The Results are in...There is a God! - What now?

Thats a bit like our company scenario where the new Boss fires a bunch of workers who have not yet read the company guidelines and manuel. I seriously doubt that God is that cruel. If He were, why not just wipe us out right now? Larni! (Hello, by the way) For the purposes of UCCMC's hypothesis...which we are still clarifying, lets assume that chance is not involved in regards to this God. This God is how He/she is, and thats all we can know......so far.Now comes the fun part about getting to know the new Boss!

Since I did posit in the OP that this God is responsible for the creation and maintenance of reality, and since we are a part of our reality, i think its clear that i mean that God created us.
We could get more technical on this point but i don't see the need to make this discussion more convoluted than it needs to be.Just to be clear though, I'm not saying that this God is the Christian God, or Hindu God, or Egyptian God or whatever...Just a God responsible for the way things are.Just because God exists does not necessarily mean that everything is 6000 years old.

---

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

Don't worry Phat,This doen't apply to the OP. was just a side note with Ian.

---

"The good Christian should beware the mathematician and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of hell." - St. Augustine

Ah I see what you mean. A reasonable conclusion to draw from what I said. I was referring to a situation where God made himself patently manifest to the world. In that scenario there would be no choice but to believe, and thus freely given love would be terminally compromisedBut what God asks initially is not that we love him but that we believe him -without incontrovertable manifestation of himself. When we believe him then he can and will reveal himself. And when he does we see him as he is and can't but help fall in love with him. He is eminently love-ableThis of course just shovess the discussion into the area of "I cannot believe in what I have no evidence for anymore than I can love what I have no evidence for"Which is a different story.

Being a Christian is an umbrella term for that which God does to a person. Before they are Christians He calls them, he convinces them of their sin. He makes it possible for them to believe him without them having intellectually definitive proof. And when they do believe he justifies them, makes them sons, heirs, gives them eternal life, imputes the righteousness of Christ to their account etc. The umbrella term is irrelevant in other than that was the bibles word of choice. The term Christian is just a label on the box. The contents of the box are what matters.A person can be a Christian but not know that the label Christian applies to them for example. Thats about the size of it. There is only one way for a person to be considered righteous before God. And that is for God to give them Christs righteousness. Salvation must be from God.Edit to clarify being christian and not knowing the label has been stuck on the box.
This message has been edited by iano, 13-Apr-2006 02:45 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 13-Apr-2006 03:02 PM

Thread careful brother Phat. There is just one gospel however gently one would like to present it. There is no such thing as a Christian (irrespective of what denominational hue they adhere to (or whether indeed they adhere to any)) who hasn't been born again.This message has been edited by iano, 13-Apr-2006 02:49 PM

When you say your god 'asks', do you mean that in some way it made its prescence known to you in some way as to give you the knowledge of said god?Does this not count as evidence? Would this not render the faith component of worship null and void?

'Asks' was a figure of speech from one who knows God and something of his ways. It would not be seen as such by one who didn't know him.A limit of the intellect is to want to neatly compartimentalise Faith/Belief into either...Blind Faith: a leap in the dark - irrationalNot blind Faith: evidence has been presented, belief must follow, no free will....when it comes to dealing with the point of conversion.The paradox is "how do I believe without evidence" vs "if I have evidence then I cannot BUT believe". And paradox is will remain in our limited ability to know the ways in which God works. He has of course dimensions open to him which mean such mystery* would be perfectly coherent had we access to those dimensions.The term used at the very point of conversion is "an act of faith". We must believe without proof, yet God is the one who brings us to the point of being able to say "I believe" without proof. When one is brought to that point then one will also have been brought to a place where intellectual difficulties inherent in trying to resolve the paradox fall away in terms of importance and relevancy. There is something going on which is far more important to the person at the point of conversion than intellectual resolution of paradoxes. The person is crying out for life.In that condition God hauls the person over the wall from death to life. Once landed on the other side, we awaken a little dazed blinking against the new light. We are now full in the knowledge of his existance and off we can trot again trying to resolve it all intellectually. But from a position of belief, not disbelief.This message has been edited by iano, 13-Apr-2006 03:29 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 13-Apr-2006 03:35 PM

Now, that depends on your definitons.There is a big big difference between the way the CHrisitians view 'Rightousness' and Judiasm views 'righthousness'.In CHristianity, 'righthousness', 'grace' and 'sin' are states someone is in. People are born with the 'stain' of 'original sin'.In Judiasm, rightousness is defined by actions. a baby is born as a blank slate.You are also assuming that the 'God' that exists is the Christian god.
What if it is the deist god, or the panthest god?

True. But I was following on from an intercourse between Robin and Chiro which derived from a definition Chiro was using, which was the "Christian fundimentalist God" or rather Chiros notion of it.This message has been edited by iano, 13-Apr-2006 04:07 PMThis message has been edited by iano, 13-Apr-2006 04:09 PM

This is just the same old 'god moves in mysterious ways' cop out answer to the contradictions of believing in the xian god.Xians, I would contend HOPE it's all true. Believing something is true for no reason in a delusion, believing something is true for a reason is not faith. How do we know this is the case? It is because we have had some evidence (no matter how many times it has been translated) that this is the case? This evidence leads some to believe your god is real. Thats not faith in the xian god, it's faith in the written word. In doing so it provides the proof. Or do you mean that when one converts one no longer needs faith because one has all the proof one needs?

Have a very Happy Easter Holiday every one!See you all next week LarniThis message has been edited by Larni, 04-13-2006 11:53 AM

I would not change a thing except I would be very interested in knowing how this was accomplished. I would also want to get to know this being. I would feel confused and want to know why the problems in the world exist if such a being could have stopped them from starting in the first place....among other questions that I would have. Unless he had a very good reason that he would then explain, I would suggest that he be brought up on negligence charges. Not at all, except that I would be reading more books on the subject of him (that is of course once we determined that he is the only, true almighty God). No, not worship. I am married and while my wife is obviously in control of my life, I do not worship her ...much...
I cannot fathom the act of worship, because it means submitting to someone or something, and I cannot imagine doing that. No; nor should this God become enraged if he is not worshipped. Wouldn't that be an indication that he is insecure and needs the affection and devotion of others in order to feel better about himself?ABE: speeling errorsThis message has been edited by Hal Jordan, 04-13-2006 12:57 PM

Okay then, you win. People and nature. No. You mentioned worship in the O.P. Not me.Infact, I think if you have no sin and forgiveness of sins, then yu are allowed in, as far as I can read in the bible. I didn't mentione religion.Under the following premisses,(if we assume these are fact) God is not religion;God created the universe
We are part of the universe who came to know God. I agree that none religious and religious people do good and bad.My statement infact said that those who do Godless things must be Godless.(I should have clarified that, my apologies).Since the things of God are goodness, then the Godless are the ones who do bad (but this doesn't mean the Godless will be bad elementally~).According to my wisdom, those who act Godlessly are unbelievers, because they can't have God with them(Holy spirit), if they are focusing on evil things. That goes for anyone, claimant believer or none believer.This doesn't mean that none believers are Godless violent nutbars, as that would affirm the consequent and thus be fallacious. Infact many atheist, if not most, might not be entirely Godless, and might be peaceful.But ofcourse, it is obvious that if you act Godlessly then you don't have any regard for the ways of God. I don't see how that doesn't follow.If a thug is beating me about my bonce, he cannot surely hold the ways of God as his upmost priority, otherwise he wouldn't be doing it.What I'm talking about, is TRUTH. NOT logic. Don't mistake what I talk about for logic. No, I am under the premise that there will be people who are of the truth and people who aren't, otherwise I wouldn't be a believer would I?If I believed violent people were of the truth, then other believers would think me mad. So ofcourse I believe that God is a God of peace and that those who are contrary to peace, are not of God. I believe this remember, but under my own premisses, I am correct.Basically I'm saying, "If my wisdom is true....then, this that and the other".TTFN.This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 04-16-2006 02:40 PM

I'm not talking about the religious. Sure, the religious have religious war tally high.But those who are of the truth Christ spoke about, are not these people.I am ASSUMING that my own wisdom is true. If it is true then there is a genuine person of the truth, and one who isn't. Under this wisdom, all those religious people are not of the truth, because their actions contradict peace. (Please read my previous post and really take it in. I'm sure you'll see that my framework WOULD be valid. Since I can't prove God, hence the "would").