How religion does succeed in changing people minds in mass?

[bahman]

So, here we have ANOTHER PERFECT and PRIME EXAMPLE of a human being who is just COMPLETELY and UTTERLY CLOSED that they can NOT see past their OWN assumptions AND beliefs.

They here have even appeared to NOT even SEE the ACTUAL question posed, let alone to understand what the actual question is actually asking for. Or, if they did see it and understand it, then what can be CLEARLY SEEN is that they ARE absolutely AND utterly COMPLETELY CLOSED.

Could you please give an example of another sort of act?

WHY?

What would that have to do with ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that I have said and pointed out so far?

Because I am claiming that there are only three sorts of acts. I defined them too. If there is the fourth one, then you should know it. What is it?

[Immanuel Can]

What is specific about Jesus that you consider Him as the truth?

"Consider"? I don't need to consider a rock to be a rock or a man to be a man, in order for it to be true. Nothing at all in reality depends on my "considering" it to be true.

Jesus Christ is the incarnate God; He's the basis of every truth, of all Truth. That will be true regardless of what I happen to "consider." Or, if you prefer, you can choose to deny Him that status. But it won't change who He is. It will only change one's own position relative to that Truth.

You asked for the truth that grounds every other, if I remember correctly. I can think of no better description than "God Himself," and His incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. After all, if, as Genesis says, God spoke all things into being by His Word, then the rock-solid basis of all truth is the Word of God.

The incarnate Word is God speaking to us, telling us to believe His Word, and align ourselves with the truth about reality thereby. It's God rescuing us from our own delusions and pretensions, and showing us what really ultimately matters, what is finally, foundationally true. This is why it says in the Bible,

For this is contained in Scripture:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a choice stone, a precious cornerstone,
And the one who believes in Him will not be put to shame.”
This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for unbelievers,

“A stone which the builders rejected,
This became the chief cornerstone,”
and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”;

for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word... (1 Pet. 2:6-8)

[bahman]

What is specific about Jesus that you consider Him as the truth?

"Consider"? I don't need to consider a rock to be a rock or a man to be a man, in order for it to be true. Nothing at all in reality depends on my "considering" it to be true.

Jesus Christ is the incarnate God; He's the basis of every truth, of all Truth. That will be true regardless of what I happen to "consider." Or, if you prefer, you can choose to deny Him that status. But it won't change who He is. It will only change one's own position relative to that Truth.

You asked for the truth that grounds every other, if I remember correctly. I can think of no better description than "God Himself," and His incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. After all, if, as Genesis says, God spoke all things into being by His Word, then the rock-solid basis of all truth is the Word of God.

The incarnate Word is God speaking to us, telling us to believe His Word, and align ourselves with the truth about reality thereby. It's God rescuing us from our own delusions and pretensions, and showing us what really ultimately matters, what is finally, foundationally true. This is why it says in the Bible,


For this is contained in Scripture:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a choice stone, a precious cornerstone,
And the one who believes in Him will not be put to shame.”
This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for unbelievers,

“A stone which the builders rejected,
This became the chief cornerstone,”
and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”;

for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word... (1 Pet. 2:6-8)

You didn't offer anything to sell. God does not need to incarnate in order to talk with people. He is omnipotent.

[Immanuel Can]

You didn't offer anything to sell.

??? I confess, I have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean, or even what it's relevant to.

God does not need to incarnate in order to talk with people. He is omnipotent.

Well, the Bible explains that, too.

It says He has talked with people, but it hasn't helped. People aren't listening. Having made themselves distant from God by means of sinfulness, they have become hard of hearing and unable to save themselves. That is why a more direct intervention became necessary; human beings were not going to survive their own sinfulness if they did not have somebody to save them from it.

This, God did in Jesus Christ, making the way open for free-will beings to choose to come into right relationship with Him. He literally made it possible to cancel out the debt of their sins, and promised them a "new birth" in which they would be restored to relationship with God, if only they would agree.

God has done all He can do to bring us to Him -- short of taking away our free will, which is the whole basis of genuine relationship, so cannot be taken away without destroying the very substance of what we are...freewill beings with identities, wishes, purposes, characters and values of our own, who can invest them as we choose. With beings deprived of such things, there is no having a relationship; and relationship is what God is aiming at. So God could not take away our choice to relate to Him or not. But everything else He could have done, He has done.

Still, some people refuse even so generous an offer.

[bahman]

You didn't offer anything to sell.

??? I confess, I have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean, or even what it's relevant to.

I mean you didn't really offer anything convincing.

God does not need to incarnate in order to talk with people. He is omnipotent.

Well, the Bible explains that, too.

It says He has talked with people, but it hasn't helped. People aren't listening. Having made themselves distant from God by means of sinfulness, they have become hard of hearing and unable to save themselves. That is why a more direct intervention became necessary; human beings were not going to survive their own sinfulness if they did not have somebody to save them from it.

This, God did in Jesus Christ, making the way open for free-will beings to choose to come into right relationship with Him. He literally made it possible to cancel out the debt of their sins, and promised them a "new birth" in which they would be restored to relationship with God, if only they would agree.

God has done all He can do to bring us to Him -- short of taking away our free will, which is the whole basis of genuine relationship, so cannot be taken away without destroying the very substance of what we are...freewill beings with identities, wishes, purposes, characters and values of our own, who can invest them as we choose. With beings deprived of such things, there is no having a relationship; and relationship is what God is aiming at. So God could not take away our choice to relate to Him or not. But everything else He could have done, He has done.

Still, some people refuse even so generous an offer.

Why should I have debt in sin? I haven't chosen to come to this world. My parents decided.

[Age]

There was a beginning.

OF COURSE, there was 'a beginning'. For example, there was 'a beginning' to this sentence.

But without stipulation, just saying something like, "There was a beginning", is really NOT worth saying NOR stating at all.

So, to 'you', what was there, supposedly, 'a beginning' 'to', EXACTLY?

I am talking about the process of nothing to physical. When the universe started to exist.

WHY are 'you' under the ASSUMPTION that the Universe "started to exist"?

There are physical and metaphysical reasons for this. Physical: THe second law of thermodynamics. Metaphysical: You cannot reach from eternal past to now as you cannot reach from now to eternal future.

What?

So, is this what 'you' are 'trying to' use for 'your' "rationalization" and "justification" that there was, supposedly, 'a beginning' to absolutely Everything?

If no, then what did you say this for?

And, did you already clarify what, "There is a beginning", supposedly, is in relation 'to', EXACTLY?

Oh, and by the way, I can, and ALREADY HAVE, reached from, so called, "eternal past" to NOW, and, from NOW to, so called, "eternal future", which was, also by the way, VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, indeed.

I am talking about the beginning of the universe.

Are you able to explain how YOUR ASSUMPTION about some "beginning of the Universe" could logically and empirically even be possible?

If yes, then will you?

And you cannot reach from eternal past to now as you cannot reach from now to eternal future.

You are ABSOLUTELY FREE to tell 'us' what 'you' are capable of and incapable of.
You, however, are NOT YET actually able to, correctly, tell 'us' what 'I' am capable of and incapable of. That is; until 'you' can correctly answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?'
So, until then, 'I' respectively request that 'you' please refrain from telling 'us' what 'I' cannot reach here.

Infinite in principle, by definition, is unreachable.

By who, or in what dictionary, is 'infinite' defined and thus is necessitated that 'infinite' is, so called, "unreachable"?

It is like saying that unreachable is reachable.

ONLY IF, and when, someone defines some 'thing' as being unreachable.

And, IF ANY one does, then I question them about what ACTUAL PROOF do they have for this CLAIM of theirs.

[Immanuel Can]

Why should I have debt in sin? I haven't chosen to come to this world. My parents decided.

You surely didn't chose the day of your birth, that's true. But who said you have any blame for your birth?

It's your own nature and choices that are at issue here. Are you so sure of your own previous path of life that you can see no evidence that you have chosen ways that are out of harmony with a righteous God? I should think an honest evaluation by any of us would yield a firm conclusion on that pretty quickly.

But the offer of changing that is on the table.

[Age]

Could you please give an example of another sort of act?

WHY?

What would that have to do with ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that I have said and pointed out so far?

Because I am claiming that there are only three sorts of acts.

So what?

AGAIN, What does that have to do with what I was ACTUALLY SAYING?

I defined them too.

You defined 'what' as well?

If there is the fourth one, then you should know it. What is it?

If there is a fourth one, 'should' 'you' also know it, or just 'me'?

What that fourth one is I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA. AND, because IF there is a fourth one or NOT has ABSOLUTELY NO ACTUAL BEARING on the ACTUAL question/s I have posed to 'you' AT ALL I REALLY do NOT care either.

If you are REALLY interested in SEEING what I was ACTUALLY asking you and talking about 'it', then it is there in my previous posts to you. Otherwise, some readers are just SEEING what you are doing here as being just pure DETRACTION. And, this might be because you are NOT able to explain how YOUR ASSUMPTION could even possibly be true.

[Age]

What is specific about Jesus that you consider Him as the truth?

"Consider"? I don't need to consider a rock to be a rock or a man to be a man, in order for it to be true. Nothing at all in reality depends on my "considering" it to be true.

Jesus Christ is the incarnate God; He's the basis of every truth, of all Truth. That will be true regardless of what I happen to "consider." Or, if you prefer, you can choose to deny Him that status. But it won't change who He is. It will only change one's own position relative to that Truth.

How about if you STOPPED concentrating on the 'consider' word and instead just focused on and concentrated on the 'specific' word and then answered the clarifying question posed to you.

For example, What is specific about "jesus" that you KNOW "him" as the truth?

If you keep carrying on the way that you were, then readers will SEE that you are just DETRACTING, from the ACTUAL question posed to 'you'

You asked for the truth that grounds every other, if I remember correctly. I can think of no better description than "God Himself," and His incarnate Word, Jesus Christ. After all, if, as Genesis says, God spoke all things into being by His Word, then the rock-solid basis of all truth is the Word of God.

Okay. Besides the FACT that this is just ANOTHER attempt at ANOTHER DETRACTION, What, EXACTLY, is SPECIFIC about God and/or "jesus christ" that you FIND them as the truth?

The incarnate Word is God speaking to us, telling us to believe His Word, and align ourselves with the truth about reality thereby. It's God rescuing us from our own delusions and pretensions, and showing us what really ultimately matters, what is finally, foundationally true. This is why it says in the Bible,

The EXTREMELY OLD 'circular reasoning' of; "Because it is written in the book, then it must be true, and the NEW 'circular reasoning' of; "This is WHY it says in the bible," HAS NEVER worked and WILL NEVER work. This is because BOTH or INDIVIDUALLY they are OBVIOUSLY FAULTY in 'reasoning'.

Now, although ALL of what you are saying and proposing here is ACTUALLY 100% True, Right, AND Correct, UNTIL you can EXPLAIN EXACTLY FULLY HOW this is True, Right, AND Correct, then this will just remain a BELIEF and a FAITH of YOURS, which OBVIOUSLY "others" will NOT accept.

By the way, ALL of what you said and proposed here can be EXPLAINED FULLY, and can be UNDERSTOOD FULLY, VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY.

For this is contained in Scripture:

“Behold, I am laying in Zion a choice stone, a precious cornerstone,
And the one who believes in Him will not be put to shame.”
This precious value, then, is for you who believe; but for unbelievers,

“A stone which the builders rejected,
This became the chief cornerstone,”
and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”;

for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word... (1 Pet. 2:6-8)

It is also contained in scientific scripture, text, or books, that "the Universe began". BUT, this does NOT mean that what is then INTERPRETED and PERCEIVED, from those words, is what ACTUALLY happened.

In other words, although the words, themselves, may hold thee ACTUAL Truth of things, this does NOT mean PERCEPTIONS and INTERPRETATIONS are even remotely close to thee Truth of things.

YOUR INABILITY to EXPLAIN YOUR PERCEPTIONS and INTERPRETATIONS coherently, logically, and reasonably is just MORE PROOF that either what you are SAYING is, or is partly, False, Wrong, and/or Incorrect, or that just YOUR INTERPRETATIONS are NOT YET COMPLETE.

Obviously if you can NOT explain some 'thing' SIMPLY, then 'you' do NOT YET UNDERSTAND 'it' FULLY.

[Age]

You didn't offer anything to sell.

??? I confess, I have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean, or even what it's relevant to.

What is 'supposed' to mean AND what it is 'relevant' to is the FACT that you were COMPLETELY UNABLE to answer the ACTUAL questions being posed to you. Well that is what that comment meant and was relevant, to 'me' anyway. And, please correct 'me' if I am WRONG here "bahman".

God does not need to incarnate in order to talk with people. He is omnipotent.

Well, the Bible explains that, too.

It says He has talked with people, but it hasn't helped. People aren't listening.

And what can be SEEN throughout My writings here, in this forum, is VERY, VERY SIMILAR.

I have even been NOW EXPLAINING the very reason WHY 'you', human beings, are NOT LISTENING. But even this appears to NOT GET HEARD.

Having made themselves distant from God by means of sinfulness, they have become hard of hearing and unable to save themselves.

Which 'you', "immanuel can", have been SHOWING and REVEALING to be an ABSOLUTE PRIME EXAMPLE of this here, in this forum, of which I am VERY GRATEFUL of.

That is why a more direct intervention became necessary; human beings were not going to survive their own sinfulness if they did not have somebody to save them from it.

And, WHEN what 'sin' Truly IS, and HOW the second coming of "jesus", is FULLY UNDERSTOOD, then this WILL make PURE, PERFECT SENSE.

This, God did in Jesus Christ, making the way open for free-will beings to choose to come into right relationship with Him.

Well, hitherto, when this is being written, that way OBVIOUSLY has NOT YET WORKED. Thus, the reason WHY the 'second coming' is Truly NECESSARY.

He literally made it possible to cancel out the debt of their sins, and promised them a "new birth" in which they would be restored to relationship with God, if only they would agree.

When what the word 'sin' ACTUALLY LITERALLY MEANS is FULLY UNDERSTOOD, then what is REVEALED is HOW it is the people just like "immanuel can" who call and label themselves "christians" who are ACTUALLY the biggest 'SINNERS' of them ALL. And because they are the BIGGEST 'deniers' of this FACT, then it is this reason WHY this human being created 'world', in the days of when this is being written, is in the turmoil and downhill spiral that it was in, in those days when this was written.

God has done all He can do to bring us to Him -- short of taking away our free will, which is the whole basis of genuine relationship, so cannot be taken away without destroying the very substance of what we are...freewill beings with identities, wishes, purposes, characters and values of our own, who can invest them as we choose.

Saying, "God has done all "He" can do ..." places a VERY, human being, LIMITED perspective on who and on what 'God' ACTUALLY IS for two reasons:

1. God is NOT limited in ANY way. (Unless, of course, one of 'you', human beings, like; "immanuel can" can PROVE otherwise and thus can back up and support their CLAIM here.)

2. God is NOT a "he". (Again, unless of course, 'you' have some PROOF, which backs up and supports YOUR, human being, CLAIM here.)

With beings deprived of such things, there is no having a relationship; and relationship is what God is aiming at.

MOST human beings who say or CLAIM that they have a relationship with some 'thing' are USUALLY able to EXPLAIN who and/or what that 'thing' ACTUALLY is EXACTLY.

Are you at all able to EXPLAIN what God ACTUALLY IS "immanuel can"?

If yes, then will you?

But if no (to either or both), then WHY NOT?

So God could not take away our choice to relate to Him or not. But everything else He could have done, He has done.

WHY are you SO SURE that God could NOT take away human beings choice to relate to/KNOW God, or not?

Is it COMPLETELY IMPOSSIBLE for God to just get, for lack of a better word, 'tired' of waiting for human beings, like 'you' "immanuel can", to just LISTEN,
and so will just allow ALL of them to wipe themselves out, from and through GREED and complete STUPIDITY, and just then, through evolution, keep creating new species until one FINALLY comes along with enough True 'intelligence' to ACTUALLY CHOOSE to Truly LISTEN?

Or, do you STILL think and BELIEVE that God is 'limited'?

Still, some people refuse even so generous an offer.

And, some, like 'you', "immanuel can", are MISSING THE MARK, COMPLETELY. (But YET STILL BELIEVE otherwise.)

[bahman]

OF COURSE, there was 'a beginning'. For example, there was 'a beginning' to this sentence.

But without stipulation, just saying something like, "There was a beginning", is really NOT worth saying NOR stating at all.

So, to 'you', what was there, supposedly, 'a beginning' 'to', EXACTLY?

I am talking about the process of nothing to physical. When the universe started to exist.

WHY are 'you' under the ASSUMPTION that the Universe "started to exist"?

What?

So, is this what 'you' are 'trying to' use for 'your' "rationalization" and "justification" that there was, supposedly, 'a beginning' to absolutely Everything?

If no, then what did you say this for?

And, did you already clarify what, "There is a beginning", supposedly, is in relation 'to', EXACTLY?

Oh, and by the way, I can, and ALREADY HAVE, reached from, so called, "eternal past" to NOW, and, from NOW to, so called, "eternal future", which was, also by the way, VERY SIMPLE and VERY EASY, indeed.

I am talking about the beginning of the universe.

Are you able to explain how YOUR ASSUMPTION about some "beginning of the Universe" could logically and empirically even be possible?

If yes, then will you?

And you cannot reach from eternal past to now as you cannot reach from now to eternal future.

You are ABSOLUTELY FREE to tell 'us' what 'you' are capable of and incapable of.
You, however, are NOT YET actually able to, correctly, tell 'us' what 'I' am capable of and incapable of. That is; until 'you' can correctly answer the question, 'Who am 'I'?'
So, until then, 'I' respectively request that 'you' please refrain from telling 'us' what 'I' cannot reach here.

Infinite in principle, by definition, is unreachable.

By who, or in what dictionary, is 'infinite' defined and thus is necessitated that 'infinite' is, so called, "unreachable"?

It is like saying that unreachable is reachable.

ONLY IF, and when, someone defines some 'thing' as being unreachable.

And, IF ANY one does, then I question them about what ACTUAL PROOF do they have for this CLAIM of theirs.

My friend, the situation is simple since there are only two cases: 1) What you call eternal past is reachable (so it was at finite past), and 2) It is unreachable (it was in infinite past). There was a beginning if it is reachable. You cannot reach unreachable in the second case therefore you cannot come from the eternal past to now. Therefore, the second case is not valid. The only case which is left is the first one. Therefore, there was a beginning.

[bahman]

Why should I have debt in sin? I haven't chosen to come to this world. My parents decided.

You surely didn't chose the day of your birth, that's true. But who said you have any blame for your birth?

It's your own nature and choices that are at issue here. Are you so sure of your own previous path of life that you can see no evidence that you have chosen ways that are out of harmony with a righteous God? I should think an honest evaluation by any of us would yield a firm conclusion on that pretty quickly.

But the offer of changing that is on the table.

I mean, why I should suffer in this world. I should have given the choices that Adam and Eve had. I am in this fallen world, trapped, give evil and good nature. I do good sometimes. Sometimes I cannot avoid doing evil. I am rewarded by the first one and punished for the second one. And if I die after sinning before confessing, then my place would be in eternal Hell.

[bahman]

WHY?

What would that have to do with ABSOLUTELY ANY thing that I have said and pointed out so far?

Because I am claiming that there are only three sorts of acts.

So what?

AGAIN, What does that have to do with what I was ACTUALLY SAYING?

You criticized the definition of creation. I declare that there are three types of acts one of the creation which means to bring something out of nothing. This however applies to the beginning of the universe. It could apply to now too if God for example is constantly creating each stage of the universe.

I defined them too.

You defined 'what' as well?

I defined three kinds of acts.

If there is the fourth one, then you should know it. What is it?

If there is a fourth one, 'should' 'you' also know it, or just 'me'?

What that fourth one is I have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA. AND, because IF there is a fourth one or NOT has ABSOLUTELY NO ACTUAL BEARING on the ACTUAL question/s I have posed to 'you' AT ALL I REALLY do NOT care either.

If you are REALLY interested in SEEING what I was ACTUALLY asking you and talking about 'it', then it is there in my previous posts to you. Otherwise, some readers are just SEEING what you are doing here as being just pure DETRACTION. And, this might be because you are NOT able to explain how YOUR ASSUMPTION could even possibly be true.

So you agree with the fact that there are three kinds of acts, namely, creation, annihilation, and change.

[bahman]

You didn't offer anything to sell.

??? I confess, I have no idea what this comment is supposed to mean, or even what it's relevant to.

What is 'supposed' to mean AND what it is 'relevant' to is the FACT that you were COMPLETELY UNABLE to answer the ACTUAL questions being posed to you. Well that is what that comment meant and was relevant, to 'me' anyway. And, please correct 'me' if I am WRONG here "bahman".

Yes, he didn't provide a reasonable answer.

God does not need to incarnate in order to talk with people. He is omnipotent.

Well, the Bible explains that, too.

It says He has talked with people, but it hasn't helped. People aren't listening.

And what can be SEEN throughout My writings here, in this forum, is VERY, VERY SIMILAR.

I have even been NOW EXPLAINING the very reason WHY 'you', human beings, are NOT LISTENING. But even this appears to NOT GET HEARD.

Yes.

[Immanuel Can]

I mean, why I should suffer in this world.

If you believed in an objective reality, B., I'd think that was a very good question, and I'd give you an answer. But I don't even understand how somebody who believes "all is mind" can ask the question. If you don't believe in reality being real, then you're not suffering. Nothing is happening to you at all...it's a trick your "mind" is playing on you.

But maybe you don't really believe "all is mind." Maybe that's just an easy way of avoiding the question altogether. And maybe the question is really legitimate and needs to be asked.

Where do you stand on that? Is "all mind," or is there a reality in which you genuinely suffer? Can you help me understand your position?

I should have given the choices that Adam and Eve had.

We actually have even better choices, B.

I am in this fallen world, trapped, give evil and good nature. I do good sometimes. Sometimes I cannot avoid doing evil. I am rewarded by the first one and punished for the second one.

Well, there are no rewards and punishments being meted out right now, B. Good things happen to bad people, and bad things happen to good ones; and there's no pattern in it, other than the patterns that maybe follow from natural consequences. But God is clear: the time for judgment is not now. If you're suffering, it's not that God hates you. The man hanging on a cross should send that message to you if nothing does: suffering does not mean God hates you. It only means you're living in a fallen world, as you say.

And if I die after sinning before confessing, then my place would be in eternal Hell.

In a way, it's worse than that. Confession is actually worthless if it's all by itself. What good does it do if I steal your car, and then confess it? Then, all I've done is admitted to a crime...I haven't paid any restitution to you, nor even given back the car.

But in a way, the news is better: confess, change your mind, and appeal to God for salvation, and all is forgiven...and not merely overlooked or ignored, but actually judicially wiped out, so that you are completely free of guilt. As Jesus Himself promised,

“Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24)

Notice the verb tenses? He "has" eternal life (already, now) and "does" (not ever fall under judgment), but "has" (already, now) passed out of death into life. That's what salvation means.