Can God love?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yeah, I just see that from Neo as BS times two. Not much different from MK claiming all atheists are secretly believers who have turned their back on god. I guess in either case it brings them comfort to think and say that... but at the cost of looking like complete twats.

I guess you missed the "For some, not all, some,..." part.

No matter how much I carefully qualify my statements and make every attempt to allow for differences of opinion, some, not all all, some atheists will ignore any attempt at nuance to revile my opinions and make personal insults. I strongly suspect such seemingly intentional distortions come from deeply held prejudices against theists. This is what makes participation on AF so often unpleasant for me personally.

[Angrboda]

Meh.

[emjay]

Yeah, I just see that from Neo as BS times two. Not much different from MK claiming all atheists are secretly believers who have turned their back on god. I guess in either case it brings them comfort to think and say that... but at the cost of looking like complete twats.

I guess you missed the "For some, not all, some,..." part.

No matter how much I carefully qualify my statements and make every attempt to allow for differences of opinion, some, not all all, some atheists will ignore any attempt at nuance to revile my opinions and make personal insults. I strongly suspect such seemingly intentional distortions come from deeply held prejudices against theists. This is what makes participation on AF so often unpleasant for me personally.

No, I didn't miss that qualification, but you made two statements, one with that qualification and one without, so call it a 'cumulative case' as you guys are so fond of, that led to that comment. And the one you did qualify, IMO even saying 'some' is an overestimation if not unheard of.

I've always liked you and been interested in what you've had to say, but then you say things like that and I wonder why I do.

[robvalue]

I'll clarify my earlier question for any other theists that might want to take a stab at it.

Does God actually grant benefits to people of several religions, or just one religion? I don't care what people from all the religions claim is happening, I'm talking about what is actually happening.

Scenario 1: God just grants benefits (of whatever type) to the one "correct" religion

Conclusion: People in all the other religions who claim to get benefits from God are imagining it. So it's then perfectly possible to be fully convinced God is benefiting you, when in fact you're just attributing significance to events to fit your narrative.

Scenario 2: God (really does) grant benefits to multiple religions

Conclusion: God doesn't seem to care very much about being in the right religion, and will even grant boons for being in the wrong one. This seems to me to indicate that either several religions are acceptable to God, or else he is willing to trick those in the "wrong" ones to continue by means of rewards. How exactly can you tell whether you're being rewarded for being in the right one or the wrong one?

Scenario 3: God isn't granting benefits to anyone, because he either doesn't exist, is incapable, or chooses not to

Conclusion: All religious theists are imagining the benefits and attributing significance to fit their narratives.

[Drich]

For me this discernment is easy.

When i write or if I have a topic. a beginning middle and an end in mind and i write this all out, that would be an example of my own ability. If how ever I am simply compelled to write with nothing in my mind asto where or what I am saying and I am just typing the words as fast as i get them, and when I'm done and i read and proof what I read, and am like that makes good sense then it is God. uniting the divisions in the church/which denomination is right right is a good example.

Not what I meant.  I meant that I suspect you believe that a person who is honest knows where their abilities begin and end primarily because you don't know what you are talking about, and are unaware of your basic incompetence regarding the subject.  In other words, I suspect that you think you know something you don't actually know because you don't really know what you do and do not know.

No i got it the first time... I was trying to give you an out, by reestablishing the parameters of how I identify what is 'known to me.' Whether or not a subject is 'known to me well enough to fit your standard is irrelevant. As I'm often times required to speak to the most basic understanding in a given thread. if my understanding or answer seems overly simplistic or even too simple it is because i perceive a lack of the basics even though you perceive yourselves as masters of anything religious so I must word things far more simplisticly than I would like.

 So by redefining what is know to something I plan to say, takes the ability to judge content out of the equation as an objective to judge a 'knowable.' Again when something or a primise is unknown to me I will simply have an urge to write and I begin sometimes in the middle or end and then have to go back an rearrange paragraphs so they all flow. That to me is/was an unknown. As it is like I'm given a word or two at a time and I get to read it all for the first time as I am proofing a text.

Again content not with standing, that would be how I would define something out of my purview that was given to me.

[Angrboda]

Not what I meant.  I meant that I suspect you believe that a person who is honest knows where their abilities begin and end primarily because you don't know what you are talking about, and are unaware of your basic incompetence regarding the subject.  In other words, I suspect that you think you know something you don't actually know because you don't really know what you do and do not know.

No i got it the first time... I was trying to give you an out, by reestablishing the parameters of how I identify what is 'known to me.' Whether or not a subject is 'known to me well enough to fit your standard is irrelevant. As I'm often times required to speak to the most basic understanding in a given thread. if my understanding or answer seems overly simplistic or even too simple it is because i perceive a lack of the basics even though you perceive yourselves as masters of anything religious so I must word things far more simplisticly than I would like.

 So by redefining what is know to something I plan to say, takes the ability to judge content out of the equation as an objective to judge a 'knowable.' Again when something or a primise is unknown to me I will simply have an urge to write and I begin sometimes in the middle or end and then have to go back an rearrange paragraphs so they all flow. That to me is/was an unknown. As it is like I'm given a word or two at a time and I get to read it all for the first time as I am proofing a text.

Again content not with standing, that would be how I would define something out of my purview that was given to me.

Doesn't address the point I was making, but by all means, continue spewing bullshit if you think it will get you out of the jam you have put yourself in.

[Drich]

No i got it the first time... I was trying to give you an out, by reestablishing the parameters of how I identify what is 'known to me.' Whether or not a subject is 'known to me well enough to fit your standard is irrelevant. As I'm often times required to speak to the most basic understanding in a given thread. if my understanding or answer seems overly simplistic or even too simple it is because i perceive a lack of the basics even though you perceive yourselves as masters of anything religious so I must word things far more simplisticly than I would like.

 So by redefining what is know to something I plan to say, takes the ability to judge content out of the equation as an objective to judge a 'knowable.' Again when something or a primise is unknown to me I will simply have an urge to write and I begin sometimes in the middle or end and then have to go back an rearrange paragraphs so they all flow. That to me is/was an unknown. As it is like I'm given a word or two at a time and I get to read it all for the first time as I am proofing a text.

Again content not with standing, that would be how I would define something out of my purview that was given to me.

Doesn't address the point I was making, but by all means, continue spewing bullshit if you think it will get you out of the jam you have put yourself in.

I'm not in a jam. I'm in a 'measuring' contest with someone who has come up short and is trying to save face.

[Angrboda]

Doesn't address the point I was making, but by all means, continue spewing bullshit if you think it will get you out of the jam you have put yourself in.

I'm not in a jam. I'm in a 'measuring' contest with someone who has come up short and is trying to save face.

Whatever gets you through the night.

[EgoDeath]

It does seem the god of the Christian faith is capable of something we would call love or compassion, but he certainly does not love us completely if our failure to adhere to his code results in eternal torture. So, I suppose god is capable of love, hypothetically, but it doesn't seem to take advantage of this capacity very often.

[Drich]

I'll clarify my earlier question for any other theists that might want to take a stab at it.

Does God actually grant benefits to people of several religions, or just one religion? I don't care what people from all the religions claim is happening, I'm talking about what is actually happening.

Scenario 1: God just grants benefits (of whatever type) to the one "correct" religion

Conclusion: People in all the other religions who claim to get benefits from God are imagining it. So it's then perfectly possible to be fully convinced God is benefiting you, when in fact you're just attributing significance to events to fit your narrative.

Scenario 2: God (really does) grant benefits to multiple religions

Conclusion: God doesn't seem to care very much about being in the right religion, and will even grant boons for being in the wrong one. This seems to me to indicate that either several religions are acceptable to God, or else he is willing to trick those in the "wrong" ones to continue by means of rewards. How exactly can you tell whether you're being rewarded for being in the right one or the wrong one?

Scenario 3: God isn't granting benefits to anyone, because he either doesn't exist, is incapable, or chooses not to

Conclusion: All religious theists are imagining the benefits and attributing significance to fit their narratives.

Scenario 4: Everything previously stated is crap. Because after Jesus died on the cross 'religion' was no longer needed. Meaning we are so free from religion we can still use to elect religion if we need the training wheels.. However at some point religion becomes a trap. and takes the worshiper from God. (has the worshiper worship the methods of worship rather than God.) Rather than that God seeks a personal relationship with individuals not thought priests or religions. If you truly seek you will find the God of the bible. Once you do the flood gates of grace, and 'benefits' will be opened.

Conclusion: God hates religion, but at the same time will not reward those who simply make up their own version of God and choose to worship as the God of the bible. The God of the bible demands you meet Him on His terms first, and then will help you personally fill in the blanks. This is not an easy path or course to plot, as God uses trial and fire to forge or shape his followers. hardship will be par for the course as Hardship tend to put one in a place of honesty (well after you hit bottom) it is in that moment of honest that God can finally work with you, as your preconceived ideas can then be put aside.