> How do you know that? If it because god releaved it to ya?

Exactly. Since God is metaphysical and has no material substance, the only way we can know anything about Him is by revelation. It's also the only way you can know anything about me—if I reveal it to you.

> If so, he can very well have made that up.

If you want to randomly change the definitions of concepts of words, we can't even have a conversation. A circle can't be square; a bachelor can't be married; the supreme supernatural divine being can't fabricate lies.

> "We get information from many and varied sources." Are they divinily inspired as well?

No, they aren't. Only a book from God is from God.

> How are they different than other sources you do not consider to be divinely inspired? I mean, the qur'an disagrees with the Bible as in the role of Christ, but there are a bnch of Hadiths that complement its message. Why not use the qur'an and the books that agree with its message to learn about god?

We have to evaluate all writing as to how it stands up to correspondence to reality. It's the way we assess the truth of a thing. It's no different for the Bible than for a science text.

> Oh, how convenent that one can cherry-pick sources

This doesn't even make sense. I said we have to use multiple sources and all our knowledge to check the things that we think came from God.

> How does my sin leave me to death?

1. In biblical theology, God is life
2. In biblical theology, sin separates one from God.
3. Therefore, in biblical theology, sin separates one from life.
4. Therefore, in biblical theology, sin leads to death.

> If that leads to death, if anything, that means god has made the rules, and the rules conflict with our nature, which is an evil act if he does actually know what we are - fallible beings.

God didn't make the rules. It's the nature of reality. And the rules don't conflict with our nature. We have the right to choose whether we are going to remain in our sin nature or be changed to having the nature of Jesus in us.

> God hasn't privided me with that.

Of course he has. That's what the Bible is. It's exactly what the Bible is: Examples, warnings, guidance, wisdom, morality, alerting to dangers, etc.

> If it's concluded that god is good, it's expected that he would ultimately get rid of our 'evil fate' instead of waiting for us to find out about him.

God cannot overrule your free will. If he does, He's a tyrant and you're a robot. But since neither of those is true, He cannot do that. You have to make your own choices.

> Sorry if a book is not convincing to such an extraordinary claim.

Oh, the book is convincing, but I sense in you a real mental block and a bias against the Bible.

> And how do you know he did resurrect?

The same way I know other things: examination of the evidence, inferring the most reasonable conclusion, using logic and reason.

> Wait, what? Always? Didn't Jesus tell Thomas he believed because he saw, but blessed are those who didn't see and yet have believed?

Remember that Jesus said that when Thomas had visible evidence standing in front of him. The meaning of what Jesus is saying is that not everyone will get the benefit of seeing him in the flesh, but there will still be plenty of evidence to make a reasonable decision. Not everyone gets to see, but seeing is not the only way to know.

> Hebrews 11.1

Exactly. "being sure of...knowing." There's nothing blind about faith. It's based on evidence. Always.

> Also, faith for Abraham was fear, or was it not?

It was not. Abraham had a call from God (Gen. 12.1-3). Abraham had a vision from God (Gn. 15). Abraham saw a several miracles (Gn. 12.17-20; 20.17-18; the birth of a son from old old Sarah in Gn. 21). The Lord spoke to Abraham (Gn. 13.14-17). The Lord visited Abraham (Gn. 18). His faith was based on evidence.

> Since God is truth, fabrication (and therefore deceit and falsehood) is not possible. God cannot just make anything up.

How do you know that? If it because god releaved it to ya? If so, he can very well have made that up. That history book I mentioned could've been written by historians; it just happens that they were wrong - as well as it could've been manipulated by a tyrannical government.

By "if all we know is from revelation from god" I was referring to what we know in regards to god.

> The Bible is not our only source of information. We get information from many and varied sources.

Are they divinily inspired as well? How are they different than other sources you do not consider to be divinely inspired? I mean, the qur'an disagrees with the Bible as in the role of Christ, but there are a bnch of Hadiths that complement its message. Why not use the qur'an and the books that agree with its message to learn about god?

> In the Old Testament God usually confirmed that it was Him by doing a miracle that proved it to them.

Maybe in the old testament most people didn't have access to the Torah, but I have never read the Bhagavadgita, why not check it to see if my spiritual experiences make sense?

> That doesn't happen for us. We have to check the urge or the information to make sure it's a message from God and not just a goofy thought in our head.

Oh, how convenent that one can cherry-pick sources, like the Book of Mormon, Summa Theologica, conflicting theologies, in order to justify their beliefs.

> Yes, you need the relationship to save you from "X", which is your sin nature that will take you to death.

How so? How does my sin leave me to death? Isn't sin just disobedience to god? If that leads to death, if anything, that means god has made the rules, and the rules conflict with our nature, which is an evil act if he does actually know what we are - fallible beings.

> You are a free agent with free will. If your mom sees you engaged in destructive behavior, and she can see trouble coming, she tries to do what she can about it, but ultimately she can't control you. You make your own choices. She can warn you, give you better options, discipline you, yell at you, but ultimately she can't control your brain. You must make the wise and right choice instead of the negative and dangerous one.

If my mom sees me going to visit a friend in a sketchy neighbourhood, she doesn't tell me: hey, I don't want you to go there; and leave no explanation. If her intentions are to keep me safe, she should try to convince me that it's a dangerous place to go, and tell about how it's on the news, how, let's say, going out with a watch calls for being stolen, etc. I can only make the choice I'm inclined to from what I know: I know what pleases me, like seeing my friend, and I know the risks. And I value my mom because since I was a kid I had an instict to rely on her, and now I have the life experience to know how much of a good mom she is, and that's why it makes me happy to please her. God hasn't privided me with that. Also, my mom is not perfect, and I don't need her to be perfect in order to respect her. But isn't god supposed to be perfect? A good teacher can teach most of their students math and the importance of math, but can't force them to control how much they spend during the month; what's the difference between a good teacher and god?

All of that is me giving you that free will is a thing, which I do not believe. As I said, we can only act based on what's known to us, and we do not control how much access to the truth we have, thus not free.

> "will only take you to a safe place if you call him on his phone"—right. He can only control you if you use your free will to give Him control.

Hey, it's the cops duty to protect the citizens. If it's concluded that god is good, it's expected that he would ultimately get rid of our 'evil fate' instead of waiting for us to find out about him. If a cop is patrolling - as god knowing everything - and knows about the murderer and the risk to which we're vulnerable - our fate -, they should go ahead and arrest the criminal and save everyone, as their duty. Is it too much to expect from god?

> He wrote it in a book so you didn't have to listen hard

Sorry if a book is not convincing to such an extraordinary claim. Just because there's a book about Tarzan, it doesn't mean if you leave a child in the jungle, it can grow up learning to have conversations with animals. Just because I read Mowgli, it doesn't mean a boy can learn the 'law of the jungle,' of that there is such a law at all, as in "my blood is your blood" or something like that - and I love Mowgli. Dianetics also has a book; Kardecism also has a book that I can study and ponder.
but because He gave evidence of it with His miracles
and ultimately with His resurrection from the dead
My point if that I can conclude a list of things from that:
he was possessed;
it was another god (like Osiris);
he was an alchemist;
...
he was the son of Yahweh, out of all other gods that have children
I only know from that that he's powerful, but being the son of a very specific god, with a very specific purpose is kind of a leap. And how do you know he did resurrect? Even if, my point still stands: out of the list of possibilities, why choose Yahweh?
If I tell someone I have a purple unicorn called Starlight Glimmer, from My Little Pony, and say when they truly believe, Glimglam will show herself to them, they don't have to take any action.
Sorry. The silliness of your analogy just makes me laugh instead of respond seriously.
I didn't wanna go for the classic dragon in my garage thing - as a brony, my fave character from the show was the first to pop into my head. But I can claim to talk to Glimglam, write a book about my relationship with her, and others will end up with as much information as I have about the biblical times. How come claims of the son of god in a book don't seem just as silly? Should I have been "more real," like Chico Xavier psychographying a letter from the dead?
Faith in the Bible is always based on evidence.
Wait, what? Always? Didn't Jesus tell Thomas he believed because he saw, but blessed are those who didn't see and yet have believed? Also, reading the Bible is not evidence, just like having an e-meter is not evidence of thetans or even Xenu.
Hebrews 11:11 "Faith means being sure of the things we hope for and knowing that something is real even if we do not see it."
Also, faith for Abraham was fear, or was it not?
If Glimglam was too much at first sight, and it probably is for any non-bronies, this "faith based on evidence" thing is too.

> What I meant is if all we know is from revelation from god, god can make anything up.

This is contrary to Christian theology. Since God is truth, fabrication (and therefore deceit and falsehood) is not possible. God cannot just make anything up.

But the point of what I was saying is that it is our fault when we do things that are wrong, not God's fault. But it's also not true that "if all we know is from revelation from god." There are many things we know that are not revelation from God. I know it's raining today. God didn't reveal that to me, my eyes by looking out the window did. I saw a good bargain at the grocery store yesterday. God didn't reveal that to me.

> it seems like revelation a history book that is our single source of information.

The Bible is not our only source of information. We get information from many and varied sources.

> but if the book is wrong or flat out lying, and it's still our only source, we can't know.

This is true. Any false information leads us astray. That's why we need reliable information from reliable sources. But I have said several times that the Bible is not our only source of information.

> But still what's the difference when one is fooling themself and when god is really telling them what's the right way?

Yes, the danger is always there. We have to check it, often by multiple means. In the Old Testament God usually confirmed that it was Him by doing a miracle that proved it to them. That doesn't happen for us. We have to check the urge or the information to make sure it's a message from God and not just a goofy thought in our head.

> As in the book "The Shack,"

I don't know much of anything about the book so can responsibly comment.

> And now my objection becomes why do I need the relationship.

Yes, you need the relationship to save you from "X", which is your sin nature that will take you to death.

> If X is an undesirable, and god knows it's coming and we can do nothing about it, a loving one would not let anyone live such fate.

You are a free agent with free will. If your mom sees you engaged in destructive behavior, and she can see trouble coming, she tries to do what she can about it, but ultimately she can't control you. You make your own choices. She can warn you, give you better options, discipline you, yell at you, but ultimately she can't control your brain. You must make the wise and right choice instead of the negative and dangerous one.

So it is with God. He doesn't not control you unless you give him control of you. He warns you, gives you better options, disciplines you, and might even yell at you, but He does not and cannot control your brain. You must make the wise and right choice instead of the negative and dangerous one.

> It's like a cop that knows the murderer is around, but will only take you to a safe place if you call him on his phone, but will still not arrest them in the first place, leaving the others vulnerable—though that analogy doesn't include the assumption that the cop is the only one with the power to arrest the criminal

God doesn't control all that happens. If he did, there would be no such thing as science (since there would be no true cause and effect) and there would be no such thing as reason (since nothing would be regular or predicable). "will only take you to a safe place if you call him on his phone"—right. He can only control you if you use your free will to give Him control.

> having him opening the door from the heavens and have the prophets who wrote about the messianic prophecy tell all of us how he is the one they were talking about, and also some how convincing us they are the prophets, cause I guess they haven't been seen in hundreds of years, and showing us how heaven is what they've talked about is convincing.

He wrote it in a book so you didn't have to listen hard, take notes, and wonder if you were remembering right. It's all in the New Testament, exactly as you want: the prophets and apostles telling how Jesus is the fulfillment of the OT prophets—the one they were talking about, and how Jesus's resurrection and the explanation of that in the writings of Paul show us what heaven is like. It's all there for you to read and re-read, to study and to ponder.

> just because he said he was the son of god

It's not just because He said He was the Son of God, but because He gave evidence of it with His miracles (He considered them to be signs, not proofs) and ultimately with His resurrection from the dead. I've been at a lot of funerals. Nobody comes out of the casket. Whoever did would have my attention, especially if he or she predicted it.

> They never had to do anything, I think.

But they did. They had to watch and listen and decide if Jesus was telling the truth about Himself being God, and if He gave evidence of it by His miracles and ultimately by His resurrection. He was forcing a decision and the consequent attitude and lifestyle changes.

> If I tell someone I have a purple unicorn called Starlight Glimmer, from My Little Pony, and say when they truly believe, Glimglam will show herself to them, they don't have to take any action.

Sorry. The silliness of your analogy just makes me laugh instead of respond seriously. I thought we were having a serious conversation. After Jesus's resurrection, He could have gone straight to heaven so they would just believe without seeing, but that's not what He did. He came back and showed them His resurrection body as evidence. Faith in the Bible is always based on evidence. You lost me with your silliness. If you were trying to give a serious analogy, you missed by a continent. (1) Anyone who honestly deals with Jesus is always expected to take action, (2) faith, the Bible, is always based on evidence, and (3) Jesus showed Himself to the disciples. What is this Glimglam stuff? Let's keep the discussion real.

> Sometimes it most definitely is our fault.

What I meant is if all we know is from revelation from god, god can make anything up.

> We can learn to listen objectively, or we can listen subjectively. Many options are available to us in communication theory, but we cannot categorically conclude that it's not our fault if we end up wrong.

We can misinterpret as in shipping the wrong characters in a webcomic based on confirmation bias with every action they do and all, but my point is that it seems like revelation a history book that is our single source of information. That book can be misinterpreted, yes, and the more complex, or the more influential, the content, the more likely we are to misunderstand it, but if the book is wrong or flat out lying, and it's still our only source, we can't know.

> we have to learn how to talk to God and how to hear him

But still what's the difference when one is fooling themself and when god is really telling them what's the right way? As I said, I have friend who have had different experiences with different afterlives (and divinities in general). It can't be that the more I have in common with other people's experiences means I'm on the right way, because their concepts of divinity are not compatible; and how to interpret the holy texts out there has lead to different denominations in their respective religions, and those different groups also have their own differences in their theology. It can't be, let's say, what's more in line with history, since, for example, we have to clues that lead to a mass migration of the israelites from Egypt to Canaan, or the split of the Moon, or Xenu (and any alien life form for that matter). One that's more coherent with how psychology explains belief, let's say, says more about the people who wrote than about the truth of the spirituality they're talking about to me. Since "spiritual things aren't part of our natural world", what's the learning process, and how to be sure?

> God has made it possible for us to be in relationship with Him even now. He has made Himself known to us so that we don't have to wait.

> As you get to know how God thinks and acts (from the Bible), learning His patterns and qualities, you start to understand how He works and how prayer works. It takes a while, but we grow in it, just like a relationship with a friend or spouse. We learn as we go.

I have heard and read many claims about how god seeks to have a relationship with us. As in the book "The Shack," where god says she makes herself human and limited as an expression of love for us, but that's what she does to herself, that does nothing to us. Not being fully myself when I'm with my close ones isn't a display of care; real care is when I use what's to my power to be nice to them. But now I want to point out that you didn't go there, and instead said he made himself known to us, and that's got something to do with us, which is my very objection to the claim in the book I mentioned. But still just from knowing someone I can opt out of a relationship. And now my objection becomes why do I need the relationship? For salvation from X? If X is an undesirable, and god knows it's coming and we can do nothing about it, a loving one would not let anyone live such fate. It's like a cop that knows the murderer is around, but will only take you to a safe place if you call him on his phone, but will still not arrest them in the first place, leaving the others vulnerable—though that analogy doesn't include the assumption that the cop is the only one with the power to arrest the criminal; if one can be careful or get their own safe place, then one doesn't need to call the cop. If we can do something about it—assuming there's any reason to believe in X—, I'm interested. My mom doesn't believe in hell, so to her I say there's no need to force myself to believe I have to be saved; that's why I wrote 'fate,' and not 'hell', as it could be something else. If there is the need to be saved, then I go back to my cop analogy.

> We should talk about where the barriers are for you.

Nice question. I still think that for me to be convinced of the very specific god Jesus has claimed, having him opening the door from the heavens and have the prophets who wrote about the messianic prophecy tell all of us how he is the one they were talking about, and also some how convincing us they are the prophets, cause I guess they haven't been seen in hundreds of years, and showing us how heaven is what they've talked about is convincing. There are other ways to prove the supernatural to me, like mentioning something about my life I never told no one - though I'm usually a really open person, and one could hack my accounts to get my passwords - and that stuff, but that doesn't imply a god, let alone the one Jesus was talking about. In the end, that's why, for me, assuming the miracles were real, it could be a list of things, Yahweh being only one in the list - just because he said he was the son of god, doesn't mean it's the only explanation to the alleged miracles... Whoa, I thought I had nothing to say about that question of yours

> Now what were they to do?

They never had to do anything, I think. If I tell someone I have a purple unicorn called Starlight Glimmer, from My Little Pony, and say when they truly believe, Glimglam will show herself to them, they don't have to take any action. They can walk into my room and see no trace of her, and all that says is that my job of convincing them has failed.

> So is this like it's not our fault if we end up wrong, because we're only acting and drawing conclusions from the available information?

No, because the nature of communication is not just receiving information but interpreting it. Sometimes we interpret objectively, but sometimes we deliberately distort, refuse to see, throw up walls, get emotionally involved, etc., and change the information coming at us. We can learn to listen objectively, or we can listen subjectively. Many options are available to us in communication theory, but we cannot categorically conclude that it's not our fault if we end up wrong. Sometimes it most definitely is our fault. Sometimes people see what the want to see, hear what they want to hear, and interpret data and facts based on pre-assumed directions or conclusions.

> Sorry, but I feel I can never achieve such thing until I die and supposed pass onto another plan.

But this is the good news of Christianity: God has made it possible for us to be in relationship with Him even now. He has made Himself known to us so that we don't have to wait.

> so I won't know if it's him sendingm e messages or I'm just fooling myself - no wonder I know people who claim to have had personal experiences with different afterlives, including reincarnation, etc.

Just like everything else, we are on a learning curve. Spiritual things aren't part of our natural world, and we have to learn how to talk to God and how to hear him, just like an accountant has to learn what to look for to do an audit, a hunter has to learn what to look for to see and catch game, and a Secret Service person needs to train completely new eyes and ears for his job.

> That's because I'm the kind of person that wouldn't be convinced even when Jesus. I've read the gospels, and for all I would've known back then, I don't know if I'd be convinced.

Lots of people weren't, but lots were. We should talk about where the barriers are for you.

> He had special powers, but claimed to be sent by god, and just told us those who believe will meet him again in heaven.

Yes, Jesus never let people sit with the concept that he was a prophet or even an angel. He always pushed the envelope further: "I'm God." Hmm. Now what were they to do?

> Also, how does such relationship work?

What he has to teach us is in the Bible. We have to approach the Bible with an open mind, free inquiry. What is it really saying? I mull on it and see what thoughts come to my mind. I don't just count on those thoughts as being from God, but I check them and mull some more. In prayer I talk to him, but I don't expect him to talk to me in prayer. Some people say he does talk to them, but I've never experienced that. Prayer isn't just asking for things, but talking to God. As you get to know how God thinks and acts (from the Bible), learning His patterns and qualities, you start to understand how He works and how prayer works. It takes a while, but we grow in it, just like a relationship with a friend or spouse. We learn as we go.

Sorry it took me long to respond. My finals are coming and my free time has been spent sleeping...

> We can only know about God if He reveals Himself to us. Other than that we don't have a chance.
> The purpose of the covenant is to reveal God.

So is this like it's not our fault if we end up wrong, because we're only acting and drawing conclusions from the available information? I understand that principle in drawing conclusions in science, instead of guessing what's the mechanism, but, as one who's worried about the environment, there's more to it when it comes to acting from those conclusions; like the principles of prevention/precaution regarding what could go wrong because of what we know we don't know or what we don't know that we don't know.

> The goal of God's plan is for Him to be in relationship with the people He has created.

Sorry, but I feel I can never achieve such thing until I die and supposed pass onto another plan. I have mentioned with my mom: what is he going to do to me? I know of our confirmation bias, so I won't know if it's him sendingm e messages or I'm just fooling myself - no wonder I know people who claim to have had personal experiences with different afterlives, including reincarnation, etc. That's because I'm the kind of person that wouldn't be convinced even when Jesus. I've read the gospels, and for all I would've known back then, I don't know if I'd be convinced. Why not think he was possessed? He had special powers, but claimed to be sent by god, and just told us those who believe will meet him again in heaven. If god had opened the heavens and told us so, and then Isaiah or another prophet came down from the sky and told he was the messiah he was talking about, then I'd be convinced of the prophecy. Also, how does such relationship work? My IRL relationships involve exchanging opinions and knowledge, requires respect to each others flaws, a bunch of those complicated things. Like, when a friend is complaining about something I think is trivial, I don't tell them so; I listen and empathise with them, to make them feel important, and also to make myself feel important as a good listener, as opposed to suplying with just what they need to live - that includes my relationship with my parents; it's more than they paying my rent. So if god is going to keep us from hurting ourselves with incomplete knowledge, still how is this relationship going to work?

> I'm game to continue if you would like.

Great! I'm glad

> A living human being faced with this God would be as able to make a choice as a dead human being faced with the same God. Once the human makes the choice to give up their free will to God, then, per your earlier statement, they stop being human.

You misunderstand. Let me try again. It's not giving up one's free will that deprives them of their humanity, but not having it at all. If I want to talk a job as a servant in someone's household where it will be my every delight to do whatever they want me to do, I haven't yielded my humanity or my joy. If, however, a being possesses me and takes over my functions so that I am nothing but an unwilling tool, that's completely different. In the first case, I can tell someone I love them and still mean it. In the latter case, if I tell someone I love them they can't believe it, because it's not me speaking and I didn't choose to say it. The latter statement is meaningless.

> this god is omnipotent. He can do whatever he wants

There is a serious misunderstanding in many people's minds (since I have had this conversation with so many) that omnipotence means "I can do anything." It's just not true, and never was.

Omnipotence has never been adequately defined, but it certainly doesn't mean there are no limits to what God can do (Mk. 6.5). It means God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power. It is no contradiction that God can realize whatever is possible, and that no number of actualized possibilities exhausts his power. God can realize whatever is possible. The omnipotence of God is all-sufficient power. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature, though often he lets nature take its course, because that's what He created it to do. He has power over the course of history. He has the power to change human personality, but only as individuals allow. He has the power to conquer death and sin, and to save a human soul for eternity. He has power over the spiritual realm.

What all of this means is that God's will is never frustrated. What he chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it.

There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatsoever that we may conceive of. He can't do "everything."

* He can't do what is logically absurd or contradictory (like make a square circle or a married bachelor)
* He can't act contrary to his nature. Self-contradiction is not possible.
* He cannot fail to do what he has promised.
* He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. Otherwise we're not free.
* He cannot change the past

Leibniz & Ross philosophically state omnipotence in what's called a "result" theory: theories that analyze omnipotence in terms of the results an omnipotent being would be able to bring about. These results are usually thought of as states of affairs or possible worlds: a way the world could be. A possible world is a maximally consistent state of affairs, a complete way the world could be. The simplest way to state it may be, "for any comprehensive way the world could be, an omnipotent being could bring it about that the world was that way." Ross formulated it as "Since every state of affairs must either obtain or not, and since two contradictory states of affairs cannot both obtain, an omnipotent being would have to will some maximal consistent set of contingent states of affairs, that is, some one possible world."

> He is omniscient. That omniscience, combined with omnipotence, undoes the need for this life.

Show me the logical sequence for this. It doesn't make a shred of sense to me. We are beings independent of God. His complete knowledge, his ability to act outside of time, and His ability to use or not use His power to accomplish His work doesn't undo the need for this life. HIs omniscience doesn't take away our freedom to act and His right to respond to it. Read Jeremiah 18.1-12.

> And he's able to act on that knowledge: he's omnipotent.

He is certainly able to, but that neither means He does nor requires that He does. He can use or withhold His power as He wills.

> I think that people who worship this God are not thinking through the consequences of making him both omniscient and omnipotent. Take one of these away.

I've thought it through very deeply. Both of these are essential for God to be truly God, and neither interferes with our free agency as human beings. His knowledge is not causative and His power is variable according to the wisdom to use it it, temper it, or withhold it. These are both beneficial to our lives. If His knowledge were causative, we would not be human but mere determined robots. If His power were always on full, He'd be the cosmic bull in the historical china shop and wreak havoc on nature and humanity. Instead, understanding his knowledge is its proper context and his power with its necessary variability makes it all work, both logically and practically.

> The people in heaven will all have freely and willfully given God lordship of their lives. Here, God cannot take control of us without forcefully doing it. There, we would have made a free-will decision to allow God do as He wishes.

This doesn't solve the problem. A living human being faced with this God would be as able to make a choice as a dead human being faced with the same God. Once the human makes the choice to give up their free will to God, then, per your earlier statement, they stop being human. And if they don't, if there's a way for a human to allow God to do with them as he wants and retain their free will, then the free will defense fails.

Re "here, God cannot take control of us without forcefully doing it," this god is omnipotent. He can do whatever he wants, which makes his invisibility in the only world we have access to suspicious, especially if the "free will defense" stops operating post-mortem.

> You're right that God knows, but his knowledge doesn't cause anyone to act.

No, in this case it wouldn't, but that wasn't my point. He is omniscient. That omniscience, combined with omnipotence, undoes the need for this life. He doesn't have to "wait and see" who is willing to give him lordship, as he is not bound by anything, including time. That's what it means to be omniscient. And he's able to act on that knowledge: he's omnipotent.

I think that people who worship this God are not thinking through the consequences of making him both omniscient and omnipotent. Take one of these away.

> though my point is that if everyone accepts how they depend on others (and on our planet), we can grow and prosper as human beings.

According to the Bible, we have tremendous capacity and capabilities as human beings. I'm not trying to say we're total incompetents. What I am trying to say is that we can't read people's minds, we can't see the future, we can't have all the elements necessary to consistently make great decisions, our weaknesses can derail or skew us, and even our strengths can work against us if we're not careful. Our knowledge of spiritual realities is close to nothing aside from what we've been told, and we're tragically poor at interpreting our circumstances. We simply are not self-sufficient, and our wisdom is so limited and limiting as to be an obstacle. It's not that we're dolts, but just that we're human.

> Do you have any insight as to how non-omniscient beings should know who is omniscient at all?

We can only know about God if He reveals Himself to us. Other than that we don't have a chance. The goal of God's plan is for Him to be in relationship with the people He has created. It would be difficult for people to enter into a relationship with a God they do not know or can't know. If His nature were concealed, obscured, or distorted, an honest relationship would be impossible. Therefore, in order to clear the way for this relationship, then, God has undertaken as a primary objective a program of self-revelation. He wants people to know him, and therefore makes Himself known to non-omniscient beings. The mechanism that drives this program of self-revelation is the covenant (one of the prominent themes of the whole Bible), and the instrument for self-revelation is Israel. The purpose of the covenant is to reveal God. That's the only way we can know.

> Also, I understand if you think this responses are getting too long, but I promise this is my last one, because you really reminded me of both my mom and my christian friend.

I'm enjoying the conversation. I'm game to continue if you would like.

First of all, I wish to thank you for the clarifying response. I have discussions about this with my mom, but she can never bring on a deep explanation. That's why, for example, I mentioned the discouragement of seeking wisdom, for that's the only christian view I've been presented; what you mentioned feels much more in line with that another christian friend of mine says, though he says how god told him not to be gay anymore, so that was also responsible for my mention of selfish parents.

I just don't know why would divine creation be the explanation for humans "to follow their own path," but, for me, most importantly, it doesn't force me into a life that's not for me, like my friend trying not to fall for another boy.

> we are not able to decide for ourselves what is in our best interests and what is not.

Just today, I mentioned on an essay for sociology class the injustice of treatments for ASD kids that completely ignore the kid's well-being, by assuming they don't know what they need; and never teach them why is it that they treat them like that either. I also mention often with my therapist (I'm one of those ASD kids) that I understand the provess via which believers expand this idea that no one is self-sufficient on their own, and needs others, to our human society needing another being; though my point is that if everyone accepts how they depend on others (and on our planet), we can grow and prosper as human beings.

> the omniscient and omnipresent God is the only one qualified, and so we must find wisdom where it resides: in Him.

Do you have any insight as to how non-omniscient beings should know who is omniscient at all? Well, maybe if he did create the whole world, he is omniscient about everything in this world, which is what matters for our lives. But I wonder if that's enough for you.

> God DOES encourage the latter.

When I said the latter I meant the war stuff, as in: "one is good and promotes our society with flying machines, transportation, science, etc".is the former, and "and another promotes death" is the latter. But I understand what you meant. Also, I understand if you think this responses are getting too long, but I promise this is my last one, because you really reminded me of both my mom and my christian friend.