Why do christians think god communicates with warm fuzzy feelings instead of direct verbal speach?

[Brakeman]

Exactly. Dirch himself has said that no surviving bible is 100% accurate, and that nor is any interpretation.

So every single author, editor, and translator of the bible books that claimed claimed divine inspiration was a liar, because true divine inspiration would have resulted in a 100% correct work. Not only that, every christian that read the works and claimed to "know" god through his word, and claims to know that the bible is perfect by the holy spirit orgasm they get when holding the book to their bosom is also a liar. Yep, I think DRICH and I finally agree on something..

[Kousbroek]

Now I see your problem. You believe the God who....blah .. blah .. blah ..

No i don't believe in your bullshit and you are still an idiot ( no irony or sarcasm intended, just means you are an idiot ... )

[Faith No More]

If the situation was direction from God 1) it would not be random, and 2) would be consistant with Scripture. God would not give a revelation that went against what has already been established in the cannon of scripture.

That's fine, but it still does not answer the question of how you can tell the difference between what is and isn't a direction from god.

More times than not yes.

Um...what?

Does a sucessful: Business, Ministry or Marriage count?

Of course not. If I believe that god has commanded me to kill my neighbor, and I am successful in doing so, does that mean the command truly came from god?

[Darkstar]

If I believe that god has commanded me to kill my neighbor, and I am successful in doing so, does that mean the command truly came from god?

Which reminds me: when people claim god told them to kill someone because that person was the devil, why does no one believe them? I mean, isn't that consistent wi- ...oh, right...god lets Satan run amok unhindered...for some inexplicable reason...

[Ryantology]

god lets Satan run amok unhindered...for some inexplicable reason...

Controlling your voluntarily mindless masses is much harder if you can't keep them afraid and hateful of your opposing number. If they are not afraid of Satan and all he represents, they won't find any value in your supposed protection.

[Darkstar]

If they are not afraid of Satan and all he represents, they won't find any value in your supposed protection.

Hmmm...that is true. But...it makes you wonder. Humans are supposedly corrupt from birth and can never live 'righteous' lives. So, is it Satan corrupting them, or are they naturally bad and Satan is unnecessary? (assuming Satan is the bad guy)

Considering that Satan is also responsible for that coruption (original sin) and god let him do that too, knowing how it would end...

[Drich]

[quote='Darkstar' pid='368362' dateline='1354337202']

[quote]I always get confused because church is on Sunday. [/quote]Because of the observance of the Sabbath Church defaulted to the following day. Which is the first day of the week.But some claim that a mandate by Constantine in A.D. 321 “changed” the Sabbath from Saturday to Sunday. On what day did the early church meet for worship? Scripture never mentions any Sabbath (Saturday) gatherings by believers for fellowship or worship. However, there are clear passages that mention the first day of the week. For instance, Acts 20:7 states that “on the first day of the week we came together to break bread.” In 1 Corinthians 16:2 Paul urges the Corinthian believers “on the first day of every week, each one of you should set aside a sum of money in keeping with his income.” Since Paul designates this offering as “service” in 2 Corinthians 9:12, this collection must have been linked with the Sunday worship service of the Christian assembly. Historically Sunday, not Saturday, was the normal meeting day for Christians in the church, and its practice dates back to the first century.
http://www.gotquestions.org/Saturday-Sunday.html


[quote]I'm not saying that god did not side with Jesus, just that god let Jesus do something that constituted as work. Now, if god wants to reinterpret his rules to include the intent of the work, then I guess he can do that...I think.[/quote]Constitutes Work according to whom? That is the point here. Christ is showing the contrast between the traditional/religious defination and what God has indended.

this is true even now. god is not a respecter of the traditions of man even if they are directed at worshiping Him, for the sake of the appearance of Holyness. The story of the 'Good Sameritian' is another example of this.

[quote]The rules are in and of themselves god's nature? God is not truly omnipotent?[/quote]God is not Omnipotent as we have redefined the word. God Can not go against His own nature, therefore by our defination of the word does not qualifiy for that title. (That is why there are so many easy paradoxes that can be derived from a traditional view of the omni aspects of God.)

[quote]Also, is his inability to go against his nature why he needed Jesus? [/quote]Yes, It is also the reason Christ said He did not come to abolish the Law but to full fill it. Christ had to meet the standard that the Nature of God demanded for the full fillment or attonement of sin.

[quote](honest question) Because Jesus preaches love and forgiveness, whereas Yahweh constantly incites violence against people he doesn't like.[/quote]The Father's standard of Death and destruction is the standard in wich we wold all be subject to IF not for the sacerfice of Christ. It is Because Christ literally took upon Himself all the wrath and punishment due each one of us we are allowed to know Peace love and mercy. It is also because Christ did this that we are expected to inturn show the same peace love and mercy we have been shown or we will be subject to God's wrath.(The parable of the unmerciful servant illustrates this.)

[quote]Exactly. Dirch himself has said that no surviving bible is 100% accurate, and that nor is any interpretation.[/quote]
That is why We are not responsiable for a perfect bible. We are simple responsiable for what God has given us. (The story of the talents explain this.)

[Ryantology]

It is Because Christ literally took upon Himself all the wrath and punishment due each one of us we are allowed to know Peace love and mercy.

Because it would be asking too much of the all-powerful if he could remit our punishments without killing someone in place of us. Y'know, because it's his fault we sin in the first place.

[Darkstar]

Constitutes Work according to whom? That is the point here. Christ is showing the contrast between the traditional/religious defination and what God has indended.

this is true even now. god is not a respecter of the traditions of man even if they are directed at worshiping Him, for the sake of the appearance of Holyness. The story of the 'Good Sameritian' is another example of this.

The above, and this:

That is why We are not responsiable for a perfect bible. We are simple responsiable for what God has given us. (The story of the talents explain this.)

are contradictory, no? We are not responsible for perfectly interpreting god's word, but we are? Then, of course, you will argue that becuase Jesus knew the correct interpretation they should have bowed to it. However, the odds that they trusted him to be the son of god are probably as good as the chances of you believeing that some random person claiming to be the second coming was telling the truth.

Also, is his inability to go against his nature why he needed Jesus?

Yes, It is also the reason Christ said He did not come to abolish the Law but to full fill it. Christ had to meet the standard that the Nature of God demanded for the full fillment or attonement of sin.

Because god is merciless and unforgiving by nature?

[Drich]

Exactly. Dirch himself has said that no surviving bible is 100% accurate, and that nor is any interpretation.

So every single author, editor, and translator of the bible books that claimed claimed divine inspiration was a liar, because true divine inspiration would have resulted in a 100% correct work. Not only that, every christian that read the works and claimed to "know" god through his word, and claims to know that the bible is perfect by the holy spirit orgasm they get when holding the book to their bosom is also a liar. Yep, I think DRICH and I finally agree on something..

What does it say about a man who has to twist the words of another to find validation?

---

Now I see your problem. You believe the God who....blah .. blah .. blah ..

No i don't believe in your bullshit and you are still an idiot ( no irony or sarcasm intended, just means you are an idiot ... )

noted

---

That's fine, but it still does not answer the question of how you can tell the difference between what is and isn't a direction from god.

Because that explaination has aready been given. God gives a deeper understanding of what has already been written.

Of course not. If I believe that god has commanded me to kill my neighbor, and I am successful in doing so, does that mean the command truly came from god?

No because it contradicts How God has told us to treat our neighbors.

---

Which reminds me: when people claim god told them to kill someone because that person was the devil, why does no one believe them? I mean, isn't that consistent wi- ...oh, right...god lets Satan run amok unhindered...for some inexplicable reason...

-Or- Satan simply get the credit for things how darks our hearts are on their own. Meaning it is not Satan running amuck, it's us. We the evil that blames satan.

---

god lets Satan run amok unhindered...for some inexplicable reason...

Controlling your voluntarily mindless masses is much harder if you can't keep them afraid and hateful of your opposing number. If they are not afraid of Satan and all he represents, they won't find any value in your supposed protection.

It's not like Christianity has to invent atrocities to blame on satan so as to keep people in check. These things happen because there are those of us who live outside of God's expressed will intentionally and unashamedly. As a result Evil things happen. Satan gets the blame because 'we' can not admit the truth. Bottom line bad things happen, and 'satan' is not a valid reason as to why they do. 'Satan' is a copout for those who can not admit the truth.

---

If they are not afraid of Satan and all he represents, they won't find any value in your supposed protection.

Hmmm...that is true. But...it makes you wonder. Humans are supposedly corrupt from birth and can never live 'righteous' lives. So, is it Satan corrupting them, or are they naturally bad and Satan is unnecessary? (assuming Satan is the bad guy)

Considering that Satan is also responsible for that coruption (original sin) and god let him do that too, knowing how it would end...

Satan is not the 'god of evil.' Satan's stated role is deceiver, liar, temptor. He is their to identify and encourage other options (with some more agressivly than others Job verses Adam and Eve.) But as far as him being any type of lord or mini deity He lost whatever independance he had at the cross. Satan was defeated their and now is just a shadow of who he once was.

---

It is Because Christ literally took upon Himself all the wrath and punishment due each one of us we are allowed to know Peace love and mercy.

Because it would be asking too much of the all-powerful if he could remit our punishments without killing someone in place of us. Y'know, because it's his fault we sin in the first place.

If by 'fault' you mean He is the reason we have choice/ablity to sin. then yes I agree. For their could not be 'choice' with out sin. Meaning if their was only God's expressed will, and everyone was in it (whether they wanted to be or not) then we would not have any choice but to be in God's expressed will. That is what sin is. It is the ablity to be outside of God's expressed will.

No sin, no Choice. So thank you God for sin, and thank you God for attoning for that sin so if I do choose to be with you my choice or ablity to choose does not disqualify me from making that choice!