Do we really have free will? And how do you feel about God after reading this?

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Artorias

What IF God is not actually in charge of this world?

Said being could still possess all of said qualities

That is EXACTLY what I now think, Akragon..
About two years ago...a though came to my head (or spirit, if you want to get technical). It was "WHO is the "god" of this world"? Now, it was one of those pressing questions that came out of nowhere, and would not leave my thoughts. It literally plagued me until I dug for answers. This was after I'd figured out Paul was a false apostle. Now, I dug into the whole "god of the OT".
Well, my suspicions weren't unfounded, after many months of research.
I was pretty much disgusted with the bible in general by this time...not Jesus, just the bible.
So, the other day, while working...another verse popped into my thoughts. It was when Jesus was about to be arrested and he was telling His disciples that "the god of this world is coming, and he has nothing on Me".
Some translations will say "the prince of this world" and some will say "satan" in italics. But, for some reason, what I kept hearing was "the god of this world is coming". So, I looked it up when I got home from work. It does mean "god of this world".
Which gives a whole new credence to "for GOD so loved the world that HE gave His only begotten Son".
If one looks at this world, it's not something a truly loving creator would design. It's predatory, and that's from humans to the animal kingdom...heck, even plant life.
I'm still listening for those little whispers in my spirit. Funny how they come at times I'm definitely not looking for them.

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: whereislogic

but he would save Enoch
but not this little girl ?

if he can interfere with Sodom
why can't he interfere here ?

he interfered warning Moses
why didn't he warn this girl or surrounding relatives ?

where is the logic ?

There is absolutely NONE (logic, I mean). I ask the same questions daily, and to tell you the truth, this world and it's suffering, makes absolutely NO SENSE when you are trying to see a "good god" at the helm.
Especially if you are familiar with the bible and it's stories.
So, yea, I agree with you. I also think "whatever" god set this play in motion down here, is sadistic as hell.

a reply to: Artorias

There are two main views of time in philosophy. One theory of time, known as the A-theory of time, is dynamic(I hold to this one), in which the past is actually going out of existence, the present really exist, and the future is merely potential. The second theory of time, known as the B-theory of time, is static(the one to which you hold) that is the past, present, and future are merely illusions of our lower dimensional state, and that all moments of time are equally real and existent.


On my view, God's decision to create was also a decision to change his temporal mode of existence, which I do not think is essential to his nature. So I would say that before creation God was timeless and eternal, and at the moment of creation onward God is temporal and eternal. God as the creator and sustainer must sustain things in being as long as they exist, and then they pass out of being. So God is creatively active on this view bring things into, and he would also know things as they come into being and go out of being.


God's knowledge can be explained in three logical moments:

The first is called Natural Knowledge, which is God's knowledge of all necessary truths. This knowledge includes the full range of logical possibilities, to simplify one could think of natural knowledge as God's knowledge of everything that could be.

The second is called Middle Knowledge, which is the range of possible things that would happen given certain circumstances. This knowledge includes the knowledge of all counterfactuals. That is God would know propositions like, "If Jay were in Mexico, he would go sunbathing rather than swimming." Again to simplify this you could think of this as God's knowledge of everything that would be. Assuming the truth of the counterfactual we can say God would know this counterfactual, even if Jay never goes to Mexico.


So prior to creation God used his middle knowledge and foreknowledge, surveyed all possible worlds and then actualized a particular one. From God's actualization of a particular world you get God's free knowledge, and these are the contingent truths brought about by God's will. So for example, "God created the earth."


So what we come out with is a view in which, God retains a measure of divine providence without hindering a human's free will. God knows what an agent would freely do in a particular situation due to his middle knowledge, so:

Agent A, if placed in circumstance C, would freely choose option X over option Y. Thus, if God wanted to accomplish X, all God would do is, using his middle knowledge, actualize the world in which A was placed in C, and A would freely choose X. God retains an element of providence without nullifying A's choice and God's purpose (the actualization of X) is fulfilled. Take the salvation of Agent A. God knows that if He were to place A in circumstances C, then A would freely choose to believe in Christ. So God actualizes the world where C occurs, and then A freely believes. God still retains a measure of His divine providence because He actualizes the world in which A freely chooses. But, A still retains freedom in the sense of being able to choose either option. It is important to note that Molinism does not affirm two contradictory propositions when it affirms both God's providence and humanity's freedom. God's providence extends to the actualization of the world in which an agent may believe upon Christ.

From wiki Source on Molinism, which is where the idea of Natural, Middle, and Freeknowledge originated.

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Artorias

What IF God is not actually in charge of this world?

Said being could still possess all of said qualities

That is EXACTLY what I now think, Akragon..
About two years ago...a though came to my head (or spirit, if you want to get technical). It was "WHO is the "god" of this world"? Now, it was one of those pressing questions that came out of nowhere, and would not leave my thoughts. It literally plagued me until I dug for answers. This was after I'd figured out Paul was a false apostle. Now, I dug into the whole "god of the OT".
Well, my suspicions weren't unfounded, after many months of research.
I was pretty much disgusted with the bible in general by this time...not Jesus, just the bible.
So, the other day, while working...another verse popped into my thoughts. It was when Jesus was about to be arrested and he was telling His disciples that "the god of this world is coming, and he has nothing on Me".
Some translations will say "the prince of this world" and some will say "satan" in italics. But, for some reason, what I kept hearing was "the god of this world is coming". So, I looked it up when I got home from work. It does mean "god of this world".
Which gives a whole new credence to "for GOD so loved the world that HE gave His only begotten Son".
If one looks at this world, it's not something a truly loving creator would design. It's predatory, and that's from humans to the animal kingdom...heck, even plant life.
I'm still listening for those little whispers in my spirit. Funny how they come at times I'm definitely not looking for them.

False prophet/apostle or otherwise... one thing that both Jesus and Paul agree on...

There is a god of this world... and it isn't the Father

a reply to: Artorias
God is what is knowing this text. God is always present - God knows the stories arising presently about 'other times'. Right here and now there is an appearance appearing - this text, a computer, a room and hands typing - but there is 'something' knowing the appearance.
The appearance and the knower of it arise as one seamless happening.
The father and son are one.

a reply to: whereislogic

Just to be clear, your line of argumentation is such an appeal to emotion, you're using the word "logic" in your rhetorical question at the end but you want (people) to think about how unjust God supposedly is if he existed and allows human suffering to continue, not interfering in your example; you're attempting to paint your emotionally laden picture and feelings about a supposed God on that God with a set of rhetorical questions

Just to be clear all of that (what you said ) is rubbish

here i'l bold it for ya so it's real simple

my argument was about inconsistency not emotion

Not rhetorical questions , another foolish assumption
but you couldn't answer any of them could you ?

your links explain its Satan original sin etc the usual
doesn't explain the inconsistency

you do not want to hear or consider possible logical reasonable answers and as soon as you are confronted with one

your assuming aren't you ?
it's foolish
maybe there something in that book of yours
about assuming what others think or feel

the picture i'm painting is an inconsistent
God
who is not impartial

the picture your painting is
even questioning
the morality of God
somehow makes me stupid

because that's what i'm doing and all
i'm getting from you is foolish assumptions

originally posted by: Akragon

originally posted by: Matrixsurvivor

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Artorias

What IF God is not actually in charge of this world?

Said being could still possess all of said qualities

That is EXACTLY what I now think, Akragon..
About two years ago...a though came to my head (or spirit, if you want to get technical). It was "WHO is the "god" of this world"? Now, it was one of those pressing questions that came out of nowhere, and would not leave my thoughts. It literally plagued me until I dug for answers. This was after I'd figured out Paul was a false apostle. Now, I dug into the whole "god of the OT".
Well, my suspicions weren't unfounded, after many months of research.
I was pretty much disgusted with the bible in general by this time...not Jesus, just the bible.
So, the other day, while working...another verse popped into my thoughts. It was when Jesus was about to be arrested and he was telling His disciples that "the god of this world is coming, and he has nothing on Me".
Some translations will say "the prince of this world" and some will say "satan" in italics. But, for some reason, what I kept hearing was "the god of this world is coming". So, I looked it up when I got home from work. It does mean "god of this world".
Which gives a whole new credence to "for GOD so loved the world that HE gave His only begotten Son".
If one looks at this world, it's not something a truly loving creator would design. It's predatory, and that's from humans to the animal kingdom...heck, even plant life.
I'm still listening for those little whispers in my spirit. Funny how they come at times I'm definitely not looking for them.

False prophet/apostle or otherwise... one thing that both Jesus and Paul agree on...

There is a god of this world... and it isn't the Father

Yes, I have to agree with you on that one. It's too bad that Paul high jacked the true good news that Jesus came to give, though. This world would be a much better place if people followed Jesus' two main commandments...love God and love other's. Instead, Pauline Christianity is bogged down with a humongous dose of doctrine from Paul. It produces rotten fruit, that's for sure. As does YHWH.

a reply to: kibric

your assuming aren't you ? it's foolish
maybe there something in that book of yours
about assuming what others think or feel

the picture i'm painting is an inconsistent
God
who is not impartial

the picture your painting is
even questioning
the morality of God
somehow makes me stupid

because that's what i'm doing and all
i'm getting from you is foolish assumptions

a reply to: kibric

You wanting an inconsistency being there doesn't make it so. I knew you were simply going to dismiss any answer presented to you and then pretend (convince yourself or argue that) your question or challenge hasn't been answered, the pattern is very predictable with a little help from the bible.

Btw, presenting what is in your opinion/belief/feeling an inconsistency in the descriptions of God from the bible in the form of a question is called a rhetorical question (or falls under rhetorical questions). Quit it with the denial please, pretty please? And you just admitted you were painting a picture of this God as being inconsistent. Painting your opinion/belief/feeling about God onto God, which has no bearing on reality. The one being inconsistent here is you in your way of arguing and denying the presence of your own insincere rhetorical questions containing paint jobs as admitted that are both intended to convince yourself of your own opinion/belief/feeling about this subject as well as others that you're making sense (because others also think that way, want to follow that path or line of reasoning, ending up with you 'tickling their ears' and possibly wanting to tickle their ears, say things that appeal to a certain crowd; sound convincing to them knowing that they're already inclined to view your argument as making sense). You don't care about whether or not your picture is accurate or reasonable given the evidence related to it or gaining any understanding about it to see why or how you can tell. This is also due to the fact that self-reflection is not a practice that is indoctrinated or encouraged by this system of things and the spirit of the world, the opposite is the case. Just try to admit to yourself that they are rhetorical questions, there's nothing wrong with admitting that is there? (rhetorical question) Rhetorical questions can be very useful when they are sincerely trying to remind* people of a "beneficial teaching" (2 Timothy 4:3,4).

I'd like to leave the reminder though that questioning God's morality, actions or inactions regarding things you present as evil (or a demonstration of God's supposed indifference to the suffering of mankind, supposedly showing this inconsistency with a supposed loving God), is secondary to the question of his existence in the first place. Whether or not you judge his actions or inactions as being unloving or uncaring or inconsistent with a loving God does not focus on figuring out whether or not he exists in the first place, let alone what type of character and mind he has and why he does what he does and doesn't do things you would like to argue he has to do in order to fulfill the logical requirements of a loving God.

*: the teaching I'm trying to remind you of is the following (and this teaching is also talking about being honest with the little things, things that shouldn't be such a big deal admitting to, either to yourself in self-reflection or others, such as admitting and/or realizing that one is using rhetorical questions, forgetting for a moment about considering whether or not they are demonstrating a sincere effort to gain further understanding about the subject rather than promote a certain view/feeling/opinion/belief or argument about God that one is locked into already, as in locked into one mode of thinking regarding that subject, not considering anything that challenges that view/feeling and going through great lengths to distract oneself from recognizing that closed minded one mode of thinking behaviour, which in turn leads to demonstrating something related to what's described below):

The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much. 11 Therefore, if you have not proved yourselves faithful in connection with the unrighteous riches, who will entrust you with what is true? (Luke 16:10,11; Jesus teaching something beneficial)

You making an issue out of denying that you were using rhetorical questions though (including not recognizing it or pretending to yourself not to recognize it, convincing yourself that they weren't rhetorical questions, etc.) adds to the evidence I'm aware of regarding God's existence and the bible being inspired by this God, His Word, as the bible describes it. That is because it brings us back to the accurate descriptions of human behaviour in relation to these subjects, which includes something I mentioned before:

The person who is rightly motivated seeks understanding, not out of mere curiosity or to exalt himself, but for the very purpose of acting in wisdom; ‘wisdom is before his face.’ (Pr 17:24; see WISDOM.) He is not like those in the apostle Paul’s day who assumed to be teachers of others but were “puffed up with pride, not understanding anything,” unwisely letting themselves become “mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words,” things that produce disunity and a host of bad results.—1Ti 6:3-5.

1 Timothy 6:4,5a:
he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything. He is obsessed* [Or “has an unhealthy fascination.”] with arguments and debates about words. These things give rise to envy, strife, slander,* [Or “abusive speeches.”] wicked suspicions, 5 constant disputes about minor matters by men who are corrupted in mind and deprived of the truth...

Coming back to the topic of primary concerns and secondary concerns, for someone who does not believe God exists but is "rightly motivated" to figure out whether there might be sufficient reasons and evidence to rationally and reasonably conclude that he does exist, the priority should be given to the subject of his existence, not his morality as judged by humans who teach many agnostic philosoophies under the banner of the term "subjective morality" to distract from the real issues or bigger matters of concern here (consideration?).

a reply to: kibric
Just remember regarding the word "arguments" in 1 Timothy 6:3-5 and the quotation "questionings" on the page in the Insight book about "understanding", that rhetorical questions are arguments/points presented as questions or more accurately described as "questionings" (or I used the terminology "challenge" as well, that's another option). The google dictionary mentions the synonym for "argument", namely "point" and the phrase "rather than to get an answer" can also remind a person of the concept of "...rather than to gain any understanding about the correct answer or view about the subject", in which case, it's a bit more than just a rhetorical question, it's an insincere rhetorical question demonstrating a desire to stick with a superficial biased (incorrect*) view/feeling of the subject and demonstration of that superficial view (and possibly encourage or nudge others towards doing the same and accepting that superficial view, which can also be an inadvertent effect of expressing one's own feelings/opinions about this subject, creating the snowball-effect I may have mentioned before in this thread):

Rhetorical question (google search)

a question asked in order to create a dramatic effect or to make a point rather than to get an answer.

*: I added "incorrect" because that's what I've concluded from the evidence available to me, in my opinion it is a fact/certainty that your view/feeling/opinion is incorrect and based on arguing from ignorance and an indoctrinated superficial view (indoctrinated to maintain that superficial view as well and not develop an "understanding heart" as earlier described, I recommend reading back the stuff I quoted about "understanding", searching for knowledge and seeking+acquiring understanding, perhaps even click that link to demonstrate something different and prove my future expectations of your behaviour wrong, that a superficial view of the topic of "understanding" for example also isn't enough for you and that you're willing to dig beyond what I decided to quote about it, there are many things that could be useful for self-reflection and a possible search for the truths/facts about reality and what being rational and reasonable is really all about on that page or the related pages for "wisdom" and "knowledge"; or another example "insight").

Quoting you:

the picture i'm painting is an inconsistent God who is not impartial

Indeed, i.e. you're making a point about God and you're using questions to do that. The points you're making involve speculations about the very operation of God's mind and morality, in a rather superficial unserious dismissive manner regarding anything that might even sound contradictory to your paint job. And since your paint job is not true/correct, without error/certain/absolute/conclusive/definitive/factual it becomes "slander, wicked suspicions" (about what God is like, God supposedly not being impartial and being inconsistent with the notion of a loving God) and fuel for "strife" (1 Timothy 6:3-5).

Here's where one can focus on what should be the primary considerations concerning God's existence if one is "rightly motivated" to seek out knowledge and understanding about the subject of God and his existence, a first step if you will (after that a person could start tackling the subject of how God's mind and morality works and why he does what he does or doesn't do certain things; if one can't be honest with themselves about the simple subjects discussed in the playlist below there's little point in discussing God's mind, morality, actions and inaction or expressing oneself in a manner that implies one has information or understanding about it, that their feeling/opinion about it is based on a rational evaluation of all the evidence available and the 'bigger picture', with which I mean the opposite of a superficial view):

Real science, knowledge about realities compared to philosophies and stories

a reply to: whereislogic
your being dishonest

I knew you were simply going to dismiss any answer presented to you and then pretend (convince yourself or argue that) your question or challenge hasn't been answered, the pattern is very predictable with a little help from the bible.

your links ?
i didn't dismiss
i pointed out they don't address
the inconsistency

your links explain its Satan original sin etc the usual doesn't explain the inconsistency

you wrote a load of bollocks
full of more assumptions
how very un christian

completely deflected from my very non rhetorical questions
you couldn't answer
how very honest

he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything

im not the one writing walls of text
when i can't answer simple non rhetorical questions

you can waffle back if you like
with more assumptions

faced with a viewpoint you don't like and you assume
guess we shouldn't be surprised

your deliberately trying to make this about me
as your unable to answer my questions
a dirty tactic
by dishonourable men

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: whereislogic
your being dishonest

I knew you were simply going to dismiss any answer presented to you and then pretend (convince yourself or argue that) your question or challenge hasn't been answered, the pattern is very predictable with a little help from the bible.

your links ?
i didn't dismiss
i pointed out they don't address
the inconsistency

your links explain its Satan original sin etc the usual doesn't explain the inconsistency

you wrote a load of bollocks
full of more assumptions
how very un christian

completely deflected from my very non rhetorical questions
you couldn't answer
how very honest

he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything

im not the one writing walls of text
when i can't answer simple non rhetorical questions

you can waffle back if you like
with more assumptions

faced with a viewpoint you don't like and you assume
guess we shouldn't be surprised

your deliberately trying to make this about me
as your unable to answer my questions
a dirty tactic
by dishonourable men

(times a million)

originally posted by: kibric
a reply to: whereislogic
your being dishonest
...
your links ?
i didn't dismiss
i pointed out they don't address
the inconsistency

They do, you're simply dismissing it with this straw man argument and superficial description (the fact that it's a superficial view or description of the responses from me in this thread including linked articles that show the bigger picture or relate to the subjects spoken of in this thread makes it a straw man argument, a misrepresentation of the "links" you are describing and a demonstration that you have no understanding and no intention to gain further understanding or describe it in detail with that understanding):

your links explain its Satan original sin etc the usual doesn't explain the inconsistency...

An expression of a superficial view followed by ridicule+slander (picture painting on me this time, acting that my comments to you were so "un Christian" and implying that I'm the one doing to you what you're doing to me, psychological projection, making an elephant out of a mosquito and only quoting the parts in my comment that are better suited for that purpose of pretending I'm "deliberately trying to make this about" you, when it's the other way around at this point and it's mostly my added sidepoints after my main response to the challenge or questions that are mentioning something about human behaviour in relation to these subjects in order "to impart what is beneficial to the hearers." Eph 4:29).

you wrote a load of bollocks
full of more assumptions
how very un christian

completely deflected from my very non rhetorical questions
you couldn't answer
how very honest

im not the one writing walls of text
when i can't answer simple non rhetorical questions

That is a symptom of those who prefer a superficial view (not saying much that is beneficial or useful), the answer or response to your questions or challenge was short and succinct. The rest were additional related sidepoints about human behavioural patterns related to these type of "questionings". Which encourage self-reflection for all and is not just about you. You're not the center of the universe, or my universe for that matter (figuratively speaking with a grain of salt and not intended as a blow below the belt, hence the double smilies, not trying to paint any emotion on you or deride you for feeling that way if you do, just reminding you that you aren't the center of my attention or commentary).
Regarding what I bolded, from the article in my signature (also see the bible verse at the end of this comment):

Ask questions: As we have seen, there are many today who would like to ‘delude us with persuasive arguments.’ (Colossians 2:4) Therefore, when we are presented with persuasive arguments, we should ask questions.

First, examine whether there is bias. What is the motive for the message? If the message is rife with name-calling and loaded words, why is that? Loaded language aside, what are the merits of the message itself?
...
If you sense some appeal to emotions, ask yourself, ‘When viewed dispassionately, what are the merits of the message?’

you can waffle back if you like
with more assumptions

faced with a viewpoint you don't like and you assume
guess we shouldn't be surprised

your deliberately trying to make this about me
as your unable to answer my questions
a dirty tactic
by dishonourable men

Ridiculers often refuse to listen to rebuke (Pr 13:1) and do not love those reproving them. (Pr 9:7, 8; 15:12)

7 The one who corrects a ridiculer invites dishonor, [I call it painting negative pictures on the one trying to rebuke or answer the challenge/questionings presented, see bolded parts in quotations again to see that process of being painted as "dishonourable", how appropiate that this verse uses the same word as exacty what is being painted on the one daring to present an answer or response to the "questionings", "arguments"/points in the form of questions; see previous commentary about those quoted terminologies]

And whoever reproves someone wicked will get hurt.

8 Do not reprove a ridiculer, or he will hate you.

Reprove a wise person, and he will love you.

Just in case it isn't clear for whom my commentary is primarily intended (including that answer or reponse in the links).

The scoffer does not love the one correcting* him. [Or “reproving.”]

He will not consult the wise. (Pr 15:12)

And in case a response is made regarding "does not love" to argue for the opposite, just remember the bolded part below from Pr 26:

22 The words of a slanderer are like tasty morsels;
They are gulped right down into the stomach.
23 Like a silver glazing over a piece of earthenware
Are affectionate words from* an evil heart.
24 The one who hates others disguises it with his lips,
But inside he harbors deceit.
25 Although he speaks graciously, do not trust him,
For there are seven detestable things in his heart.* [Or “For his heart is completely detestable.”]

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: kibric
See the article (and similar articles linked on that page with questions such as "Why does God allow suffering?") linked in my last comment of page 4 on that thread I linked before. There used to be a youtube video with that question in the title and the article related to that question, but I can't find it anymore. Here's the article:
Why Does God Allow Suffering? What Does the Bible Really Teach?

That was my short succinct answer, reprove, rebuke, correction in response to kibric's "questionings", "arguments"/points in the form of questions, i.e. rhetorical questions according to the dictionary (I don't think it's a requirement to fullfill the part that says "rather than to get an answer" in the google dictionary, merely making a point in the form of a question or multiple questions qualifies as using rhetorical questions; figuring out someone's motives is tricky anyway). So when kibric is admitting the following:

the picture i'm painting is an inconsistent God who is not impartial

He's admitting that he's making a point about God in the form of questions, i.e. using rhetorical questions. Since there's nothing wrong with using or admitting to using rhetorical questions to make a point (or even to get an answer or response to them), what's the big deal for a person to continue making a point out of stressing that they did not or are not using rhetorical questions/"questionings"/"arguments" (repetitively a couple of times)?
I've discussed that question before using Luke 16:10:

The person faithful in what is least is faithful also in much, and the person unrighteous in what is least is unrighteous also in much.

The person who is rightly motivated seeks understanding, not out of mere curiosity or to exalt himself, but for the very purpose of acting in wisdom; ‘wisdom is before his face.’ (Pr 17:24; see WISDOM.) He is not like those in the apostle Paul’s day who assumed to be teachers of others but were “puffed up with pride, not understanding anything,” unwisely letting themselves become “mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words,” things that produce disunity and a host of bad results.—1Ti 6:3-5.

1 Timothy 6:4,5a:
he is puffed up with pride and does not understand anything. He is obsessed* [Or “has an unhealthy fascination.”] with arguments and debates about words. These things give rise to envy, strife, slander,* [Or “abusive speeches.”] wicked suspicions, 5 constant disputes about minor matters by men who are corrupted in mind and deprived of the truth...

Arguments presented in the form of questions/questionings = rhetorical questions

If one cannot be honest or truthful (correct, without error) about the little insignificant things, one is not going to be honest about the bigger more crucial things in relation to questions, inquiries or questionings about God and/or His existence (Luke 16:10). And one ends up talking in contradictions (admitting to using rhetorical questions without spelling it out and using that terminology and then denying the use of rhetorical questions).

1 Timothy 6:20,21

Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you, turning away from the empty speeches that violate what is holy and from the contradictions of the falsely called “knowledge.”
21 By making a show of such knowledge, some have deviated from the faith.
May the undeserved kindness be with you.
1 Corinthians 2:13
13 These things we also speak, not with words taught by human wisdom, but with those taught by the spirit, as we explain spiritual matters with spiritual words.
1 Corinthians 3:19
19 For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God, for it is written: “He catches the wise in their own cunning.”
Colossians 2:8
8 Look out that no one takes you captive by means of the philosophy and empty deception according to human tradition, according to the elementary things of the world and not according to Christ;
Proverbs 14:5
5 A faithful witness is one that will not lie,
but a false witness launches forth mere lies.
1 Timothy 4:2
2 by the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, marked in their conscience as with a branding iron;

Kibric claim that he did not or is not using rhetorical questions is incorrect/false, a falsehood/lie. Regardless of whether or not it's deliberate. In no way is speaking the truth about this subject slanderous or "making this all about" Kibric (or "a rotten word", "a dirty tactic, dishonest, a load of bollocks, more assumptions, un christian, completely deflected from [Kibric's]...questions...couldn't answer, waffl[ing] back" or "dishonourable"). The behaviour of either not understanding things like what a rhetorical question is, or the required self-reflection or honesty with oneself (the spirit of the world influences this) to recognize that one is or has used rhetorical questions, is widespread and can give the impression that a person is being dishonest about it on purpose, but that need not be the case even though those types exist as well (a behaviour triggered especially when reproved about it). Attempting to make those aware of this that are being kept in a state of ignorance about their own behaviour (by discouraging self-reflection by encouraging and nurturing pride) by this system of things, the spirit of the world and the ruler of this world, is not a "rotten word" but an attempt "to impart what is beneficial to the hearers" and "what is good for building up as the need may be" (Eph 4:29).

Of course, according to the bible there are those who try to paint opposite pictures on realities such as the ones described by Eph 4:29, to paint a picture on "what is beneficial to the hearers" as "a rotten word" and "a rotten word" as "beneficial to the hearers" or "good" (loving, rigtheous, honest, truthful, reasonable and logical, knowledge about facts, innocent or harmless, wise, smart or clever, insightful, enlightened, openminded, morally superior over closedminded or described as "faced with a viewpoint you don't like and you assume", etc.). This in turn is related to the terminology in psychology called "psychological projection".

Isaiah 5:18-21
Woe to those who drag along their guilt with ropes of deception
And their sin with wagon cords;
19 Those who say: “Let Him speed up his work;
Let it come quickly that we may see it.
Let the purpose of the Holy One of Israel take place
That we may know it!”
20 Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,
Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,
Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!
21 Woe to those wise in their own eyes
And discreet in their own sight!

a reply to: Artorias

It's not difficult to reach the conclusion that the idea of god is logically ridiculous lol. Though even as an atheist, I still don't think this rules out the possibility. It wouldn't be surprising that such a thing (god, for want of a better term) could be beyond human logic and comprehension, if it did exist.

Though it does make the claims by the various religions/middle men/marketers in men's souls in general who seem to understand god's every whim and extra claims, such as the one where he writes silly books for us via ancient peasants and goat herders, seem a bit exaggerated lol.

All I'm addressing here is there's no point in discussing god when you lack faith, logic will always result in false claims cause you're figuring out concepts made up in your head, discussing your imaginations.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
All I'm addressing here is there's no point in discussing god when you lack faith, logic will always result in false claims cause you're figuring out concepts made up in your head, discussing your imaginations.

Yeah, unlike god. He isn't a concept made up in people's heads. Certainly doesn't only exist in the imagination of believers either. His external existence has been so well substantiated and documented. Oh... wait on.....lol.

Faith (of the religious type) - the ability to uncritically and credulously accept unsupported claims via the abandoning of reason and logic (among other things).