You can argue with man, but you cannot argue with God

Well, there is a difference between a general notion of the meaning of the word “good” (let’s try “desirable”) and explicit instruction on which acts and personages are examples of good (let’s use the Ten Commandments here). While we have a conception of what the words “right” and “wrong” mean, are we not to take the Commandments at face value and not question them?


  That's tricky.  I think the expectation is that a righteous person would see the Commandments and know that they are good- and this would be a judgement, a questioning that comes back with an affirmative answer. But that leaves the possibility open that someone could see the Commandments and judge them non-good. Such a person would still be expected to obey, since a law is a law.  So I guess it depends on how you mean 'questioning'. 
   Suppose your friend in the mafia gets you a new fishing boat for your birthday.  You're supposed to see the boat, be amazed and thrilled, and thank your friend warmly. And that's probably what you will do- I mean, it's a really nice boat. But even if you hate it, you're going to take that f-ing boat or else, see?

I imagined that the state of one’s soul was at least as important as mere behavior. I also imagine that if we are already righteous, we have no need for making further judgements. It strikes me as a bit circular to say that the already-righteous need to make any judgemets about God, and the unrighteous can only make the judgement to be righteous, or they go to Hell.

Some invitation. Maybe that’s why I never went to the party.

But the mob guy isn’t “good” to begin with. Where is the parallel?


 Maybe we're using 'judgement' differently? When I say "God expects us to Judge the 10 Commandments", I mean God knows it is in our nature to judge things when exposed to them, and for better or worse, the 10 Commandments and God Himself are no expection.   "God is Good" is an example of this when spoken by men, and an acceptance of this when spoken by God.  It is not as though God tries His best to do the right thing, and then hopes His actions will live up to our standards.  Rather, He does what is right, and hopes we're wise enough to see it that way. 

The parallel is that there are situations in which our making a judgement is sincerely expected or desired, but the wrong judgement will not be accepted. The parallel breaks down because while there may be many good reasons not to accept or enjoy a gift from a mobster, when one turns away from God, it’s always due to a personal defiency, and not a problem with God Himself.

EDIT: Though the mobster may see himself in a godlike relation to you- where what he does is right in his own eyes, and he looks to your judgement not for vaildation, but to see if you’re wise enough to see things his way.

to say to question god would be to assume that he were somehow responceable. Who is to say that he wouldn’t simply allow your own choices to conclude your fate.

If god is omnipotant, than he is quite likely not involved, or atleast unbiast. Otherwise people like me would not exist.

To hold him responsible for your fate seems like just some excuse to avoid taking the blame.

My favorite referance is God helps those Who help themselves.

If he is choosing to act in your life spacifically than there must be atleast a good reason for him to do so. otherwise it would be a waste even for him.

I think anyway.

The god of the bible assigns human traits to himself. “My name is jealous, for I am a jealous god.” (Ex 34:14)

Is this why the first 2 commandments say, I am the Lord your God, thou shall not have other Gods before me…because…“I am a jealous god.”?

Human perception is easily limited to what we can interpret and understand. in ancient times I find it dobutful that the concept of a non-biast entity would have even been concidered possible.

With the chaos of the era what made sense was either many gods or one who was severely pissed off. if you had told them otherwise they would not have understood, and so they would dismiss the concept outright.

As for that particular quote, I find it unlikely that any book or text could go through that many transitions over the centuries and still remain intact, let alone infallible. One thing that my father once said was that the bible was an interesting peice of fiction.

there are some truths to your fiction and some fiction to your truths.

onlyhuman wrote

“If there is a god then this god does not deal with human affairs”, said the buddha.

Let say someone saw God, (Enouch) and God told this person I will tell you my secrets. This secret will be only to this person, and this person who witness God, will try to convince others, but fail. Why?

Because they want to see him for themselves. If they see him. Their children perhaps will want to see him as well, this cycle of disbelieve.
history of the book of Mormons ( christian text )

justly wrote

Today I shall teach you a skill, hightlight the passage, then go click on the button call quote.

My response to this is no, but it could be yes.

A piont well made.