible. . . . I had not noticed either that just as men spontaneously praise whatever they value, so they spontaneously urge us to join them in praising it: 'Isn't she lovely? Wasn't it glorious? Don't you think that magnificent?' The Psalmists in telling everyone to praise God are doing what all men do when they speak of what they care about. My whole, more general, difficulty about the praise of God depended on my absurdly denying to us, as regards the supremely Valuable, what we delight to do, what indeed we can't help doing, about everything else we value.”

a God that claims to be all good, omnipotent and omnipresent but will allow terrible evils to occur

The reality is, it’s God’s good creation which is the platform for resolving the problem of evil.  Jesus left eternity and entered his finite creation as the incarnate Son of God who came to collect his church – those folks that reject sin and accept his standards and desire to be with him.  He didn’t preprogram our choices into us, but yet he still knows the outcome….omniscience can’t be helped….it just is.   “But God’s also all powerful.  Couldn’t he have created a better world?   Living in this existence while facing the problem of evil now isn’t just.”   How so?  Would you rather he create us as automatons with a fully scripted existence that negates our choices?  God wants folks to come unto him that truly want to be with him.  It’s our choice to accept or reject him that provides the purest pathway to eliminating evil.  Notice also that this creation we exist in today was deemed “good” not “perfect”.  The new creation is coming once the church - that has willfully chosen Christ - has been collected.  Jesus Christ overcame our sin on Calvary’s cross and it’s up to us to make a choice to align ourselves with him or not based on what he did for us.  

If he had created automatons I would wonder if the automatons would choose differently if given the option?   Still, if I was an automaton I’d never be able to form that thought process to begin with.  “But my ability to choose isn’t completely free because I can’t opt out of his plan for eternity.”  No, you can’t.  Our autonomy ends when we enter eternity.   You’re a finite creation with finite choices to freely make in this finite existence, but those choices are still subject to infinite ramifications based upon his infinite terms (because God is infinite in nature).  The finite existence we live in is merely staging for what is yet to come and what we choose to do now determines the outcome of our eternal existence.  The realm of eternity – the infinite – is the final setting in which justice will be dealt out based upon our free choices in the finite.  Again, we are autonomous in the finite (our realm), but not in the infinite (God’s realm).  Yet, when each of us exits this life the problem of evil is one step closer to achieving full resolution because the problem of evil is reconciled individually (despite the fact we typically only acknowledge it collectively).  It’s individuals that freely choose to assemble together to form the body of Christ and it’s individuals that freely choose to reject Christ.  In this life we’re meant to go through the fire, but that fire is cleansing if you’re aligned with Christ.

a God that claims we have free will but who knows what we will do

Does this mean that our free will is meaningless because God foreknows our choices?   I don't believe so at all....foreknowledge does not mean the choices have been made for us.  Many posit that God could create any number of universes to satisfy a specific circumstance, but I believe he has created the perfect universe already using his foreknowledge of our future free choices.  In doing so he provided the opportunity for his own creation to eliminate evil and suffering via their choice for Jesus Christ.  He fashioned the world in such a way that our choices would be upheld and he didn't force us to choose one way or another (one exception in that we do have to choose whether to accept or reject God).  Yes, his foreknowledge comes before the actual free choices we make, but his creation was seemingly based upon those future free choices and was perfectly fashioned to uphold them.

Per his will,  you were created to come into fellowship with him….to enjoy the splendor of all his divine attributes.   His foreknowledge of our future, free choices were considered when he created this existence we live in; in essence, your future choices helped shape his creation.  I believe that to be true, because mankind was also given the lead role in managing and utilizing the earth and all its resources.    He created mankind and despite man’s proclivity to engage in evil, sinful acts we can choose to act otherwise.  It would be evil of God if he had created us as evil creatures, gave us no option to choose otherwise and then judged our evil actions and punished us for what he programmed into us.  He didn’t do that though.  He created us with the potential to engage in evil.  When we choose to defy his law we bring about and perpetuate that evil.  

Please note that my responses to “irreconcilable contradictions” 2 and 3 go hand in hand.

a God that created the rules under which we are to be punished and who, instead of changing the rules and saving everyone, decides to sacrifice himself to himself so that only a subset of us will be saved.

By “subset” do you mean those that surrender to his will for their lives?  Those that want to enter into a loving relationship with him?  His church?  

God sent forth from his divine, triune nature the incarnate Son of God in Jesus Christ who was born, who lived, who died and who rose from the grave so that all may be saved.  The “all” includes you.  The “may” is based on your choice.  Why the choice?  Some don’t want God…..that simple.   God doesn’t deny people the option.

Note, I’m not about to delve into Calvinism and limited atonement positions in this thread LOL.

Now why does God “sacrifice himself to himself”?  

The Old Testament clearly shows us that man is incapable of fulfilling all of God’s law and that sin’s hold upon mankind is extremely strong.  The entire bible points to the need for Jesus Christ.   God knew of man’s inability to achieve righteousness on its own, but he wants mankind to come to that same understanding so that mankind will proactively seek after God.  Christ’s perfect, existence on earth paved the way for the perfect, divine sacrifice on Calvary’s cross which would pay for mankind’s sins and provide everyone the means to align themselves with God in righteousness.    

[avxo]

You’ve repeatedly noted your irreconcilable contradictions about God and you’ve restated some of that again here, so I figure I may as well address that and cover the lot of it.   From what I recall, you’ve often entered the conversation and presented your contradictions after I’ve done a long, 6-on-1 round of dialogue so unfortunately I’m tired at that point and wait to respond, forget, give up or all of it LOL.   I’ll try and respond to that now.

Thanks, I'm looking forward to discussing this. I'll snip parts of your response, and quote only things I'm responding to in the interest of space.

I’m also assuming that my inability to adequately define God is akin to a “Plato’s Chair” approach?   I’m not worried about it honestly.

Well, not quite. The point is that you can't plausibly claim to believe in something that you can't even define. After all, you must know what you believe in, no?

How do I define God?  The God I refer to the is the Christian God of the bible.

This isn't a definition.

God’s nature is divine and he expresses his essence via a trinity of coeternal, coequal persons in Father, Son and Spirit.

What does it mean for one's nature to be divine? What does it mean to "express" one's essence via a "trinity of coeternal, coequal persons"? You aren't providing a definition - you are stringing words together and throwing them out there hoping that something will stick.

The second person of the trinity of God is the Son who became flesh and entered his existence in the form of a man in Jesus Christ.  Christ took on the nature of man while retaining his divinity and therefore has a dual nature which we refer to as the hypostatic union.

Primary qualities of God (although not the definition of God) are peace, grace, mercy, justice and love.

Thomas Aquinas tried to do this too - to apply terms like "love", "justice", and "mercy" to the concept of God. Your attempt fails for the same reason as his did: they (at best) refer to God's personality and not his metaphysical nature.

If I ask you to define a car for me, you can't just jump and say "well, it's red, it's fast and it goes *vroom*". You must first start with something like "a platform which a number of wheels, typically four, with some mechanism of locomotion, typically an internal combustion engine [...]".

God is the creator of all there is.....the alpha and omega.

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

I could go on, but I think that is sufficient.

No. It really isn't. You haven't defined anything. You must present an intelligible definition of what you mean by God and until you do, the concept is cognitively empty and this discussion can't go forward.

  

Does a state of “unconditional” align with God’s nature?  God’s law? God’s covenants?  Or a relationship with him?

You'd have to provide for us a definition of God for us to discuss whether the concept of "unconditional" aligns with God's nature.

Now, for the sake of argument, if we acknowledge God as the all-powerful creator and that his creation is subject to the physical  and moral laws he’s set forth and because he transcends the entirety of his creation he can place onto his creation whatever conditions he chooses.

Sure, let's acknowledge that for the sake of argument.

Your argument necessitates the need for a state of “unconditional”, but a relationship with God is based upon law and covenant with condition and consequence.  You may not like his law or his conditions, but that doesn’t make him unjust or unloving.

God's law as it stands now is that sin is punished by death.

Part of the Christian dogma is that we are born with the taint of Original Sin then we can be punished for something that is outside of our choice and control. That makes God's law unjust and immoral because to punish someone for an act outside of their choice and control is unjust and immoral.

But even if you ignore Original Sin, the Bible and contemporary Christian teaching make it very clear that sin is in our nature and that we cannot live without sinning. In that case, God's law is impossible for us to uphold and such a law is both unjust and immoral.

Further, scripture does not say that God is all-loving or that his love is without bounds.  In fact, scripture clearly shows that God’s love does have a limit in so much as it pertains to those that remain in their sin.    Now,  his love is certainly vast and beyond our comprehension, but it is not boundless.

Fine. So let's assume that his love has limits (although, that raises interesting metaphysical questions about the nature of an omnipotent and omniscient being that is, nevertheless, limited). Does this alter anything I wrote above?

First we need to ask?  What are believers “saved” from?  Is it death?  Is it sin?  

Salvation neither eliminates our sinful nature nor does it cause us to escape death.  We will all die before entering eternity.  

What we are saved from is God’s judgment.   We are saved by grace through our faith based upon Christ’s death on Calvary’s cross, his resurrection from the grave and our profession that he is the Lord, God and Savior.  We willfully submit to his will as regenerate, righteous believers now sanctified for his will and purposes for our lives.

Nice little maneuvering there. Sure, we will all die. And then, according to your beliefs, we will all be judged and some will be found righteous and some won't. The problem is that we're all, by your own admission unrighteous. So any judgement is a mock "judgement" for one simple reason: your guilt is preordained by a fact that is outside of your control - that you existed.

Does it, then, matter that there's a special incantation that you can say that will result in a get-out-of-jail card?

We've seen this little song and dance on earth: courts where people are guilty regardless of the facts and only the right combination of magical words will save someone. Sometimes the words are a pledge of allegiance to a Queen or a King. Sometimes the words are a pledge of allegiance to a deity. Sometimes the words are a pledge of a allegiance to a political system. The particulars don't matter.

Why did he have to die?   Why did blood have to be shed at all?  

God designed - within his favorite aspect of creation - that life dwell in the blood.

Don't tell that to scientists that have successfully used perfluorocarbon based emulsions to replace the entire blood supply of living creatures.

The Israelites of the OT sacrificed the prime specimens of their flocks and herds by shedding their blood so that their sin would be covered over and no longer acknowledged by God.

Really? You're going to invoke human sacrifice practiced by ancient tribes? What's next?

It is blood that contains life and that life trumps death which is brought about by sin (offenses against the very nature of God).

Blood doesn't contain life anymore than cerebrospinal fluid contains intelligence.

God is just.

Oh... well, that settles it then. You wrote it, so it must be true!

His law is just.

You need to waive your hands more vigorously. I'm only 87% convinced!

He is the law.

Judge Dredd...

To be “a law” requires a reaction for defying or breaking it.

That consequence is the shedding of blood….a righteous sacrifice of blood covers sin.

What does this even mean? How does blood cover sin? Will any blood do? What about volume or plasma expanders?

Jesus Christ - the incarnate Son of God and second person of divine, triune nature of God - lived a perfect, sinless life on Earth and became the perfect sacrifice for all of us.

Did he now? Even if he didn't have the taint of original sin, aren't you forgetting his disobedience when he went to the temple without his parents' permission?

His divine, holy, righteous shed blood covers over all of our sin.

Is there another way we he could’ve handled the situation?  I suppose there is, but that doesn’t make it a better option.   Our curiosities about such circumstances are merely that…..curiosities.  They don’t negate what he’s established or render it unjust.

What renders what God "established" unjust is the simple fact that establishing a law that cannot be obeyed (and this is something you've admitted in this very thread: that we cannot avoid sin) is, in itself, unjust.

Once again, a state of “unconditionally” is a prerequisite you place upon God, but it’s inconsistent with his nature.

A nature that you've yet to define.

Now has God “established his existence”?  Absolutely.

How?

The spirit of God literally traveled place to place with the early nation of Israel and God made his power evident and manifest both in miraculous works and via the traveling temple.

The spirit of Zeus also traveled from place to place in the early nation of Greece. The spirit of Odin traveled the cosmos and frequented Scandinavia. What makes your particular mythology more credible than the mythologies of the Greeks and the Norse?

God entered his creation as the incarnate son in Jesus Christ and dwelt among his creation as a human being for over 3 decades before ascending back to his heavenly throne.

Let's assume that he did... and?

The apostle Paul, via divine inspiration in scripture, made it known that God reveals himself to all through his creation.

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

God is made tangible and manifest to his body of believers (from Pentecost to the present) via the Holy Spirit that indwells them....his presence can literally be felt.  I’ve outlined some of my personal testimony in this regard for you already.

Right... so in order to feel God's presence one must first believe in God's presence.

God does show some signs via visions, dreams and the miraculous (past and present).  In fact, many Muslims who left Islam and former members of occult religions that came to Christianity have professed visions and dreams of Jesus Christ prior to their conversions.   “And what of miracle claims from competing faiths such as Hinduism, Islam, etc….?”   Simply put, they are demonic in nature.   Devices of the enemy of God used to deceive mankind.  Spiritual warfare is strategic and the strategies employed clearly work.

Right... right. What reaffirms your beliefs is a true vision and miraculous. What clashes with your beliefs is demonic in nature and a means to deceive. This is just flat out bullshit.

Simply put, God is the essence of righteousness…

Is he? So it's righteous to pass a law that cannot be upheld? You have a funny definition of righteousness.

the bar…

What does it mean to be the bar?

the creator…

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence.

the standard…

What standard? We can't possibly be like him since he's fundamentally different from us.

the law.

Yes, yes. We already established you think God is Judge Dredd.

He is the greatest possible being there is, was and ever will be.

Wave your hands more vigorously. You've almost got it!

God created us in his divine image (a generous act on his part) and defined for us two important roles within his creation: one, a kingly role in which we govern over his creation; two, a priest type role in which we walk in faithful service with God and surrender to his will for our lives so that others may draw close to him as well.   The goodness of God flows to his creation and thereby becomes an extension of his church…..we are equipped with his attributes.

What attributes are those?

He didn’t preprogram our choices into us, but yet he still knows the outcome….omniscience can’t be helped….it just is.

You cannot reconcile free will with omniscience, no matter how hard you try. As for not preprograming our choices into us, your own words are that we are, by nature sinners, and that we cannot escape sin without outside help.

“But God’s also all powerful.  Couldn’t he have created a better world?   Living in this existence while facing the problem of evil now isn’t just.”   How so?  Would you rather he create us as automatons with a fully scripted existence that negates our choices?

He already has - even if my choices are free, no matter what those choices are, I cannot avoid sin. I am a sinner by nature according to your dogma.

God wants folks to come unto him that truly want to be with him.  It’s our choice to accept or reject him that provides the purest pathway to eliminating evil.

If he wanted us to freely and truly come unto him, he wouldn't have setup an environment where failure to come to him is a punishable offense, and he wouldn't have straddled us with a sinful nature.

Notice also that this creation we exist in today was deemed “good” not “perfect”.

If he had created automatons I would wonder if the automatons would choose differently if given the option?

If, as the Bible proclaim, there exists the book described in Revelations 20:15 - a book where the names of those who will be saved have been written since the beginning of time - then you are an automaton. Either you're saved or you aren't - as written in that book a long, long time ago.

Still, if I was an automaton I’d never be able to form that thought process to begin with.

Why do you say that?

(to be continued)

[avxo]

“But my ability to choose isn’t completely free because I can’t opt out of his plan for eternity.”  No, you can’t.  Our autonomy ends when we enter eternity.

If the Bible is true you don't have any choice - at best, you have the illusion of choice, and then it's only an illusion at the point of the proverbial gun: "BELIEVE OR ELSE!"

You’re a finite creation with finite choices to freely make in this finite existence, but those choices are still subject to infinite ramifications based upon his infinite terms (because God is infinite in nature).

You haven't provided any definition of God's nature, and now you're starting to sneak in "God is this" or "God isn't that" here and there. Either you can define God's nature, or you can't. Which is it?

The finite existence we live in is merely staging for what is yet to come and what we choose to do now determines the outcome of our eternal existence.

Yes, we get it: that's what you believe. The problem you have is that you can't prove it, and repeating it isn't helping.

The realm of eternity – the infinite – is the final setting in which justice will be dealt out based upon our free choices in the finite.

Objections. Assumes facts not in evidence.

Again, we are autonomous in the finite (our realm), but not in the infinite (God’s realm).

So you can't provide a definition of God's nature but you can expound on the nature of God's realm?

Yet, when each of us exits this life the problem of evil is one step closer to achieving full resolution because the problem of evil is reconciled individually (despite the fact we typically only acknowledge it collectively).

Well, it's nice to know that evil will go away when we're all dead...

It’s individuals that freely choose to assemble together to form the body of Christ and it’s individuals that freely choose to reject Christ.  In this life we’re meant to go through the fire, but that fire is cleansing if you’re aligned with Christ.

How is it a free choice, if the choice has the explicit threat "unless you choose Christ you will be punished" attached to it? Is it a free choice when a bully says: "give me your lunch money or don't. But, just so you know, unless you give money your face will be punched"?

Many posit that God could create any number of universes to satisfy a specific circumstance, but I believe he has created the perfect universe already using his foreknowledge of our future free choices.

He sure as hell did!

It's oh so perfect that between 2003 and 2006, there were 54,008 neonatal deaths as a result of birth defects or diseases.

It's oh so perfect that 2,500 African children are dying from starvation every day.

It's oh so perfect that two infants were killed by their mother.

It's oh so perfect that another infant was  brutally beaten to death by his Mother's boyfriend.

Do you want me to go on describing your "perfect universe" in details? The perfect universe in which these infants freely made a choice?

Perfect... I expected better from you.

Per his will,  you were created to come into fellowship with him….to enjoy the splendor of all his divine attributes.

If I was created to come into fellowship with him, I'm not free to choose whether to do so or not.

His foreknowledge of our future, free choices were considered when he created this existence we live in; in essence, your future choices helped shape his creation.

I believe that to be true, because mankind was also given the lead role in managing and utilizing the earth and all its resources.

Again, your beliefs have no bearing on reality.

He created mankind and despite man’s proclivity to engage in evil, sinful acts we can choose to act otherwise.

Even if we can choose to act otherwise, the fact is simple - and it's made perfectly clear in the Bible: we cannot avoid sin.

It would be evil of God if he had created us as evil creatures, gave us no option to choose otherwise and then judged our evil actions and punished us for what he programmed into us.

It would be.

He didn’t do that though.

Really? Is that why people can qualify for salvation on their own merits?

He created us with the potential to engage in evil.  When we choose to defy his law we bring about and perpetuate that evil.

Ayn Rand wrote: "Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free."

By “subset” do you mean those that surrender to his will for their lives?  Those that want to enter into a loving relationship with him?  His church?

By subset I mean those whose name is already inscribed in the Book of Life, per Relevations 20:15.

The Old Testament clearly shows us that man is incapable of fulfilling all of God’s law and that sin’s hold upon mankind is extremely strong.  The entire bible points to the need for Jesus Christ.   God knew of man’s inability to achieve righteousness on its own, but he wants mankind to come to that same understanding so that mankind will proactively seek after God.  Christ’s perfect, existence on earth paved the way for the perfect, divine sacrifice on Calvary’s cross which would pay for mankind’s sins and provide everyone the means to align themselves with God in righteousness.

This is amazing. You agree that God's law is such that no human being can uphold it and you're not only ok with that but you insist that this is, somehow, just.

You are deluded.

[Man of Steel]

I have reviewed your responses briefly, but I will allow them to sit and gel for a bit before I reply back...I find that to be the best approach for me.  I have to first sift through the one liners to get to the meat.

Since I've done the heavy lifting already (in my previous replies) the majority of my replies going forward will be very brief.  And then I can begin asking questions of you!!  Imagine that, a theist asking questions of an atheist!  Most atheists think they have the market cornered on asking questions LOL.

Hey, thanks for saving for the insult for the very last.....it's like the Atheist's "sincerely" in a letter.....I've become so accustomed to it now from the board it's almost endearing.

Sincerely  ,

MOS

[avxo]

I have reviewed your responses briefly, but I will allow them to sit and gel for a bit before I reply back...I find that to be the best approach for me.  I have to first sift through the one liners to get to the meat.

Since I've done the heavy lifting already (in my previous replies) the majority of my replies going forward will be very brief.  And then I can begin asking questions of you!!  Imagine that, a theist asking questions of an atheist!  Most atheists think they have the market cornered on asking questions LOL.

Hey, thanks for saving for the insult for the very last.....it's like the Atheist's "sincerely" in a letter.....I've become so accustomed to it now from the board it's almost endearing.

Sincerely  ,

MOS

It wasn't really intended as an insult, although I can see how it could be perceived as such. I apologize.

Take your time. I'm genuinely hoping to have an actual discussion about this, which is why I wanted to start at the "bottom" by agreeing on a definition of what it is that we are discussing.

[Man of Steel]

It wasn't really intended as an insult, although I can see how it could be perceived as such. I apologize.

Take your time. I'm genuinely hoping to have an actual discussion about this, which is why I wanted to start at the "bottom" by agreeing on a definition of what it is that we are discussing.

You always include some humor in your responses and I like that. 

I don't get offended much anymore....takes a lot actually. 

I would like to continue discussion as well.

[Man of Steel]

Well, not quite. The point is that you can't plausibly claim to believe in something that you can't even define. After all, you must know what you believe in, no?

I admit, this tactic is a good one and it has literally been used for centuries now.   What I don’t like is that it takes a seemingly valid, philosophical notion and employs it as a “word game” of sorts.  It becomes a ploy or a distraction.  It often occurs in a “retort phase” of debate/discussion.

There is a tremendous probablity that no matter how I define God you’ll reject the definition as inconsistent and irrationale.   As I mentioned previously rationality can be very subjective and often based on experience so we may never align.

Regardless, here’s the reality….we both know exactly what we are talking about….so let’s just drop the pretense.

This isn't a definition.

Well, that wasn’t all I wrote either.

What is “chair”?   What is “God”?   What is “avxo”?  I love lamp.  

What does it mean for one's nature to be divine? What does it mean to "express" one's essence via a "trinity of coeternal, coequal persons"? You aren't providing a definition - you are stringing words together and throwing them out there hoping that something will stick.

 “If a theist continues to answer questions that typically go unanswered begin asking them to define terms.”     Sorry, I saw a version of this on an atheist site in a section on dealing with theists. 

Websters’s Dictionary – Nature: the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing; a creative and controlling force in the universe; an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual; a kind or class usually distinguished by fundamental or essential characteristics (there are others)

Websters’s Dictionary – Divine: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god; directed to a deity; supremely good.

Websters’s Dictionary – Express:  directly, firmly, and explicitly stated; designed for or adapted to its purpose; of a particular sort

He expresses his divine nature….his deity in 3 persons….Father, Son and Spirit.   Yet all 3 persons are 1 God.  How does he do this?   I don’t know….it’s beyond my comprehension to fully grasp it.

Thomas Aquinas tried to do this too - to apply terms like "love", "justice", and "mercy" to the concept of God. Your attempt fails for the same reason as his did: they (at best) refer to God's personality and not his metaphysical nature.

Well, as I noted previously “Primary qualities of God (although not the definition of God) are peace, grace, mercy, justice and love.”  

Of course he failed…..it’s an unwinnable word game that’s used as a crutch to discredit the personal relationship and knowledge of God theists claim to have that atheists do not.    

Further, the objector can change the criteria that forms an acceptable defintion as he/she pleases.

If I ask you to define a car for me, you can't just jump and say "well, it's red, it's fast and it goes *vroom*". You must first start with something like "a platform which a number of wheels, typically four, with some mechanism of locomotion, typically an internal combustion engine [...]".

Your definition of a car is straight from Webster’s (and that’s fine) – Car:  a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people.  

Let’s apply that same style of definition to God.   God:  an transcendent being, with a divine nature, expressed in 3 coequal, coeternal persons in Father, Son and Spirit and able to create at will and is sovreign over all things.

No. It really isn't. You haven't defined anything. You must present an intelligible definition of what you mean by God and until you do, the concept is cognitively empty and this discussion can't go forward.

Yet you replied almost 60 more times LOL!

You'd have to provide for us a definition of God for us to discuss whether the concept of "unconditional" aligns with God's nature.

See above.  

What do you mean and/or require by the term “unconditional”?

Sure, let's acknowledge that for the sake of argument.

Great, it is thereby officially acknowledged.

God's law as it stands now is that sin is punished by death.

Death is a result of sin and both believers and unbelievers are subject to it.  Death ushers in eternity.   Punishment is a result of God’s judgement.  Salvation in Christ saves believers from God’s judgement.
  

Part of the Christian dogma is that we are born with the taint of Original Sin then we can be punished for something that is outside of our choice and control. That makes God's law unjust and immoral because to punish someone for an act outside of their choice and control is unjust and immoral.

What do you mean by “taint”?   [yes, I giggled like a 10 yr old boy writing this]  

God provided a resolution for this through Jesus Christ.

But even if you ignore Original Sin, the Bible and contemporary Christian teaching make it very clear that sin is in our nature and that we cannot live without sinning. In that case, God's law is impossible for us to uphold and such a law is both unjust and immoral.

Sin has a powerful impact upon our lives.   It’s an infection of sorts that spread from first man to current man.   God’s law is based upon his righteous, divine nature; yet, he allows his creation to exist in a state where the potential for sin is there.  As we choose to engage in sin it creates a divide between us and God.  Yet, we aren’t forced to sin….we make the choice.  Still he already knows that man in his state of finite autonomy will opt for sin…that we have a “sinful nature”.  He also knows that man is capable of choosing righteousness instead.  If we exist in that state of potential sin yet choose God’s righteousness and allow him to work in us to overcome our sin the gulf between our unrighteousness and his righteousness is bridged.  Giving folks the option for both ends of the spectrum and everything in between makes our decision for God pure because we seek righteousness.   That’s why Jesus Christ came.

Fine. So let's assume that his love has limits (although, that raises interesting metaphysical questions about the nature of an omnipotent and omniscient being that is, nevertheless, limited). Does this alter anything I wrote above?

God doesn’t love those that choose their sin because they don’t love him.  

God also can’t violate his own nature or stop being God.

Nice little maneuvering there. Sure, we will all die. And then, according to your beliefs, we will all be judged and some will be found righteous and some won't. The problem is that we're all, by your own admission unrighteous. So any judgement is a mock "judgement" for one simple reason: your guilt is preordained by a fact that is outside of your control - that you existed.

Yes, being unrighteous is a problem.  The solution is Christ.

Although, not every person that existed is automatically a sinner or guilty.  How do we know this?  Children.

As I’ve written to you previously:

When I read about King David’s child with Bathsheba passing away and David suggesting that as a believer he would he see his child again in God’s kingdom it affirmed for me the innocence of children and others with disabilities that prevent them from making an honest choice about sin and Christ in their lives.  They don’t need salvation because being saved by grace through faith in Christ means we are saved from the wrath/judgment of God.  The innocents need not fear God’s wrath for they are without blame or need for judgment.  

“Jesus called a little child to him and put the child among them. Then he said, ‘I tell you the truth, unless you turn from your sins and become like little children, you will never get into the Kingdom of Heaven.  So anyone who becomes as humble as this little child is the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven.’”

Christ also indicated how severely those that cause the children (the little ones) to fall into sin would be judged.  The children are lead into sin and out of innocence.  

As believers in Christ we are saved by grace through faith and thereby justified and deemed righteous….like the innocents who are inherently righteous we become like the them through Christ.

Does it, then, matter that there's a special incantation that you can say that will result in a get-out-of-jail card?

What do you mean by “incantation”?  What is the special incantation?  What do you mean by “get out of jail card”?

We've seen this little song and dance on earth: courts where people are guilty regardless of the facts and only the right combination of magical words will save someone. Sometimes the words are a pledge of allegiance to a Queen or a King. Sometimes the words are a pledge of allegiance to a deity. Sometimes the words are a pledge of a allegiance to a political system. The particulars don't matter.

Ok, I think I follow you, but you may need to help me along a bit more if you don’t mind.

Don't tell that to scientists that have successfully used perfluorocarbon based emulsions to replace the entire blood supply of living creatures.

Science is amazing, but it isn’t our blood that is needed…it is Christ’s.    Christ’s shed blood covered sin once and for all.  

Really? You're going to invoke human sacrifice practiced by ancient tribes? What's next?

I don’t follow.

Blood doesn't contain life anymore than cerebrospinal fluid contains intelligence.

Tell that to any dead guy that bled out.

Oh... well, that settles it then. You wrote it, so it must be true!

Pot meet kettle.

You need to waive your hands more vigorously. I'm only 87% convinced!

Sugarhill Gang, Cameo, Outkast

Judge Dredd...

LOL!! Nice.

What does this even mean? How does blood cover sin? Will any blood do? What about volume or plasma expanders?

As I mentioned God intended that blood have both a physical and spiritual purpose.   See previous post.

Did he now? Even if he didn't have the taint of original sin, aren't you forgetting his disobedience when he went to the temple without his parents' permission?

Let’s apply that all important context to your scriptural reference.    So you’re suggesting that Jesus sinned (an offense against God) by staying – as Christ put it – at his “Father’s house”.

When Mary came to him and basically said, “We were so worried about you!”  Jesus tells her, “Where else would I be but at my Father’s house?”   This is a pivotal point in Jesus’ life because it illustrates that he was aware of his purpose (despite his age) and was completely obedient to the God the Father…..above all others.  

The trap here is  “he was disobeying his parents and not honoring his mother and father”.    Jesus may have lived as a child, but he was no ordinary child and his parent’s knew this.  The repeat visitation from angels outlining his origin and purpose, the virgin birth, the fact that he was the Son of God were solid tips for Mary and Joseph that Jesus was not your average child.    

Jesus was purposed for a divine mission here on Earth and his loving, obedience to God the Father was becoming more and more evident.   That fact that young Jesus suddenly referred to God as “Father” at the temple took his parents by surprise and displayed that he was showing nothing but reverance for God.

Jesus did nothing to offend God; further, his parents may have worried (as parents do…normal reaction),  but he never dishonored them.   He may have been a boy, but he is always God.

What renders what God "established" unjust is the simple fact that establishing a law that cannot be obeyed (and this is something you've admitted in this very thread: that we cannot avoid sin) is, in itself, unjust.

See reply above.

A nature that you've yet to define.

See reply above.

The spirit of Zeus also traveled from place to place in the early nation of Greece. The spirit of Odin traveled the cosmos and frequented Scandinavia. What makes your particular mythology more credible than the mythologies of the Greeks and the Norse?

Christ and his resurrection.

Right... so in order to feel God's presence one must first believe in God's presence.

Yes.    

You’re blessed in that you’ve read some scripture, you’ve heard the testimony of believers and you can freely attend a church.   You can also take it God himself in prayer and ask him directly for a revelation of himself.   Given all that exposure the question you could then ask is “Do I want to know God like others have?  Do I want to begin living for him?”   If the answer if yes then step out in faith.   See if what you perceive now as blind doesn’t become something different.   I’m telling you it will.  Others will tell you the same.   Believeres are absolutely part of the evidence for God…..lives dramatically changed.  

This isn’t scienctific….this is a spiritual change….the scientific method doesn’t apply……if you desire to know God you come to him on his terms.   Still, if you walk faithfully to him he’ll run lovingly to you.

Right... right. What reaffirms your beliefs is a true vision and miraculous. What clashes with your beliefs is demonic in nature and a means to deceive. This is just flat out bullshit.

“Oh... well, that settles it then. You wrote it, so it must be true! “

Is he? So it's righteous to pass a law that cannot be upheld? You have a funny definition of righteousness.

God is righteous.  God is the law.  The law is righteous.  We can be made righteous through Christ.  

You always leave off the end.

What does it mean to be the bar?

Put it back in the context of the post.

Yes, yes. We already established you think God is Judge Dredd.

Still makes me laugh LOL!

Wave your hands more vigorously. You've almost got it!

Sugarhill Gang, Cameo, Outkast…..REMIX!!!

You cannot reconcile free will with omniscience, no matter how hard you try. As for not preprograming our choices into us, your own words are that we are, by nature sinners, and that we cannot escape sin without outside help.

Why can’t God know everything and still allow us to choose?   Knowing isn’t force or programming…..it’s just knowing.  

Yes, we need Christ’s atoning grace to be deemed righteous.

He already has - even if my choices are free, no matter what those choices are, I cannot avoid sin. I am a sinner by nature according to your dogma.

Enter Christ to overcome the sin of the world.

If he wanted us to freely and truly come unto him, he wouldn't have setup an environment where failure to come to him is a punishable offense, and he wouldn't have straddled us with a sinful nature.

See replies above.  See posts from other threads.   You can continue to repeat the same thing in different ways, but my answer is the same.

Why do you say that?

It was a sidebar.

More to come...

[Man of Steel]

If the Bible is true you don't have any choice - at best, you have the illusion of choice, and then it's only an illusion at the point of the proverbial gun: "BELIEVE OR ELSE!"

How do you define “illusion of choice”?   What is the “illusion”?    Obviously you’re suggesting God has forced you to behalf or act in someway that you don’t prefer to.   Give me an example.

You haven't provided any definition of God's nature, and now you're starting to sneak in "God is this" or "God isn't that" here and there. Either you can define God's nature, or you can't. Which is it?

See reply above.

Yes, we get it: that's what you believe. The problem you have is that you can't prove it, and repeating it isn't helping.

I’ve told you how YOU can validate the existence of God yourself.    The scientific proof you demand is impossible for me to provide, but that doesn’t mean there is no proof available.    You’ve heard my testimony of Christ in my life….and others as well.  

Many people don’t believe, but want to know the reality of God so that perhaps they can eventually believe.     Many Muslims come to Christ with this perspective.  They like what Christ stands for, but don’t believe outright.    If some are serious they try and pray about it and accept they have to come to God on his terms….they have to walk through that narrow gate that is always open.

It’s the story of the prodigal son.  The son comes home walking back to his father after he’s lost it all and unsure of his reception.   The father sees his son coming towards him and runs to him in love and joy and welcoming.  

So you can't provide a definition of God's nature but you can expound on the nature of God's realm?

See reply above.

How is it a free choice, if the choice has the explicit threat "unless you choose Christ you will be punished" attached to it? Is it a free choice when a bully says: "give me your lunch money or don't. But, just so you know, unless you give money your face will be punched"?

Repeating the same thoughts written in different ways over and over and over won’t bring about a different response from me.

He sure as hell did!

It's oh so perfect that between 2003 and 2006, there were 54,008 neonatal deaths as a result of birth defects or diseases.

It's oh so perfect that 2,500 African children are dying from starvation every day.

It's oh so perfect that two infants were killed by their mother.

It's oh so perfect that another infant was  brutally beaten to death by his Mother's boyfriend.

Do you want me to go on describing your "perfect universe" in details? The perfect universe in which these infants freely made a choice?

Perfect... I expected better from you. You offend me.

I labeled it “perfect” in the sense that it was “perfectly” established for the entrance of the incarnate Son of God in Jesus Christ and his death on the cross that would bring about atoning grace for the fallen world.  

Now, the world was deemed “good”.   Perhaps it was only deemed “good” because God foreknew of man’s choices.  

Every example of the universe’s imperfection you’ve outlined  only reinforces the ramifications of sin and mankind’s need for Christ.

And no, I don’t need to read anymore examples…..the evil of men sickens me.

If I was created to come into fellowship with him, I'm not free to choose whether to do so or not.

But you aren’t in fellowship will him today yet it’s God’s will for you.   It’s as though he’s honored your choice despite his desire for you.

Again, your beliefs have no bearing on reality.

“Oh... well, that settles it then. You wrote it, so it must be true! “

Even if we can choose to act otherwise, the fact is simple - and it's made perfectly clear in the Bible: we cannot avoid sin.

It’s also made perfectly clear in the bible that’s the reason Christ came.   Everything in the bible and within each of us points to our need for Christ.   God wants us to draw close to him….to recognize our need for him.

Really? Is that why people can qualify for salvation on their own merits?

You’ll have to give me some context here….perhaps a scripture reference?    Believers are saved by grace through faith in Christ.    

Ayn Rand wrote: "Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free."

As I’ve written to you previously:

In this case I arrive right back at where I began prior to the reading  whereby I affirm the text colored in red that Ayn dismisses as “cowardly evasion”.   I understand why she doesn’t like that notion as it doesn’t help solidify her argument.  It’s an annoyance that pokes a hole.  Given that it is “a response” she at least acknowledges it, but she does so in manner that simply flicks it away meaninglessly as if it was never there….like swatting a fly.  It’s akin to Dawkin’s typical, dismissive statements concerning religion when he makes a statement such as, “Science flew aircraft to the moon.  Religion flew aircraft into buildings.” These “KO” statements are engineered to elicit an explosive audience uproar or swat away a theist response carelessly via distraction or uproar; still, it does nothing to address the topic at hand.  These kinds of KO statements leave me thinking nothing but “OK”, but I digress.   Ayn defining the notion as cowardly simply doesn’t make it so.   Now, if sin existed as she stated she puts forth a great argument, but she dismisses the crux of the theist response completely and simply rests on her own conclusions.    

Ayn’s work begins with the notions that man is born damned and that the divine standard of good imposed upon him is impossible to meet.  These conclusions are also rooted in the presupposition that “God” or “the divine” is completely absurd.  What troubles me from the get go is that her perspective is void of any form of prior belief or a proactive engagement in that which she stands firmly opposed.   Her writing although scathing is still elegant and far superior to my own, but her position is rooted in ignorance because she has no genuine comparative.  She just dives right into the side of the argument she feels comfortable defending or justifying; yet hasn’t walked even 10 steps in the pursuit of genuine belief (that I am aware of).  She’s fully reasoned away a concept she doesn’t fully grasp.  Me, I’ve stood amidst both belief and disbelief and in my case I choose to belief.  Why?  Because God has demonstrated in my life who he is and that he is real via the Holy Spirit.  I can feel the presence of the Holy Spirit in my day-to-day and it’s changed me through and through.  The Holy Spirit came upon me from the outside and then changed me from the inside.  Why did this happen in my life?   Because I chose to accept Jesus Christ as savior via the same manner he and the apostle Paul outlined in scripture….I pursued God on his terms and I’ve never been the same.    If a person is going to reason away God I would hope they’ve reached their conclusion because they genuinely tried to seek God on his terms and then came up with nothing.  Folks that refuse to meet God on his terms will never find their cogent answer.  


I haven't addressed everything and won't be addressing everything, but more to come.....

Don't know if I'll be online much tonight (or if at all).....have a good evening....thanks for discussion.   Hopefully we don't get out of hand!

[avxo]

I admit, this tactic is a good one and it has literally been used for centuries now.   What I don’t like is that it takes a seemingly valid, philosophical notion and employs it as a “word game” of sorts.  It becomes a ploy or a distraction.  It often occurs in a “retort phase” of debate/discussion.

It should be the first step in any discussion. We need to know what we're talking about.

There is a tremendous probablity that no matter how I define God you’ll reject the definition as inconsistent and irrationale.   As I mentioned previously rationality can be very subjective and often based on experience so we may never align.

It's likely that I will, if your definition includes things which aren't helpful in understanding what we're talking about (e.g. "most high") or which don't really provide any information (e.g. "the alpha and the omega") or which use infinite amplification (e.g. "god's love is infinite").

Regardless, here’s the reality….we both know exactly what we are talking about….so let’s just drop the pretense.

No, we don't - I have no means of distinguishing your God from that of, say, a Jehovah's witness or Allah. So let's not. You will need to provide some kind of definition about the being that you talking about that allows me to understand it sufficiently to be able to decide whether the being you describe is even plausible.

What is “chair”?

A chair is a piece of furniture, typically used for sitting by a single person. Although many variations are possible, chairs typically have four legs, a flat surface (often padded) onto which one actually sits, and a back piece against which one can lean or rest their back against.

What is “God”?

That is the $64,000 question, is it not?

What is “avxo”?

It's a moniker that I use to post on this forum. It is a transliteration of a nickname given to me by a childhood friend in a different language.

“If a theist continues to answer questions that typically go unanswered begin asking them to define terms.”     Sorry, I saw a version of this on an atheist site in a section on dealing with theists.

I am asking you to define terms to begin our discussion. If we want to talk and debate the subject of your God, we should both be talking and debating about the same thing, no?

Websters’s Dictionary – Nature: the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing; a creative and controlling force in the universe; an inner force or the sum of such forces in an individual; a kind or class usually distinguished by fundamental or essential characteristics (there are others)

Websters’s Dictionary – Divine: of, relating to, or proceeding directly from God or a god; directed to a deity; supremely good.

Websters’s Dictionary – Express:  directly, firmly, and explicitly stated; designed for or adapted to its purpose; of a particular sort

Now you're going overboard; you don't need to define dictionary terms. The problem only comes when you string them together in an attempt to make it appear as if you're saying something of substance. If you want to have a serious discussion, have a serious discussion. If you want to fuck around, you can do that without me.

He expresses his divine nature….his deity in 3 persons….Father, Son and Spirit.   Yet all 3 persons are 1 God.  How does he do this?   I don’t know….it’s beyond my comprehension to fully grasp it.

Your inability to explain the triune nature of God is a problem, to be sure, but it's not a fatal problem. It just shows that you can't explain some aspects of God - that's fine. The bigger problem is that you can't explain any aspect of God. I'll give you an example: you assert that God is omnipotent - suggesting no restrictions at all. While hard to understand what this means, exactly, I can roll with it. But then you say that he can't act contrary to his nature - limiting his omnipotence. You want to have your cake and eat it too. I will not let you.

Well, as I noted previously “Primary qualities of God (although not the definition of God) are peace, grace, mercy, justice and love.”

You say a primary quality is peace. Yet in multiple places in the Bible, God is described as a warrior or a man of war - Exodus 15:3 comes to mind. And violence - brutal violence even - either by God or by his command is a recurring theme throughout the Bible.

You say primary qualities are grace and mercy. And yet, God's grace and mercy aren't enough suspend a terrible judgement that we will all face.

You say a primary quality is justice. And yet, God stands ready to deliver the terrible judgement that his grace and mercy can't save us from, to punish us for something that is inherent in our nature.

You say a primary quality is love. And yet, God's love isn't enough to save us, unconditionally.

Of course he failed…..it’s an unwinnable word game that’s used as a crutch to discredit the personal relationship and knowledge of God theists claim to have that atheists do not.

No, I don't discredit your personal relationship with and knowledge of God. I am perfectly willing to accept that you have a personal relationship with and knowledge of God and that it's profoundly meaningful to you. I'm saying that your personal experience is meaningless to a third party. Do you disagree with that? If you do, then I must tell you that I have a personal relationship with a magical elf that is the cause of all rain. I know it does because the elf told me. Sadly, you cannot see the elf but you can prove to yourself that it exists if you first believe that it does and come to the elf with a humble spirit, seeking him out. Then he shall reach out and cause rain to fall upon you and you, too, will know.

Further, the objector can change the criteria that forms an acceptable defintion as he/she pleases.

People can object - there are valid objections and invalid objections. If I ask you to define God and you reply with "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" then I will object because the definition is meaningless. If you provide a rational definition - one which is at least understandable - then I won't. Don't hide behind the "well, rationality means whatever you want" nonsense - because that's what it is: nonsense.

Your definition of a car is straight from Webster’s (and that’s fine) – Car:  a road vehicle, typically with four wheels, powered by an internal combustion engine and able to carry a small number of people.  

Let’s apply that same style of definition to God.   God:  an transcendent being, with a divine nature, expressed in 3 coequal, coeternal persons in Father, Son and Spirit and able to create at will and is sovreign over all things.

Now, that's something that we can work with.

So we have a transcendent being - this is a little vague and you'll notice that the definition of a car contains no such vagueness. But let's roll with it for now, shall we?

So, we have this transcendent being which has a divine nature. What does it mean to have a divine nature? The definition of "divine" harkens back to God, making this circulal. This is a fatal flaw.

What do you mean and/or require by the term “unconditional”?

Whatever it was that you meant when you used it.

Death is a result of sin and both believers and unbelievers are subject to it.

Objection: assumes facts not in evidence. Until evidence is presented, death is simply a result of our nature.

Punishment is a result of God’s judgement.  Salvation in Christ saves believers from God’s judgement.

Again, this punishment is a result of something that is outside of our control. You've acknowledged repeatedly that at the core of Christian beliefs is that man cannot live without sinning. You've also acknowledged that people are born as sinners because of Original Sin. If God judges us for something that we cannot help and something we are born as, the God is immoral and unjust.

  

What do you mean by “taint”?   [yes, I giggled like a 10 yr old boy writing this]

Well... we got to keep things light-hearted, no? What I meant was that we are sinners at birth, because according to your religion, Original Sin applies to us all, passed down the ages to us from Adam and Eve.

God provided a resolution for this through Jesus Christ.

It's not a resolution to say: "You are going to be punished for this thing which you didn't do and couldn't help. Unless you do this other thing, in which case I'll overlook your insolence."

God’s law is based upon his righteous, divine nature; yet, he allows his creation to exist in a state where the potential for sin is there.

First a question: do you believe it's righteous and just to punish someone for the sins of their ancestors?

Second an observation: God doesn't allow his creation to a exist in a state where the potential for sin is there - he allows them to exist in a state where they cannot avoid sin and then punishes them for it.

As we choose to engage in sin it creates a divide between us and God.

Yet, we aren’t forced to sin….we make the choice.

If sinning is a matter of choice, then it should be theoretically possible to live a life with no sin, and to be saved without needing Jesus Christ. Answer this question - it's either yes or no: Do you believe that one can be saved without Jesus?

If the answer is "Yes" the Jesus is unnecessary, as people could be saved on their own merits and what you believe in is a lie.

If the answer is "No" then God will punish people for something they could not help, making him immoral and unjust and unworthy of your worship.

Still he already knows that man in his state of finite autonomy will opt for sin…that we have a “sinful nature”.

A sinful nature is, as I quoted before, the same as playing a game with loaded dice.

He also knows that man is capable of choosing righteousness instead.

Are we? If so, what need is there for Jesus? You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Or is it that we can choose righteousness but merely can't practice it?

God also can’t violate his own nature or stop being God.

Either God is omnipotent or he isn't. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Yes, being unrighteous is a problem.  The solution is Christ.

Christ does nothing to solve the problem of unrighteousness here and now, except offer a promise that if people believe in him they will be rewarded after death.

When I read about King David’s child with Bathsheba passing away and David suggesting that as a believer he would he see his child again in God’s kingdom it affirmed for me the innocence of children and others with disabilities that prevent them from making an honest choice about sin and Christ in their lives.  They don’t need salvation because being saved by grace through faith in Christ means we are saved from the wrath/judgment of God.  The innocents need not fear God’s wrath for they are without blame or need for judgment.

That's a neat passage - a bit of stretch, but let's let that slide for now. How about we focus on how God caused David's son to die because of David's sins instead? Is that the action of a moral, just and loving God?

What do you mean by “incantation”?  What is the special incantation?  What do you mean by “get out of jail card”?

I know you aren't dense, but if you want to pretend to be that's fine by me. I mean that by uttering the proverbial magic words (that is, by believing in Jesus) one is saved from all punishment. Hitler could have been genuinely accepted Jesus a millisecond prior to his death and all would be good - no punishment for Adolf becaus Blood of the Lamb™. Stalin could have genuinely accepted Jesus as he lay in bed in his Dacha, a minute before his death and all would be good - no punishment for Joseph because Blood of the Lamb™. That's what I mean by "get out of jail free card". Your God promises inescapable justice, but allows for an escape: Blood of the Lamb™. The justice of the God of the Bible seems to me to be anything but justice. In fact, it seems to me to be a mockery.

Science is amazing, but it isn’t our blood that is needed…it is Christ’s.    Christ’s shed blood covered sin once and for all.

Again, you are using words in a way that makes no sense. What does it mean for blood to cover sin? Why isn't some other blood good? Why is blood needed at all?

Tell that to any dead guy that bled out.

I would, but I'm pretty sure they knew before they died.

Pot meet kettle.

The difference is that unlike you, I'm not making claims that require proof. You assert there's a supernatural being - asking you to prove it and calling bullshit when you can't isn't the same as what you're doing.

Let’s apply that all important context to your scriptural reference.    So you’re suggesting that Jesus sinned (an offense against God) by staying – as Christ put it – at his “Father’s house”.

When Mary came to him and basically said, “We were so worried about you!”  Jesus tells her, “Where else would I be but at my Father’s house?”   This is a pivotal point in Jesus’ life because it illustrates that he was aware of his purpose (despite his age) and was completely obedient to the God the Father…..above all others.  

The trap here is  “he was disobeying his parents and not honoring his mother and father”.    Jesus may have lived as a child, but he was no ordinary child and his parent’s knew this.  The repeat visitation from angels outlining his origin and purpose, the virgin birth, the fact that he was the Son of God were solid tips for Mary and Joseph that Jesus was not your average child.    

Jesus was purposed for a divine mission here on Earth and his loving, obedience to God the Father was becoming more and more evident.   That fact that young Jesus suddenly referred to God as “Father” at the temple took his parents by surprise and displayed that he was showing nothing but reverance for God.

Jesus did nothing to offend God; further, his parents may have worried (as parents do…normal reaction),  but he never dishonored them.   He may have been a boy, but he is always God.

That is a neat tap-dancing trick you did there to get out of that bind. It's not entirely convincing though, but if it makes you sleep better at night, whatever.

Christ and his resurrection.

Even if Christ was an actual person that walked the earth, there's no proof that he did any of the things ascribed to him or that he was resurrected. He's no different from any other mythical figure in the respect.

You’re blessed in that you’ve read some scripture, you’ve heard the testimony of believers and you can freely attend a church.   You can also take it God himself in prayer and ask him directly for a revelation of himself.   Given all that exposure the question you could then ask is “Do I want to know God like others have?  Do I want to begin living for him?” If the answer if yes then step out in faith.   See if what you perceive now as blind doesn’t become something different.   I’m telling you it will.  Others will tell you the same.   Believeres are absolutely part of the evidence for God…..lives dramatically changed.  

This isn’t scienctific….this is a spiritual change….the scientific method doesn’t apply……if you desire to know God you come to him on his terms.   Still, if you walk faithfully to him he’ll run lovingly to you.

That's not how it works. If your God loves me enough to save me, he knows what it would take - and it's not much. If he possesses the attributes you ascribe to him, then he could trivially turn me into a believe right this instant. If he requires me to make a leap of faith then I'm sorry but that is contrary to my nature. If he does exists, he can choose to punish me for that when the time comes, but then I'd only be as he made me and following his plan, so punishing me - and others like me - for what he made us would only serve to highlight just how unjust and immoral he is.

 

“Oh... well, that settles it then. You wrote it, so it must be true! “

Once more, then, for good measure: "What reaffirms your beliefs is a true vision and miraculous. What clashes with your beliefs is demonic in nature and a means to deceive. This is just flat out bullshit."

God is righteous.  God is the law.  The law is righteous.  We can be made righteous through Christ.

He's so righteous that he'll kill King David's infant son for King David's actions and punish us for sinning when we can't help but sin... He sure is the pinnacle of righteousness.

Why can’t God know everything and still allow us to choose?   Knowing isn’t force or programming…..it’s just knowing.

If God knows - without the possibility of error - whether I'll be saved or not, it means that he knows - without the possibility of error - the outcome of every one of my choices throughout life. Meaning that when it does come time for me to make the choice, the choice that I'm presented with is not really a choice at all, since he already knows - without the possibility of error - what I will choose and that means that I cannot choose anything else. Whether I think that I am making my choice freely is irrelevant. Whether I actually am isn't.

[Man of Steel]

It should be the first step in any discussion. We need to know what we're talking about.


It's likely that I will, if your definition includes things which aren't helpful in understanding what we're talking about (e.g. "most high") or which don't really provide any information (e.g. "the alpha and the omega") or which use infinite amplification (e.g. "god's love is infinite").


No, we don't - I have no means of distinguishing your God from that of, say, a Jehovah's witness or Allah. So let's not. You will need to provide some kind of definition about the being that you talking about that allows me to understand it sufficiently to be able to decide whether the being you describe is even plausible.


A chair is a piece of furniture, typically used for sitting by a single person. Although many variations are possible, chairs typically have four legs, a flat surface (often padded) onto which one actually sits, and a back piece against which one can lean or rest their back against.


That is the $64,000 question, is it not?


It's a moniker that I use to post on this forum. It is a transliteration of a nickname given to me by a childhood friend in a different language.


I am asking you to define terms to begin our discussion. If we want to talk and debate the subject of your God, we should both be talking and debating about the same thing, no?



Now you're going overboard; you don't need to define dictionary terms. The problem only comes when you string them together in an attempt to make it appear as if you're saying something of substance. If you want to have a serious discussion, have a serious discussion. If you want to fuck around, you can do that without me.



Your inability to explain the triune nature of God is a problem, to be sure, but it's not a fatal problem. It just shows that you can't explain some aspects of God - that's fine. The bigger problem is that you can't explain any aspect of God. I'll give you an example: you assert that God is omnipotent - suggesting no restrictions at all. While hard to understand what this means, exactly, I can roll with it. But then you say that he can't act contrary to his nature - limiting his omnipotence. You want to have your cake and eat it too. I will not let you.


You say a primary quality is peace. Yet in multiple places in the Bible, God is described as a warrior or a man of war - Exodus 15:3 comes to mind. And violence - brutal violence even - either by God or by his command is a recurring theme throughout the Bible.

You say primary qualities are grace and mercy. And yet, God's grace and mercy aren't enough suspend a terrible judgement that we will all face.

You say a primary quality is justice. And yet, God stands ready to deliver the terrible judgement that his grace and mercy can't save us from, to punish us for something that is inherent in our nature.

You say a primary quality is love. And yet, God's love isn't enough to save us, unconditionally.



No, I don't discredit your personal relationship with and knowledge of God. I am perfectly willing to accept that you have a personal relationship with and knowledge of God and that it's profoundly meaningful to you. I'm saying that your personal experience is meaningless to a third party. Do you disagree with that? If you do, then I must tell you that I have a personal relationship with a magical elf that is the cause of all rain. I know it does because the elf told me. Sadly, you cannot see the elf but you can prove to yourself that it exists if you first believe that it does and come to the elf with a humble spirit, seeking him out. Then he shall reach out and cause rain to fall upon you and you, too, will know.


People can object - there are valid objections and invalid objections. If I ask you to define God and you reply with "The Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" then I will object because the definition is meaningless. If you provide a rational definition - one which is at least understandable - then I won't. Don't hide behind the "well, rationality means whatever you want" nonsense - because that's what it is: nonsense.



Now, that's something that we can work with.

So we have a transcendent being - this is a little vague and you'll notice that the definition of a car contains no such vagueness. But let's roll with it for now, shall we?

So, we have this transcendent being which has a divine nature. What does it mean to have a divine nature? The definition of "divine" harkens back to God, making this circulal. This is a fatal flaw.


Whatever it was that you meant when you used it.


Objection: assumes facts not in evidence. Until evidence is presented, death is simply a result of our nature.


Again, this punishment is a result of something that is outside of our control. You've acknowledged repeatedly that at the core of Christian beliefs is that man cannot live without sinning. You've also acknowledged that people are born as sinners because of Original Sin. If God judges us for something that we cannot help and something we are born as, the God is immoral and unjust.

 
Well... we got to keep things light-hearted, no? What I meant was that we are sinners at birth, because according to your religion, Original Sin applies to us all, passed down the ages to us from Adam and Eve.


It's not a resolution to say: "You are going to be punished for this thing which you didn't do and couldn't help. Unless you do this other thing, in which case I'll overlook your insolence."


First a question: do you believe it's righteous and just to punish someone for the sins of their ancestors?

Second an observation: God doesn't allow his creation to a exist in a state where the potential for sin is there - he allows them to exist in a state where they cannot avoid sin and then punishes them for it.



If sinning is a matter of choice, then it should be theoretically possible to live a life with no sin, and to be saved without needing Jesus Christ. Answer this question - it's either yes or no: Do you believe that one can be saved without Jesus?

If the answer is "Yes" the Jesus is unnecessary, as people could be saved on their own merits and what you believe in is a lie.

If the answer is "No" then God will punish people for something they could not help, making him immoral and unjust and unworthy of your worship.



A sinful nature is, as I quoted before, the same as playing a game with loaded dice.


Are we? If so, what need is there for Jesus? You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Or is it that we can choose righteousness but merely can't practice it?


Either God is omnipotent or he isn't. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.


Christ does nothing to solve the problem of unrighteousness here and now, except offer a promise that if people believe in him they will be rewarded after death.



That's a neat passage - a bit of stretch, but let's let that slide for now. How about we focus on how God caused David's son to die because of David's sins instead? Is that the action of a moral, just and loving God?



I know you aren't dense, but if you want to pretend to be that's fine by me. I mean that by uttering the proverbial magic words (that is, by believing in Jesus) one is saved from all punishment. Hitler could have been genuinely accepted Jesus a millisecond prior to his death and all would be good - no punishment for Adolf becaus Blood of the Lamb™. Stalin could have genuinely accepted Jesus as he lay in bed in his Dacha, a minute before his death and all would be good - no punishment for Joseph because Blood of the Lamb™. That's what I mean by "get out of jail free card". Your God promises inescapable justice, but allows for an escape: Blood of the Lamb™. The justice of the God of the Bible seems to me to be anything but justice. In fact, it seems to me to be a mockery.


Again, you are using words in a way that makes no sense. What does it mean for blood to cover sin? Why isn't some other blood good? Why is blood needed at all?


I would, but I'm pretty sure they knew before they died.


The difference is that unlike you, I'm not making claims that require proof. You assert there's a supernatural being - asking you to prove it and calling bullshit when you can't isn't the same as what you're doing.


That is a neat tap-dancing trick you did there to get out of that bind. It's not entirely convincing though, but if it makes you sleep better at night, whatever.


Even if Christ was an actual person that walked the earth, there's no proof that he did any of the things ascribed to him or that he was resurrected. He's no different from any other mythical figure in the respect.


That's not how it works. If your God loves me enough to save me, he knows what it would take - and it's not much. If he possesses the attributes you ascribe to him, then he could trivially turn me into a believe right this instant. If he requires me to make a leap of faith then I'm sorry but that is contrary to my nature. If he does exists, he can choose to punish me for that when the time comes, but then I'd only be as he made me and following his plan, so punishing me - and others like me - for what he made us would only serve to highlight just how unjust and immoral he is.

 
Once more, then, for good measure: "What reaffirms your beliefs is a true vision and miraculous. What clashes with your beliefs is demonic in nature and a means to deceive. This is just flat out bullshit."



He's so righteous that he'll kill King David's infant son for King David's actions and punish us for sinning when we can't help but sin... He sure is the pinnacle of righteousness.


If God knows - without the possibility of error - whether I'll be saved or not, it means that he knows - without the possibility of error - the outcome of every one of my choices throughout life. Meaning that when it does come time for me to make the choice, the choice that I'm presented with is not really a choice at all, since he already knows - without the possibility of error - what I will choose and that means that I cannot choose anything else. Whether I think that I am making my choice freely is irrelevant. Whether I actually am isn't.

Sorry, haven't forgotten about you! 

Super busy with tons of work stuff.....I'll be back (bb related).

[IrishMuscle84]

You can't wait and yet you don't kill yourself to accelerate the process... I smell hypocrisy.

I did Not mean it in a " Literal " sense............The MORE I wait..............The MORE joyful it will be.