Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The argument that is most difficult is the existential one. People no longer experience God as all powerful as the scriptures indicate and if such such a God does exist then they wonder how can God let evil happen. Your theodicies do not convince such as "God knows best" or "Its God mysterious will." They sound like a load of nonsense. That's tough for conservatives and evangelicals to hear but it is a reality. Your best argument will always be -let go of your d theism and embrace the God of love and Jesus Christ as God's Son who best shows God's love for us. Those concepts will win you converts to the Christian faith.
Otherwise you are asking them to believe in a magical God who intervened in the physical on some kind of whim that you think is mysterious and good but secular people see as asinine and silly. God is too wonderful in God's love and presence to be reduced to silliness of being at our beck and call to intervene

---

People saw Jesus and the cross as asinine and silly from the beginning.

You claim Jesus is the Son of God while simultaneously claiming that God does not intervene in history except through love, although you don't seem to have an explanation of what that actually is.

Jesus wasn't a metaphor, nor was his resurrection metaphorical according to his followers. You say He was a real person, but that He wasn't actually raised from the dead, He was metaphorically raised.

Where did you come up with the idea that God was at our "beck and call?" That's not Christian theology. There is a lot of space between "God is at our beck and call" and "God never actually intervenes in history."

---

I came up with it because guys like you endow God with supernatural powers that "if we pray with faith then God answers our prayer."
Why do you pray for a miracle if you did not think God just might, just might answer that prayer with a miracle.
Those prayers are as old as humankind. You ask in Prayers and rituals to grant you a favor. Humans want to control God's supposed supernatural powers.
If your child is sick you know durn well if cannot manipulate God to heal that child then you would be give up in that God because you cannot justify "God is love" and "God is supernatural." Theodicies all fail.
My existentialist argument still stands because it reflects reality because 1) God is not supernatural and 2) our existence is in a physical world of physics, chemistry and biology. No scientist includes God in the equation of existentialism nor do secular people.
I turn to God not so God manipulate science but so I can be open to God's love and to strengthen my faith in the vicissitudes and chaos of life.

---

Both my wife and I have repeatedly seen miracles occur as a direct result of prayer.

Have no doubt you have brought misery to dozens... if not hundreds... of people playing your 'minister' charade .

You are a horribly destructive individual.


So? Why does your revelation take precedence over the secular person?

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The argument that is most difficult is the existential one. People no longer experience God as all powerful as the scriptures indicate and if such such a God does exist then they wonder how can God let evil happen. Your theodicies do not convince such as "God knows best" or "Its God mysterious will." They sound like a load of nonsense. That's tough for conservatives and evangelicals to hear but it is a reality. Your best argument will always be -let go of your d theism and embrace the God of love and Jesus Christ as God's Son who best shows God's love for us. Those concepts will win you converts to the Christian faith.
Otherwise you are asking them to believe in a magical God who intervened in the physical on some kind of whim that you think is mysterious and good but secular people see as asinine and silly. God is too wonderful in God's love and presence to be reduced to silliness of being at our beck and call to intervene

---

People saw Jesus and the cross as asinine and silly from the beginning.

You claim Jesus is the Son of God while simultaneously claiming that God does not intervene in history except through love, although you don't seem to have an explanation of what that actually is.

Jesus wasn't a metaphor, nor was his resurrection metaphorical according to his followers. You say He was a real person, but that He wasn't actually raised from the dead, He was metaphorically raised.

Where did you come up with the idea that God was at our "beck and call?" That's not Christian theology. There is a lot of space between "God is at our beck and call" and "God never actually intervenes in history."

---

I came up with it because guys like you endow God with supernatural powers that "if we pray with faith then God answers our prayer."
Why do you pray for a miracle if you did not think God just might, just might answer that prayer with a miracle.
Those prayers are as old as humankind. You ask in Prayers and rituals to grant you a favor. Humans want to control God's supposed supernatural powers.
If your child is sick you know durn well if cannot manipulate God to heal that child then you would be give up in that God because you cannot justify "God is love" and "God is supernatural." Theodicies all fail.
My existentialist argument still stands because it reflects reality because 1) God is not supernatural and 2) our existence is in a physical world of physics, chemistry and biology. No scientist includes God in the equation of existentialism nor do secular people.
I turn to God not so God manipulate science but so I can be open to God's love and to strengthen my faith in the vicissitudes and chaos of life.

---

Both my wife and I have repeatedly seen miracles occur as a direct result of prayer.

Have no doubt you have brought misery to dozens... if not hundreds... of people playing your 'minister' charade .

You are a horribly destructive individual.


So? Why does your revelation take precedence over the secular person?

---

---

You are either completely nuts....or a troll just begging for attention.

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The argument that is most difficult is the existential one. People no longer experience God as all powerful as the scriptures indicate and if such such a God does exist then they wonder how can God let evil happen. Your theodicies do not convince such as "God knows best" or "Its God mysterious will." They sound like a load of nonsense. That's tough for conservatives and evangelicals to hear but it is a reality. Your best argument will always be -let go of your d theism and embrace the God of love and Jesus Christ as God's Son who best shows God's love for us. Those concepts will win you converts to the Christian faith.
Otherwise you are asking them to believe in a magical God who intervened in the physical on some kind of whim that you think is mysterious and good but secular people see as asinine and silly. God is too wonderful in God's love and presence to be reduced to silliness of being at our beck and call to intervene

---

People saw Jesus and the cross as asinine and silly from the beginning.

You claim Jesus is the Son of God while simultaneously claiming that God does not intervene in history except through love, although you don't seem to have an explanation of what that actually is.

Jesus wasn't a metaphor, nor was his resurrection metaphorical according to his followers. You say He was a real person, but that He wasn't actually raised from the dead, He was metaphorically raised.

Where did you come up with the idea that God was at our "beck and call?" That's not Christian theology. There is a lot of space between "God is at our beck and call" and "God never actually intervenes in history."

---

I came up with it because guys like you endow God with supernatural powers that "if we pray with faith then God answers our prayer."
Why do you pray for a miracle if you did not think God just might, just might answer that prayer with a miracle.
Those prayers are as old as humankind. You ask in Prayers and rituals to grant you a favor. Humans want to control God's supposed supernatural powers.
If your child is sick you know durn well if cannot manipulate God to heal that child then you would be give up in that God because you cannot justify "God is love" and "God is supernatural." Theodicies all fail.
My existentialist argument still stands because it reflects reality because 1) God is not supernatural and 2) our existence is in a physical world of physics, chemistry and biology. No scientist includes God in the equation of existentialism nor do secular people.
I turn to God not so God manipulate science but so I can be open to God's love and to strengthen my faith in the vicissitudes and chaos of life.

---

Both my wife and I have repeatedly seen miracles occur as a direct result of prayer.

Have no doubt you have brought misery to dozens... if not hundreds... of people playing your 'minister' charade .

You are a horribly destructive individual.


So? Why does your revelation take precedence over the secular person?

---

---

You are either completely nuts....or a troll just begging for attention.

---

So what if I am a yrolll. Why should your personal revelation answer the question that secular people ask? Are just out of luck or out of grace or have no faith?

Face it - we live in a secular world and are born into a particular culture. Those toe facts shape our theology - our theism.
"The conservation, selection, and conversion of cultural achievements is not only a fact; it is also a morally inescapable requirement, which the exclusive Christian must meet because he is a Christian and a man. If he is to confess Jesus before men, he must do so by means of words and ideas derived from culture, though a change of meaning is also necessary. ... If he is to say what "love" means he must choose among such words as "eros," "philanthropia" and "agape," or "charity," "loyalty" and "love"seeking one that comes close to the meaning of Jesus Christ, and modifying it by use in context. These things he must do, not only that he may communicate, but also that he may himself know whom and what he believes. When he undertakes to fulfill the demands of Jesus Christ, he finds himself partly under the necessity of translating into the terms of his own culture what was commanded in the terms of another.". H Richard Niebuhr
By necessity if we are to communicate the good news of Jesus Christ then must communicate in term of the culture and in our case today a secular, scientific culture. One cannot simply "wish" to return to the age of the Bible where apparently God moved about intervening as God wishes. Physics, chemistry and biology have crushed that notion. So we turn to the spiritual tand to the overwhelming witness of the scripture that God is love. On that notion we build our good news message in today's cultural terms.
"

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The argument that is most difficult is the existential one. People no longer experience God as all powerful as the scriptures indicate and if such such a God does exist then they wonder how can God let evil happen. Your theodicies do not convince such as "God knows best" or "Its God mysterious will." They sound like a load of nonsense. That's tough for conservatives and evangelicals to hear but it is a reality. Your best argument will always be -let go of your d theism and embrace the God of love and Jesus Christ as God's Son who best shows God's love for us. Those concepts will win you converts to the Christian faith.
Otherwise you are asking them to believe in a magical God who intervened in the physical on some kind of whim that you think is mysterious and good but secular people see as asinine and silly. God is too wonderful in God's love and presence to be reduced to silliness of being at our beck and call to intervene

---

People saw Jesus and the cross as asinine and silly from the beginning.

You claim Jesus is the Son of God while simultaneously claiming that God does not intervene in history except through love, although you don't seem to have an explanation of what that actually is.

Jesus wasn't a metaphor, nor was his resurrection metaphorical according to his followers. You say He was a real person, but that He wasn't actually raised from the dead, He was metaphorically raised.

Where did you come up with the idea that God was at our "beck and call?" That's not Christian theology. There is a lot of space between "God is at our beck and call" and "God never actually intervenes in history."

---

I came up with it because guys like you endow God with supernatural powers that "if we pray with faith then God answers our prayer."
Why do you pray for a miracle if you did not think God just might, just might answer that prayer with a miracle.
Those prayers are as old as humankind. You ask in Prayers and rituals to grant you a favor. Humans want to control God's supposed supernatural powers.
If your child is sick you know durn well if cannot manipulate God to heal that child then you would be give up in that God because you cannot justify "God is love" and "God is supernatural." Theodicies all fail.
My existentialist argument still stands because it reflects reality because 1) God is not supernatural and 2) our existence is in a physical world of physics, chemistry and biology. No scientist includes God in the equation of existentialism nor do secular people.
I turn to God not so God manipulate science but so I can be open to God's love and to strengthen my faith in the vicissitudes and chaos of life.

---

Both my wife and I have repeatedly seen miracles occur as a direct result of prayer.

Have no doubt you have brought misery to dozens... if not hundreds... of people playing your 'minister' charade .

You are a horribly destructive individual.


So? Why does your revelation take precedence over the secular person?

---

---

You are either completely nuts....or a troll just begging for attention.

---

So what if I am a yrolll. Why should your personal revelation answer the question that secular people ask? Are just out of luck or out of grace or have no faith?

---

Yep ...a troll.

One who routinely has problems spelling .

Yet still begs for attention .

Waco1947 said:

---

Physics, chemistry and biology have crushed that notion.

---

Nope.

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Physics, chemistry and biology have crushed that notion.

---

Nope.

---

How? Scientists do not turn the Bible.

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The argument that is most difficult is the existential one. People no longer experience God as all powerful as the scriptures indicate and if such such a God does exist then they wonder how can God let evil happen. Your theodicies do not convince such as "God knows best" or "Its God mysterious will." They sound like a load of nonsense. That's tough for conservatives and evangelicals to hear but it is a reality. Your best argument will always be -let go of your d theism and embrace the God of love and Jesus Christ as God's Son who best shows God's love for us. Those concepts will win you converts to the Christian faith.
Otherwise you are asking them to believe in a magical God who intervened in the physical on some kind of whim that you think is mysterious and good but secular people see as asinine and silly. God is too wonderful in God's love and presence to be reduced to silliness of being at our beck and call to intervene

---

People saw Jesus and the cross as asinine and silly from the beginning.

You claim Jesus is the Son of God while simultaneously claiming that God does not intervene in history except through love, although you don't seem to have an explanation of what that actually is.

Jesus wasn't a metaphor, nor was his resurrection metaphorical according to his followers. You say He was a real person, but that He wasn't actually raised from the dead, He was metaphorically raised.

Where did you come up with the idea that God was at our "beck and call?" That's not Christian theology. There is a lot of space between "God is at our beck and call" and "God never actually intervenes in history."

---

I came up with it because guys like you endow God with supernatural powers that "if we pray with faith then God answers our prayer."
Why do you pray for a miracle if you did not think God just might, just might answer that prayer with a miracle.
Those prayers are as old as humankind. You ask in Prayers and rituals to grant you a favor. Humans want to control God's supposed supernatural powers.
If your child is sick you know durn well if cannot manipulate God to heal that child then you would be give up in that God because you cannot justify "God is love" and "God is supernatural." Theodicies all fail.
My existentialist argument still stands because it reflects reality because 1) God is not supernatural and 2) our existence is in a physical world of physics, chemistry and biology. No scientist includes God in the equation of existentialism nor do secular people.
I turn to God not so God manipulate science but so I can be open to God's love and to strengthen my faith in the vicissitudes and chaos of life.

---

Both my wife and I have repeatedly seen miracles occur as a direct result of prayer.

Have no doubt you have brought misery to dozens... if not hundreds... of people playing your 'minister' charade .

You are a horribly destructive individual.


So? Why does your revelation take precedence over the secular person?

---

---

You are either completely nuts....or a troll just begging for attention.

---

So what if I am a yrolll. Why should your personal revelation answer the question that secular people ask? Are just out of luck or out of grace or have no faith?

---

Yep ...a troll.

One who routinely has problems spelling .

Yet still begs for attention .

---

I asked a question and you dodge because you know personal revelation is not for all humankind

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Physics, chemistry and biology have crushed that notion.

---

Nope.

---

How? Scientists do not turn the Bible.

---

You worship humans in labs, Waco.

I will worship The Lord.

One day I hope you will understand your error and seek the Lord.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Physics, chemistry and biology have crushed that notion.

---

Nope.

---

How? Scientists do not turn the Bible.

---

You worship humans in labs, Waco.

I will worship The Lord.

One day I hope you will understand your error and seek the Lord.

---

God will have one question "Waco do you love me?"
Me:"Lord you know I do."

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The argument that is most difficult is the existential one. People no longer experience God as all powerful as the scriptures indicate and if such such a God does exist then they wonder how can God let evil happen. Your theodicies do not convince such as "God knows best" or "Its God mysterious will." They sound like a load of nonsense. That's tough for conservatives and evangelicals to hear but it is a reality. Your best argument will always be -let go of your d theism and embrace the God of love and Jesus Christ as God's Son who best shows God's love for us. Those concepts will win you converts to the Christian faith.
Otherwise you are asking them to believe in a magical God who intervened in the physical on some kind of whim that you think is mysterious and good but secular people see as asinine and silly. God is too wonderful in God's love and presence to be reduced to silliness of being at our beck and call to intervene

---

People saw Jesus and the cross as asinine and silly from the beginning.

You claim Jesus is the Son of God while simultaneously claiming that God does not intervene in history except through love, although you don't seem to have an explanation of what that actually is.

Jesus wasn't a metaphor, nor was his resurrection metaphorical according to his followers. You say He was a real person, but that He wasn't actually raised from the dead, He was metaphorically raised.

Where did you come up with the idea that God was at our "beck and call?" That's not Christian theology. There is a lot of space between "God is at our beck and call" and "God never actually intervenes in history."

---

I came up with it because guys like you endow God with supernatural powers that "if we pray with faith then God answers our prayer."
Why do you pray for a miracle if you did not think God just might, just might answer that prayer with a miracle.
Those prayers are as old as humankind. You ask in Prayers and rituals to grant you a favor. Humans want to control God's supposed supernatural powers.
If your child is sick you know durn well if cannot manipulate God to heal that child then you would be give up in that God because you cannot justify "God is love" and "God is supernatural." Theodicies all fail.
My existentialist argument still stands because it reflects reality because 1) God is not supernatural and 2) our existence is in a physical world of physics, chemistry and biology. No scientist includes God in the equation of existentialism nor do secular people.
I turn to God not so God manipulate science but so I can be open to God's love and to strengthen my faith in the vicissitudes and chaos of life.

---

Both my wife and I have repeatedly seen miracles occur as a direct result of prayer.

Have no doubt you have brought misery to dozens... if not hundreds... of people playing your 'minister' charade .

You are a horribly destructive individual.


So? Why does your revelation take precedence over the secular person?

---

---

You are either completely nuts....or a troll just begging for attention.

---

So what if I am a yrolll. Why should your personal revelation answer the question that secular people ask? Are just out of luck or out of grace or have no faith?

---

Yep ...a troll.

One who routinely has problems spelling .

Yet still begs for attention .

---

I asked a question and you dodge because you know personal revelation is not for all humankind

---

I don't bother answering your inane questions because your confused mind merely deflects the answers .

Always have .

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The argument that is most difficult is the existential one. People no longer experience God as all powerful as the scriptures indicate and if such such a God does exist then they wonder how can God let evil happen. Your theodicies do not convince such as "God knows best" or "Its God mysterious will." They sound like a load of nonsense. That's tough for conservatives and evangelicals to hear but it is a reality. Your best argument will always be -let go of your d theism and embrace the God of love and Jesus Christ as God's Son who best shows God's love for us. Those concepts will win you converts to the Christian faith.
Otherwise you are asking them to believe in a magical God who intervened in the physical on some kind of whim that you think is mysterious and good but secular people see as asinine and silly. God is too wonderful in God's love and presence to be reduced to silliness of being at our beck and call to intervene

---

People saw Jesus and the cross as asinine and silly from the beginning.

You claim Jesus is the Son of God while simultaneously claiming that God does not intervene in history except through love, although you don't seem to have an explanation of what that actually is.

Jesus wasn't a metaphor, nor was his resurrection metaphorical according to his followers. You say He was a real person, but that He wasn't actually raised from the dead, He was metaphorically raised.

Where did you come up with the idea that God was at our "beck and call?" That's not Christian theology. There is a lot of space between "God is at our beck and call" and "God never actually intervenes in history."

---

I came up with it because guys like you endow God with supernatural powers that "if we pray with faith then God answers our prayer."
Why do you pray for a miracle if you did not think God just might, just might answer that prayer with a miracle.
Those prayers are as old as humankind. You ask in Prayers and rituals to grant you a favor. Humans want to control God's supposed supernatural powers.
If your child is sick you know durn well if cannot manipulate God to heal that child then you would be give up in that God because you cannot justify "God is love" and "God is supernatural." Theodicies all fail.
My existentialist argument still stands because it reflects reality because 1) God is not supernatural and 2) our existence is in a physical world of physics, chemistry and biology. No scientist includes God in the equation of existentialism nor do secular people.
I turn to God not so God manipulate science but so I can be open to God's love and to strengthen my faith in the vicissitudes and chaos of life.

---

Both my wife and I have repeatedly seen miracles occur as a direct result of prayer.

Have no doubt you have brought misery to dozens... if not hundreds... of people playing your 'minister' charade .

You are a horribly destructive individual.

---

I do wonder what multitude of people have turned away from the True and Living God because of this mans foolishness.

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The argument that is most difficult is the existential one. People no longer experience God as all powerful as the scriptures indicate and if such such a God does exist then they wonder how can God let evil happen. Your theodicies do not convince such as "God knows best" or "Its God mysterious will." They sound like a load of nonsense. That's tough for conservatives and evangelicals to hear but it is a reality. Your best argument will always be -let go of your d theism and embrace the God of love and Jesus Christ as God's Son who best shows God's love for us. Those concepts will win you converts to the Christian faith.
Otherwise you are asking them to believe in a magical God who intervened in the physical on some kind of whim that you think is mysterious and good but secular people see as asinine and silly. God is too wonderful in God's love and presence to be reduced to silliness of being at our beck and call to intervene

---

People saw Jesus and the cross as asinine and silly from the beginning.

You claim Jesus is the Son of God while simultaneously claiming that God does not intervene in history except through love, although you don't seem to have an explanation of what that actually is.

Jesus wasn't a metaphor, nor was his resurrection metaphorical according to his followers. You say He was a real person, but that He wasn't actually raised from the dead, He was metaphorically raised.

Where did you come up with the idea that God was at our "beck and call?" That's not Christian theology. There is a lot of space between "God is at our beck and call" and "God never actually intervenes in history."

---

I came up with it because guys like you endow God with supernatural powers that "if we pray with faith then God answers our prayer."
Why do you pray for a miracle if you did not think God just might, just might answer that prayer with a miracle.
Those prayers are as old as humankind. You ask in Prayers and rituals to grant you a favor. Humans want to control God's supposed supernatural powers.
If your child is sick you know durn well if cannot manipulate God to heal that child then you would be give up in that God because you cannot justify "God is love" and "God is supernatural." Theodicies all fail.
My existentialist argument still stands because it reflects reality because 1) God is not supernatural and 2) our existence is in a physical world of physics, chemistry and biology. No scientist includes God in the equation of existentialism nor do secular people.
I turn to God not so God manipulate science but so I can be open to God's love and to strengthen my faith in the vicissitudes and chaos of life.

---

Both my wife and I have repeatedly seen miracles occur as a direct result of prayer.

Have no doubt you have brought misery to dozens... if not hundreds... of people playing your 'minister' charade .

You are a horribly destructive individual.


So? Why does your revelation take precedence over the secular person?

---

---

You are either completely nuts....or a troll just begging for attention.

---

So what if I am a yrolll. Why should your personal revelation answer the question that secular people ask? Are just out of luck or out of grace or have no faith?

---

Yep ...a troll.

One who routinely has problems spelling .

Yet still begs for attention .

---

I asked a question and you dodge because you know personal revelation is not for all humankind

---

Personal revelation that disagrees with Biblical revelation is just fodder for itching ears. Which you have obviously found.

You do realize what you preach is nothing but personal revelation itself. It is not in the Bible.

Waco1947 said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

Physics, chemistry and biology have crushed that notion.

---

Nope.

---

How? Scientists do not turn the Bible.

---

You worship humans in labs, Waco.

I will worship The Lord.

One day I hope you will understand your error and seek the Lord.

---

God will have one question "Waco do you love me?"
Me:"Lord you know I do."

---

No.

There is clear Scripture on that point.

It's not you deciding whether you were goid enough.

You live and speak like a modern Caiaphas.

That is not a good thing.

Forest Bueller said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The argument that is most difficult is the existential one. People no longer experience God as all powerful as the scriptures indicate and if such such a God does exist then they wonder how can God let evil happen. Your theodicies do not convince such as "God knows best" or "Its God mysterious will." They sound like a load of nonsense. That's tough for conservatives and evangelicals to hear but it is a reality. Your best argument will always be -let go of your d theism and embrace the God of love and Jesus Christ as God's Son who best shows God's love for us. Those concepts will win you converts to the Christian faith.
Otherwise you are asking them to believe in a magical God who intervened in the physical on some kind of whim that you think is mysterious and good but secular people see as asinine and silly. God is too wonderful in God's love and presence to be reduced to silliness of being at our beck and call to intervene

---

People saw Jesus and the cross as asinine and silly from the beginning.

You claim Jesus is the Son of God while simultaneously claiming that God does not intervene in history except through love, although you don't seem to have an explanation of what that actually is.

Jesus wasn't a metaphor, nor was his resurrection metaphorical according to his followers. You say He was a real person, but that He wasn't actually raised from the dead, He was metaphorically raised.

Where did you come up with the idea that God was at our "beck and call?" That's not Christian theology. There is a lot of space between "God is at our beck and call" and "God never actually intervenes in history."

---

I came up with it because guys like you endow God with supernatural powers that "if we pray with faith then God answers our prayer."
Why do you pray for a miracle if you did not think God just might, just might answer that prayer with a miracle.
Those prayers are as old as humankind. You ask in Prayers and rituals to grant you a favor. Humans want to control God's supposed supernatural powers.
If your child is sick you know durn well if cannot manipulate God to heal that child then you would be give up in that God because you cannot justify "God is love" and "God is supernatural." Theodicies all fail.
My existentialist argument still stands because it reflects reality because 1) God is not supernatural and 2) our existence is in a physical world of physics, chemistry and biology. No scientist includes God in the equation of existentialism nor do secular people.
I turn to God not so God manipulate science but so I can be open to God's love and to strengthen my faith in the vicissitudes and chaos of life.

---

Both my wife and I have repeatedly seen miracles occur as a direct result of prayer.

Have no doubt you have brought misery to dozens... if not hundreds... of people playing your 'minister' charade .

You are a horribly destructive individual.

---

I do wonder what multitude of people have turned away from the True and Living God because of this mans foolishness.

---

You would be surprised at how at how many have turned to God Because they were relieved of the burden of believing in an all powerful God.

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The argument that is most difficult is the existential one. People no longer experience God as all powerful as the scriptures indicate and if such such a God does exist then they wonder how can God let evil happen. Your theodicies do not convince such as "God knows best" or "Its God mysterious will." They sound like a load of nonsense. That's tough for conservatives and evangelicals to hear but it is a reality. Your best argument will always be -let go of your d theism and embrace the God of love and Jesus Christ as God's Son who best shows God's love for us. Those concepts will win you converts to the Christian faith.
Otherwise you are asking them to believe in a magical God who intervened in the physical on some kind of whim that you think is mysterious and good but secular people see as asinine and silly. God is too wonderful in God's love and presence to be reduced to silliness of being at our beck and call to intervene

---

People saw Jesus and the cross as asinine and silly from the beginning.

You claim Jesus is the Son of God while simultaneously claiming that God does not intervene in history except through love, although you don't seem to have an explanation of what that actually is.

Jesus wasn't a metaphor, nor was his resurrection metaphorical according to his followers. You say He was a real person, but that He wasn't actually raised from the dead, He was metaphorically raised.

Where did you come up with the idea that God was at our "beck and call?" That's not Christian theology. There is a lot of space between "God is at our beck and call" and "God never actually intervenes in history."

---

I came up with it because guys like you endow God with supernatural powers that "if we pray with faith then God answers our prayer."
Why do you pray for a miracle if you did not think God just might, just might answer that prayer with a miracle.
Those prayers are as old as humankind. You ask in Prayers and rituals to grant you a favor. Humans want to control God's supposed supernatural powers.
If your child is sick you know durn well if cannot manipulate God to heal that child then you would be give up in that God because you cannot justify "God is love" and "God is supernatural." Theodicies all fail.
My existentialist argument still stands because it reflects reality because 1) God is not supernatural and 2) our existence is in a physical world of physics, chemistry and biology. No scientist includes God in the equation of existentialism nor do secular people.
I turn to God not so God manipulate science but so I can be open to God's love and to strengthen my faith in the vicissitudes and chaos of life.

---

Both my wife and I have repeatedly seen miracles occur as a direct result of prayer.

Have no doubt you have brought misery to dozens... if not hundreds... of people playing your 'minister' charade .

You are a horribly destructive individual.

---

I do wonder what multitude of people have turned away from the True and Living God because of this mans foolishness.

---

You would be surprised at how at how many have turned to idols and humanist lies because they gave up on the all powerful God.

---

Corrected for accuracy

Waco1947 said:

---

Forest Bueller said:

---

Canada2017 said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

The argument that is most difficult is the existential one. People no longer experience God as all powerful as the scriptures indicate and if such such a God does exist then they wonder how can God let evil happen. Your theodicies do not convince such as "God knows best" or "Its God mysterious will." They sound like a load of nonsense. That's tough for conservatives and evangelicals to hear but it is a reality. Your best argument will always be -let go of your d theism and embrace the God of love and Jesus Christ as God's Son who best shows God's love for us. Those concepts will win you converts to the Christian faith.
Otherwise you are asking them to believe in a magical God who intervened in the physical on some kind of whim that you think is mysterious and good but secular people see as asinine and silly. God is too wonderful in God's love and presence to be reduced to silliness of being at our beck and call to intervene

---

People saw Jesus and the cross as asinine and silly from the beginning.

You claim Jesus is the Son of God while simultaneously claiming that God does not intervene in history except through love, although you don't seem to have an explanation of what that actually is.

Jesus wasn't a metaphor, nor was his resurrection metaphorical according to his followers. You say He was a real person, but that He wasn't actually raised from the dead, He was metaphorically raised.

Where did you come up with the idea that God was at our "beck and call?" That's not Christian theology. There is a lot of space between "God is at our beck and call" and "God never actually intervenes in history."

---

I came up with it because guys like you endow God with supernatural powers that "if we pray with faith then God answers our prayer."
Why do you pray for a miracle if you did not think God just might, just might answer that prayer with a miracle.
Those prayers are as old as humankind. You ask in Prayers and rituals to grant you a favor. Humans want to control God's supposed supernatural powers.
If your child is sick you know durn well if cannot manipulate God to heal that child then you would be give up in that God because you cannot justify "God is love" and "God is supernatural." Theodicies all fail.
My existentialist argument still stands because it reflects reality because 1) God is not supernatural and 2) our existence is in a physical world of physics, chemistry and biology. No scientist includes God in the equation of existentialism nor do secular people.
I turn to God not so God manipulate science but so I can be open to God's love and to strengthen my faith in the vicissitudes and chaos of life.

---

Both my wife and I have repeatedly seen miracles occur as a direct result of prayer.

Have no doubt you have brought misery to dozens... if not hundreds... of people playing your 'minister' charade .

You are a horribly destructive individual.

---

I do wonder what multitude of people have turned away from the True and Living God because of this mans foolishness.

---

You would be surprised at how at how many have turned to God Because they were relieved of the burden of believing in an all powerful God.

---

Be even more surprised if you ever found enough integrity to disclose where you supposedly got your 'theology degree ' .

1. If God is just love and not supernatural as you suggest, then Christ's death on the cross (assuming you believe that) was pointless and meaningless. Why would He have to die, simply to symbolize love? Why couldn't He have lived a long life of love and service and died peacefully, surrounded by friends and family? Obviously not for salvation, in your theology, since heaven and hell are supernatural and thus cannot exist. So what would be the point of the Crucifixion?

2. You keep asking "what about the secularist who can't accept the supernatural?" The answer to this question is "well, what about him?" Just like everyone else, he can open his mind to accept the truth of the Gospel, or he can reject it. Completely altering the gospel message in order to convert someone is useless because they have been "converted" to something false.

Think of it this way - you say that by altering the gospel, you can win converts. That's like saying that Baylor could have a lot more fans if we changed our school colors to maroon and white, changed the interlocking BU to a T surrounded by an A and an M, and our cheer from "sic'em" to "gig'em." Yes, if we did that we could get thousands more fans ... but for what? In the same way, if we change the gospel to win converts, we have gained nothing.

Waco1947 said:

---

BUMBA1 said:

---

It means that God is in control of every situation. And can intervene any time he wants to. God can do what he wants, when he wants, and how he wants.

---

And if you believe that and insist every seeker believe it too then every potential secular disciple will turn away that would be sad.

---

Better for the seeker to turn away and continue seeking than to join a church with nothing to find. Those who seek at least have hope.

Waco1947 said:

---

You would be surprised at how at how many have turned to God Because they were relieved of the burden of believing in an all powerful God.

---

Like you, they turned not to the true God, but one of their own making? No, not surprised one bit, because we were warned in 2 Timothy 4:3 :

"For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear."

You get this silliness with your theism
"Susanne Atanus, the GOP nominee for the Illinois 9th, is the most recent conservative to blame ills and plagues on gay marriage, and she's not choosy. She told the Daily Herald earlier this year that God had visited everything from tornados to autism and dementia upon the earth as punishment for gay marriage.

"Everybody knows that God controls weather," she said in the Windy City Times. "God is super angry. Gay marriage is not appropriate, and it doesn't look right, and it breeds AIDS."

bearassnekkid said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

What does "God is control" mean to you?
Does God controls physics, biology, chemistry, relationships., job success or failure or medical cure? How does God control?
How can God be in control yet I have free will or do I?
Can God's will/control override my will?

---

It means He is sovereign over a creation in which he granted human beings free will. He foreknew the outcome of every free will choice, and decided to create the universe anyway. He is "in control" in that nothing is happening outside His knowledge or thwarting His will . . . but He also isn't determining people's choices. The events and unfolding of creation's timeline are known and therefore pre-ordained, but not predestined/pre-determined.

---

Are you going to have free will in 'heaven'?

TexasScientist said:

---

Are you going to have free will in 'heaven'?

---

Yes; however, our wills will be perfectly aligned with God's will.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Are you going to have free will in 'heaven'?

---

Yes; however, I wills will be perfectly aligned with God's will.

---

Well said.

I'd suggest it is like marriage. You can anything you want, but if you love your spouse you dedicate your efforts to their happiness.

It's like that in heaven. None who live there will put themselves ahead of others, but do all out of love.

More if "God is in Control"
Hurricane Katrina

Blaming major natural disasters on "the homosexuals" is a time-honored right-wing pastime. Pastor John Hagee, a religious right figure from San Antonio, entered a classic in the genre when he blamed Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans on a "homosexual parade" that was supposed to have been held the next week.

Hagee not only made the connection, but affirmed it multiple times as everyone from NPR's Terry Gross to right-wing radio host Dennis Hastert asked if he was serious.

"I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that," Hagee told Gross. "The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believethat the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."

Waco1947 said:

---

More if "God is in Control"
Hurricane Katrina

Blaming major natural disasters on "the homosexuals" is a time-honored right-wing pastime. Pastor John Hagee, a religious right figure from San Antonio, entered a classic in the genre when he blamed Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans on a "homosexual parade" that was supposed to have been held the next week.

Hagee not only made the connection, but affirmed it multiple times as everyone from NPR's Terry Gross to right-wing radio host Dennis Hastert asked if he was serious.

"I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that," Hagee told Gross. "The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believethat the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."

---

Maybe you should read what the Bible actually says instead of cherry-picking opinions from people you don't like about what they might think the Bible says.

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

More if "God is in Control"
Hurricane Katrina

Blaming major natural disasters on "the homosexuals" is a time-honored right-wing pastime. Pastor John Hagee, a religious right figure from San Antonio, entered a classic in the genre when he blamed Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans on a "homosexual parade" that was supposed to have been held the next week.

Hagee not only made the connection, but affirmed it multiple times as everyone from NPR's Terry Gross to right-wing radio host Dennis Hastert asked if he was serious.

"I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that," Hagee told Gross. "The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believethat the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."

---

Maybe you should read what the Bible actually says instead of cherry-picking opinions from people you don't like about what they might think the Bible says.

---

What does the "Bible actually says" is about love. But it's theology (theism) is no longer true with regards to physics.

Waco1947 said:

---

JXL said:

---

Waco1947 said:

---

More if "God is in Control"
Hurricane Katrina

Blaming major natural disasters on "the homosexuals" is a time-honored right-wing pastime. Pastor John Hagee, a religious right figure from San Antonio, entered a classic in the genre when he blamed Hurricane Katrina's destruction of New Orleans on a "homosexual parade" that was supposed to have been held the next week.

Hagee not only made the connection, but affirmed it multiple times as everyone from NPR's Terry Gross to right-wing radio host Dennis Hastert asked if he was serious.

"I believe that New Orleans had a level of sin that was offensive to God, and they were recipients of the judgment of God for that," Hagee told Gross. "The newspaper carried the story in our local area that was not carried nationally that there was to be a homosexual parade there on the Monday that the Katrina came. And the promise of that parade was that it was going to reach a level of sexuality never demonstrated before in any of the other Gay Pride parades. So I believethat the Hurricane Katrina was, in fact, the judgment of God against the city of New Orleans."

---

Maybe you should read what the Bible actually says instead of cherry-picking opinions from people you don't like about what they might think the Bible says.

---

What does the "Bible actually says" is about love. But it's theology (theism) is no longer true with regards to physics.

---

Yes, the Bible is about the surpassing love of the omnipotent God, who gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believes in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life.

It isn't about some puny, powerless god who can't do much of anything, nor is it about an ordinary guy who lived 2000 years ago and was executed by the Romans for no real point or reason.

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Are you going to have free will in 'heaven'?

---

Yes; however, our wills will be perfectly aligned with God's will.

---

Forced alignment is not free. So, you wont' be able to do what you want?

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Are you going to have free will in 'heaven'?

---

Yes; however, I wills will be perfectly aligned with God's will.

---

Well said.

I'd suggest it is like marriage. You can anything you want, but if you love your spouse you dedicate your efforts to their happiness.

It's like that in heaven. None who live there will put themselves ahead of others, but do all out of love.

---

Can you sin in heaven?

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Are you going to have free will in 'heaven'?

---

Yes; however, I wills will be perfectly aligned with God's will.

---

Well said.

I'd suggest it is like marriage. You can anything you want, but if you love your spouse you dedicate your efforts to their happiness.

It's like that in heaven. None who live there will put themselves ahead of others, but do all out of love.

---

Can you sin in heaven?

---

Why are you asking that, are you planning to sin in heaven?

1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.



Instead of using the word control, which God can do since he is God, sustain is a better word to me. He sustains us, and he sustains the Universe, by His power. The word "control" indicated a puppet master, when in fact we have free will. He has created, he has set in motion, and he sustains His wonderful creation, by His mighty power.

This is a good thing.

Oldbear83 said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Coke Bear said:

---

TexasScientist said:

---

Are you going to have free will in 'heaven'?

---

Yes; however, I wills will be perfectly aligned with God's will.

---

Well said.

I'd suggest it is like marriage. You can anything you want, but if you love your spouse you dedicate your efforts to their happiness.

It's like that in heaven. None who live there will put themselves ahead of others, but do all out of love.

---

Can you sin in heaven?

---

Why are you asking that, are you planning to sin in heaven?

---

If heaven is going to be utopia, but you still have free will there, then why wouldn't Yahweh have put all living things in the Universe, including people, there to begin with? Why subject them to struggles and misfortunes of this life? Why require them to believe in just one religion out of thousands? Would any loving god really require all of the convoluted mental gymnastics necessary, to reconcile all of the biblical contradictions, and inconsistencies? Why require the convoluted justification of biblical atrocities that one has to embrace, in order to convince oneself the religious culture one is born into is true and virtuous? Would a benevolent god place mankind in this position, in a chaotic universe, demanding blind faith in the unbelievable, without objective evidence, and under penalty for failure to believe? Isn't it all nonsense? Isn't belief nonsense?

If you have free will here and free will to sin, and you have free will in heaven, then wouldn't some choose to sin in heaven?

Lots to unpack from your post, TS, so let me respond by point, please:


TS: "If heaven is going to be utopia, but you still have free will there, then why wouldn't Yahweh have put all living things in the Universe, including people, there to begin with?"

First, I think you make a mistake by imagining 'Utopia'. One detriment to lack of a classical education, is that people fail to understand that 'Utopia' literally means 'no where', as in a place which cannot exist.

I would suggest that a better concept would be a place where everything is as it should be, which also explains why we do not start there. The Bible tells us we started in Eden, which is Paradise, but screwed up the place through our decisions and actions. To you this may be just a fable, but if one accepts that Adam and Eve, who were not born in sin, screwed up, then anyone who was human would sooner or later screw up. I know you're not into Bible reading TS, but if you read through the Bible you will find many accounts of human failing and redemption through God's love.

Therefore, it makes sense that heaven would be a place God has prepared for us after we have learned from our mistakes and His grace.


TS: " Why subject them to struggles and misfortunes of this life?"

Why did you go to school? Why did you have to complete assignments and study for tests? When you started working, why did you start at the bottom of the crew, with no credibility or reputation? Don't you have to work your way to accomplishment, even if you have great potential? The struggles and misfortunes of this life serve to remind us not to love the short life here too much, to be sensitive and compassionate to those around us who suffer, that we might work to ease each other's pain and troubles, and we grow through challenges and tests of life.



TS: " Why require them to believe in just one religion out of thousands?"

You see from an invalid perspective. Why does 2+2 equal 4 and not whatever we want it to be? Why are there specific chemical properties, so that we are warned against mixing certain chemicals, and to check our numbers before we put something into practice? Why does computer code have to be written in a certain syntax?

Everything requires order, and one cannot serve God while denying Him. It matters therefore that we seek God in our hearts and work, and love each other as creations of God. If someone is able to do this, the details will sort themselves out in due time.


TS: " Would any loving god really require all of the convoluted mental gymnastics necessary, to reconcile all of the biblical contradictions, and inconsistencies?"

You see what you believe to be 'contradictions', although they are not, because you are bigoted against believing, and so you create excuses to run from God. It's important to understand Scripture In context, and not confuse it for something it never claimed to be.

Jesus once advised people to give Caesar what was his, and to give God what is His. The same principle applies here to biblical wisdom.


TS: " Why require the convoluted justification of biblical atrocities that one has to embrace, in order to convince oneself the religious culture one is born into is true and virtuous?"

Strange, the only atrocities I see in Scripture were evils done by men, and are no worse than atrocities still committed today.

You seem to be confusing human behavior for divine direction. And you certainly seem blind to the history of humanism.


TS: " Would a benevolent god place mankind in this position, in a chaotic universe, demanding blind faith in the unbelievable, without objective evidence, and under penalty for failure to believe?"

All this question tells me is that you are emotionally bigoted against faith, and desperately want God to be under human control. Your demand for "objective evidence', for example, amounts to nothing more than demanding God prove Himself to human satisfaction, limited to human comprehension and human standards.

That notion is frankly absurd if you give it any real thought.



TS: " Isn't it all nonsense?"
No, faith is not 'nonsense'. It is beautiful, like the trust of a child and the love of a couple who have been married a half-century. Faith makes things possible which ordinary humans cannot imagine will ever be so.



TS: " Isn't belief nonsense?"

No. Belief is the necessary floor on which all accomplishment starts its walk. This is true of secular atheists as much as the most devout priest.

Forest Bueller_bf said:

---

1 Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.



Instead of using the word control, which God can do since he is God, sustain is a better word to me. He sustains us, and he sustains the Universe, by His power. The word "control" indicated a puppet master, when in fact we have free will. He has created, he has set in motion, and he sustains His wonderful creation, by His mighty power.

This is a good thing.

---

God does sustain us in faith that is my point. You and I are in agreement but "God is in control." Is what people say and that notion needs unpacking. "Sustaining" is a great word. Well done.