Why Father must use destruction to get mans attention

reply to post by akushla99


I didn't realize I asked for everything at once. All I asked was who these "others" were. That's not everything is it? If it is then there's not very much to that truth.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by akushla99

 

I didn't realize I asked for everything at once. All I asked was who these "others" were. That's not everything is it? If it is then there's not very much to that truth.

Certain answers will lead you in a different direction. Then you will ask more, because you will not understand. To properly give all, one would have to explain a lot of background information. Not on an open forum.

reply to post by jhill76


The only thing I want to know is who these "others" are. If you give me that then my questions will end. Sound fair?

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by akushla99

 

I didn't realize I asked for everything at once. All I asked was who these "others" were. That's not everything is it? If it is then there's not very much to that truth.

You haven't...and you've gotten answers...and some cannot be answered...that's why it looks like BS...incomplete knowledge...but that can't be helped because of said parameters...and idle curiosity is not a good reason...as much for the giver as the reciever...
It's not a 'secrecy' thing either...
And I can't talk for jhill76, but, I knoe where they're coming from...

Å99

reply to post by akushla99


He never said he had incomplete knowledge, he said that he was not "allowed" to give me the answer. That implies that he has the answer but is withholding it. I may be wrong in that assumption, but that is what I got out of the statement.

Never mind, I misread your comment. My bad.

I respect you jhill, you seem like a great guy.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by akushla99

 

He never said he had incomplete knowledge, he said that he was not "allowed" to give me the answer. That implies that he has the answer but is withholding it. I may be wrong in that assumption, but that is what I got out of the statement.

The other poster is saying, to you it looks like incomplete knowledge. You are correct in your assumption.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by akushla99

 

He never said he had incomplete knowledge, he said that he was not "allowed" to give me the answer. That implies that he has the answer but is withholding it. I may be wrong in that assumption, but that is what I got out of the statement.

No...I meant you have incomplete knoeledge...and he is not allowed...withholding...mmm...could be seen that way...thats understandable though...

Å99

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by akushla99

 

He never said he had incomplete knowledge, he said that he was not "allowed" to give me the answer. That implies that he has the answer but is withholding it. I may be wrong in that assumption, but that is what I got out of the statement.

Never mind, I misread your comment. My bad.

I respect you jhill, you seem like a great guy.

edit on 27-5-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

You're a pleasure to jabber with...
But I might get real nasty with you on some other thread

Å99

reply to post by akushla99


Same to you my friend.

I don't know whether you mean jabber in a bad way though.

Why would you get nasty with me? I don't think I've been disrespectful so far, have I? I do joke, but I don't mean anything of it. I don't see anyone as lesser than me, I see everyone as equal.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by akushla99

 

Same to you my friend.

I don't know whether you mean jabber in a bad way though.

A good way!



Å99

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


I learn a great deal as well, do not think I am here just to give.

reply to post by jhill76

When orders are more important than self, one does not think of how they are perceived.

So Gideon went back to picking his harvest.
then he turned to the angel and asked,
"What did you say you were here for?"

And the angel said,
"I'm here to tell you that I will be here later with a message."

So Gideon said, "Well, I guess I'll see you later then"
and went back to picking his harvest.

Later, when he was done, he noticed the angel still there.
"Is it later yet?"

"Not yet," the angel replied.

Gideon walked to his threshing floor shaking his head.

reply to post by pthena


My thoughts exactly. That made me chuckle.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

My thoughts exactly. That made me chuckle.

When I first joined ATS, someone started a thread that was supposed to be some revelation coming.

The OP would jump in about every 5 posts or so

with, "Are you ready, here it comes!"

people were getting all exited, "Yes, lay it on us!"

The thread went on for about 50 pages then eventually petered out. Just amazing!

reply to post by pthena


It must have been too much for them I guess, or maybe he's still typing it out?

Why Father must use destruction to get mans attention

Um ... no. God is huge and all powerful. If He wanted to get mans attention all He'd have to do is speak a few words and have everyone hear it all at once ... like 'KNOCK IT OFF'. I'm sure that would get everyones attention. No need to flatten cities with tornados .. drown children in tsunamis ... have buildings fall on orphanages in hurricanes ... etc. That's NOT the way to get attention.

reply to post by FlyersFan

.. drown children in tsunamis ..

After the Dec 26 Tsunami, I did hear some famous preacher say something to the effect of
"I was getting complacent, so God did this to wake me up!"

Does that qualify as Narcissism, or flat out Solipsism?

Originally posted by pthena
After the Dec 26 Tsunami, I did hear some famous preacher say something to the effect of
"I was getting complacent, so God did this to wake me up!"
Does that qualify as Narcissism, or flat out Solipsism

I think if God wanted to wake that particular person up, God easily could have just
had a talk with that fella. God didn't have to kill tens of thousands of people by drowning
them ... which is a rather nasty and painful way to die. All that just so God gets some
attention and 'wakes people up'??? I just can't see it.

reply to post by pthena


I call it idiotic personally.

reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1


Now where were we...

So you "know" that god chooses for us behind the scenes? Sorry if that's not what you meant, but that's what I gathered from the first sentence.

I know you're trying to catch me in a contradiction...

What was the reason for the Hebrews killing all those people in the OT?

IF you "know" anything that I've posted in my threads... you should know my answer to the OT... and said killings there in...

If god chooses for us sometimes, then why didn't he choose to stop those killings from happening by sending a tornado or something? Why not give them a plague to stop their pillaging?

It seems, God doesn't work that way... OT God does though...

What if the reason for everything is simply for them to happen and for people to have absolute, unlimited free will, no matter the consequences?

We have free will... which is subject to Gods will...

IF per say you jumped off a building... Nothing will stop you...

which believe it or not... is still Gods will...

Why?

Ask him...

If god sets things in motion as you say, and he doesn't approve of killing, then why doesn't he set in motion things to stop all killings and genocides?

Free will...

they all return to him in any case right?

What will be their excuse once they stand before God?

Who is to say that when that time comes, God won't say... Alright back you go... and one day you'll understand what you put those people through...

The reason is because he allows absolute free will, no limits whatsoever. At least in my opinion.

You are correct good sir... Isn't that what I've been saying?

Didn't you say that we can't know what happens "behind" the scenes? If so, how can you know that there is a reason "behind" everything?

Its a perfect creation... We're the only ones that screw it up...

You don't find that obvious?