Does God have infinite patience?

[mtmynd1]

"... I at the last step in a discussion have made futile attempt to make the other person understand that what he writes is nonsense and babble, then I falls short of patience and call names."

Therein lies the problem with HexHammer - making "futile attempts" should not put blame upon the other person but rather on yourself for an inadequacy to explain yourself well enough to prevent futile attempts.

Secondly, when you judge another for writing "nonsense and babble" and admitting to losing patience which resorts to name calling, it is you who are showing an inadequacy to use understanding with those who you deem to be less than yourself. Which is a falsehood for it is you HH who sees in others your own shortfalls and take it out on others rather than admitting to your shortfalls.

[note: this is the parallel I see with both you and this other person of mention, Satyr. He had little to no control over his tongue when he felt inadequate when his point or theory was not understood]

[thedoc]

I'm pretty sure Hex isn't Satyr, if you really want to catch up on Satyr, try here, - http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/ -. He and Apoosha appear to run the site, and it seems, from a quick scan, that Satyr has cleaned up his vocabulary and is just stating his ideas without the abusive language.

I went to the provided site and found a very current post by Satyr which reads -

"Dawkins explains the complexity of the eye to a pinhead...and then faces a retard's attempt to defend his retardation...
Now imagine Satyr trying to explain objectivity and subjectivity to a forum full of pinhead retards'
{this was made today, 13.11.2024)"

This sounds like the old Satyr to me... shooting off his mouth by using language that intentionally denigrates others with no tone of compassion or understanding.

Interesting, as I said I only looked at a few threads and must have not seen that one. That does sound like the Satyr that I had encountered before. One thing about Satyr,to him anyone who didn't fawn over him and tell him how brilliant he was, must have been too stupid to even understand what he was saying. On one forum, that no longer exists, I used to edit his posts of all his vulgar and abusive references to others. I would have removed his use of the word "retard", in reference to another person.

[HexHammer]

"... I at the last step in a discussion have made futile attempt to make the other person understand that what he writes is nonsense and babble, then I falls short of patience and call names."

Therein lies the problem with HexHammer - making "futile attempts" should not put blame upon the other person but rather on yourself for an inadequacy to explain yourself well enough to prevent futile attempts.

Secondly, when you judge another for writing "nonsense and babble" and admitting to losing patience which resorts to name calling, it is you who are showing an inadequacy to use understanding with those who you deem to be less than yourself. Which is a falsehood for it is you HH who sees in others your own shortfalls and take it out on others rather than admitting to your shortfalls.

[note: this is the parallel I see with both you and this other person of mention, Satyr. He had little to no control over his tongue when he felt inadequate when his point or theory was not understood]

I do know what I'm talking about, back in the days when I used to work, I was in the quality department of a big newspaper and I wrestled everybody, even the entire staff of chiefs and directors, if you do something as stupid as that ..one better know what ones is doing, but it paid off and I shortened work tasks, predicted that we couldn't handle a lifestyle magazine, predicted the doom of 2 projects and the CEO, changed his ancient terminals to new, and changed PC to terminals, change the sales staff OS to a new, shortened the install time for PC from 3 hours into 2 min, etc ,etc..

I do know what I'm talking about, contrary one such as you without job, because you are too kuku to have one, simple as that.

[mtmynd1]

Some would say no.

According to the Bible, He created a Great Flood to wipe out mankind and start anew because He was not satisfied with what mankind was doing and His patience had run out.

OTOH, God is supposed to exist forever meaning all he has to do is wait, if the situation calls for it, because He has all the time in the universe.

I think that God is an impatient sort of being due to His actions. You may feel different. What say you to this?

PhilX

Getting back on track with your original question, PhilX -

All we know about God is what we draw from one source, the Bible, as you has shown here. We (Christian/Judeo) have no other definite source (and the word 'definite' is debatable) to use as we've put so much faith and belief in this single source that anything other can become suspicious.

The Bible is the sole source of anything pertaining to God and anyone who debates or may differ with that one book cannot be believed or even trusted, so powerful it has become within our Christian/Judeo culture.

These sources you have used drawn from the good old book, are but a couple of many examples where there is conflict within those words... and many of us have heard at least bits and pieces of examples.

Re: "According to the Bible, He created a Great Flood to wipe out mankind and start anew because He was not satisfied with what mankind was doing and His patience had run out." If this had any teeth to it, then God made a huge mistake - mankind is still blowin' and growin' on this planet.

"God is supposed to exist forever meaning all he has to do is wait, if the situation calls for it, because He has all the time in the universe." I don't mean to sound like I'm finger-waggin' at you, PhilX, for this sentence, but it's a rational argument that many have questioned in various angles for years. When you write "God is supposed to exist forever" certainly questions any god's existence, does it not? If any god does not exist forever then doesn't our belief in such put the onus on ourselves to either accept in (a) God or not?

Why do 'we' put hu'man qualities on (any) gods, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Islam or any other religions? Why do we think God exists for our purpose and do not extend a belief in (a) god to include all of life when it is 'life' as we know it dependent upon it's very existence?

I have asked more questions than I have answered. If any one would like to tackle some of these quesitions, I'd enjoy hearing them.

[thedoc]

Some would say no.

According to the Bible, He created a Great Flood to wipe out mankind and start anew because He was not satisfied with what mankind was doing and His patience had run out.

OTOH, God is supposed to exist forever meaning all he has to do is wait, if the situation calls for it, because He has all the time in the universe.

I think that God is an impatient sort of being due to His actions. You may feel different. What say you to this?

PhilX

Getting back on track with your original question, PhilX -

All we know about God is what we draw from one source, the Bible, as you has shown here. We (Christian/Judeo) have no other definite source (and the word 'definite' is debatable) to use as we've put so much faith and belief in this single source that anything other can become suspicious.

The Bible is the sole source of anything pertaining to God and anyone who debates or may differ with that one book cannot be believed or even trusted, so powerful it has become within our Christian/Judeo culture.

These sources you have used drawn from the good old book, are but a couple of many examples where there is conflict within those words... and many of us have heard at least bits and pieces of examples.

Re: "According to the Bible, He created a Great Flood to wipe out mankind and start anew because He was not satisfied with what mankind was doing and His patience had run out." If this had any teeth to it, then God made a huge mistake - mankind is still blowin' and growin' on this planet.

"God is supposed to exist forever meaning all he has to do is wait, if the situation calls for it, because He has all the time in the universe." I don't mean to sound like I'm finger-waggin' at you, PhilX, for this sentence, but it's a rational argument that many have questioned in various angles for years. When you write "God is supposed to exist forever" certainly questions any god's existence, does it not? If any god does not exist forever then doesn't our belief in such put the onus on ourselves to either accept in (a) God or not?

Why do 'we' put hu'man qualities on (any) gods, Christian, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, Islam or any other religions? Why do we think God exists for our purpose and do not extend a belief in (a) god to include all of life when it is 'life' as we know it dependent upon it's very existence?

I have asked more questions than I have answered. If any one would like to tackle some of these quesitions, I'd enjoy hearing them.

2 points I would like to address, as far as God being impatient, it should be remembered that even though God may exist for infinity, humans do not, so if god wishes to send some message to a particular human God must do it within that human life span. It wouldn't have done much good for God to answer Job, after Job had died.

There are some of us who do not see the bible as the only source of information about God. Admittedly many "Christians" will say that the Bible is the only source of information, but that does not include all those who call themselves Christian. In fact I have often referred to the Bible as Judeo/Christian Mythology and have looked to other sources for insight as to what God might be like. So don't lump everyone who adopts a certain title under a single definition, some might not fit into that particular pigeonhole. The error is not with those who adopt a particular title, but with those who try to pin them down.

[mtmynd1]

2 points I would like to address, as far as God being impatient, it should be remembered that even though God may exist for infinity, humans do not, so if god wishes to send some message to a particular human God must do it within that human life span. It wouldn't have done much good for God to answer Job, after Job had died.

I'd like to address (2) points in your paragraph -
1) "it should be remembered that even though God may exist for infinity..."

You seem to be talking about (a) god that just might exist..? God just might not exist, too, given what you said.

2) So are you putting faith or belief in the possibility (a) god exists?

There are some of us who do not see the bible as the only source of information about God.

I'm sure you'd agree that there are always "some of us" but that being said, perhaps this bible is not seen as the only source of info about God, but if one is Judeo/Xian, the likelihood it that person's initial teaching was from the Bible or more specifically a teacher who either learned or was taught by one who read the Bible as the "Word of God", no exceptions. Agree?

[thedoc]

2 points I would like to address, as far as God being impatient, it should be remembered that even though God may exist for infinity, humans do not, so if god wishes to send some message to a particular human God must do it within that human life span. It wouldn't have done much good for God to answer Job, after Job had died.

I'd like to address (2) points in your paragraph -
1) "it should be remembered that even though God may exist for infinity..."

You seem to be talking about (a) god that just might exist..? God just might not exist, too, given what you said.

2) So are you putting faith or belief in the possibility (a) god exists?

There are some of us who do not see the bible as the only source of information about God.

I'm sure you'd agree that there are always "some of us" but that being said, perhaps this bible is not seen as the only source of info about God, but if one is Judeo/Xian, the likelihood it that person's initial teaching was from the Bible or more specifically a teacher who either learned or was taught by one who read the Bible as the "Word of God", no exceptions. Agree?

Well that is an interesting way to twist a meaning to suit your own ends, but it was not my intention to state that God may or may not exist, only to express my own lack of positive knowledge on the subject. I am aware that there are other Christians who will state that they know positively , this or that about God, Heaven, and other aspects of Christianity, but I hold everything as belief, and that is belief without proof.

I'm sure, from experience, that there are some who will quote from the Bible as if it were absolute knowledge, but I'm not one of them. I accept the Bible as true in a Mythological sense, and that means that the OT is more like Jesus telling parables that were stories to illustrate a point and teach a lesson, not to recount a historical fact. I do not see the Bible as a historic or scientific document, in spite of what others might think.

You can twist all you want, but I don't think you will pin me down. I just don't have that kind of belief.

FYI, many years ago I had read a lot about Buddhism, in particular Zen, and have incorporated many of their concepts into my Christianity.

[mtmynd1]

thedoc: "You can twist all you want, but I don't think you will pin me down. I just don't have that kind of belief."

it was not my intention to "pin you down' but only to understand what you had written. You did write "even though God may exist" which I followed with the opposite, i.e. god may not exist. If you feel I was twisting your words, I apologize.

Interesting about your studies of Buddhism and Zen. I, too, found much to become interested in and did, indeed, quite a bit of reading on the subjects of both. From my readings on the life of Siddhartha I gained a lot of information including what I've embraced from what I learned in Zen... which I've become most drawn to.

[thedoc]

thedoc: "You can twist all you want, but I don't think you will pin me down. I just don't have that kind of belief."

it was not my intention to "pin you down' but only to understand what you had written. You did write "even though God may exist" which I followed with the opposite, i.e. god may not exist. If you feel I was twisting your words, I apologize.

Interesting about your studies of Buddhism and Zen. I, too, found much to become interested in and did, indeed, quite a bit of reading on the subjects of both. From my readings on the life of Siddhartha I gained a lot of information including what I've embraced from what I learned in Zen... which I've become most drawn to.

My words were not intended to imply that I doubted Gods existence, only man's knowledge of God's nature.

I found Zen to be very helpful in crystallizing my understanding of Christianity, and facilitating my return to the church.

You'll have to excuse my skepticism, but I have encountered many on a forum who only use what you have posted to twist it and turn it against you. If that is not your intent, thank you, and I apologize.

[SpheresOfBalance]

mtmynd1

If you actually took note and had just a tiny bit of analytic skills, you would see I don't just randomly accuse all people for being retards,
No, only when you're incapable of understanding what it is that they're talking about, or so it surely might seem!

only when I at the last step in a discussion have made futile attempt to make the other person understand that what he writes is nonsense and babble,
This is always the case with those whose mind is closed, as if any puny human has the key to the universe!

then I falls short of patience and call names.
It's called frustration, that another doesn't buy into ones one sided nonsense and babble, as one falls on their very own doubled edged sword.

[Daniel Lezcano]

Some would say no.

According to the Bible, He created a Great Flood to wipe out mankind and start anew because He was not satisfied with what mankind was doing and His patience had run out.

OTOH, God is supposed to exist forever meaning all he has to do is wait, if the situation calls for it, because He has all the time in the universe.

I think that God is an impatient sort of being due to His actions. You may feel different. What say you to this?

PhilX

If God is eternal and infinite, then the concept of patience is un-relatable to Him; for patience involves the passing of time, or a limited time; therefore time passes not, when it is infinite. In order for time to pass, there must be a beginning of time; there however is no beginning to the infinite. Without a beginning, current time cannot be defined. I think … this is a common error when attempting to relate worldly concepts to an eternal God. I tell you one can spend a lot of time contemplating the many paradoxes of the infinite. What do you think?

[thedoc]

Some would say no.

According to the Bible, He created a Great Flood to wipe out mankind and start anew because He was not satisfied with what mankind was doing and His patience had run out.

OTOH, God is supposed to exist forever meaning all he has to do is wait, if the situation calls for it, because He has all the time in the universe.

I think that God is an impatient sort of being due to His actions. You may feel different. What say you to this?

PhilX

If God is eternal and infinite, then the concept of patience is un-relatable to Him; for patience involves the passing of time, or a limited time; therefore time passes not, when it is infinite. In order for time to pass, there must be a beginning of time; there however is no beginning to the infinite. Without a beginning, current time cannot be defined. I think … this is a common error when attempting to relate worldly concepts to an eternal God. I tell you one can spend a lot of time contemplating the many paradoxes of the infinite. What do you think?

DL, I like your explanation here, so many people confuse Eternity and Forever, as meaning the same thing, but they are quite different. Forever is a long time, and Eternity does not involve time at all. Eternity is infinite, time is not.