MaxInDHouse:
The fact that you're always here on the religious section of a forum where there are so many other sections is evidence that God exist!

I highly doubt that. I've always had an interest in religion. Being a former Christian myself, I still find it interesting to engage in religious discussions.

The Bible foretold a time when people will be worried over spiritual matters {Amos 8:11} and some will be discussing with their neighbours about God and His righteous standard. Malachi 3:16

God has spoken long ago about what you're doing today and it's happening life whereas no one is forcing you be here rather you're only worried over the existence of God just as God said in his word (Bible)

Below are different sections you can choose to chat with friends but you're here on religious section shows God's word is alive!

I wouldn't exactly classify myself as "worried". Debates about the existence of a God, and other religious matters have been going on since time immemorial. It's nothing new. At least we can be glad we're not fighting and killing ourselves over it like people back in the day did.

Wilgrea7:

I highly doubt that. I've always had an interest in religion. Being a former Christian myself, I still find it interesting to engage in religious discussions.

That's exactly what i'm saying!
Once a " misinformed CHURCHGOER" you don't know what being a CHRISTIAN means.
For your information a Christian should be the one helping others to put faith in God's Kingdom (the government that'll restore lasting peace and sanity on planet earth) so if you're now asking the same questions that you should have answered with efficacy as a Christian then it means you were never a Christian!

Wilgrea7:

I wouldn't exactly classify myself as "worried". Debates about the existence of a God, and other religious matters have been going on since time immemorial.

NO! It was politicians that were debating with one another over who should rule but since they want to woo the gullible masses over to their side they tie their ambition to religion making you feel they're representing God.
Christians don't argue once you don't believe in a supreme being. Titus 3:9

Wilgrea7:

It's nothing new. At least we can be glad we're not fighting and killing ourselves over it like people back in the day did.

This is why i said "you were never a Christian" because true Christians know that fightings and killings are instruments of politicians not evangelism! Matthew 5:43-48; 26:52

MaxInDHouse:

That's exactly what i'm saying!
Once a " misinformed CHURCHGOER" you don't know what being a CHRISTIAN means.

Have you heard of the "No true scotsman" fallacy? It's saying just because someone left a group, then they weren't a true member of the group. That's exactly what you're doing now

For your information a Christian should be the one helping others to put faith in God's Kingdom (the government that'll restore lasting peace and sanity on planet earth) so if you're now asking the same questions that you should have answered with efficacy as a Christian then it means you were never a Christian!

I'm sure you're aware of the thread I created titled "It's OK to question your beliefs". I was at that stage once. I asked the questions. The only difference was that I looked for objective answers. A lot of the "Christian" answers to my questions were incredibly biased, since they focused on the christian worldview, which is based on the Christian concept of God.

Other religions also have their own worldviews based on their own different concepts. They couldn't all be right. So i sought out to find out what we knew about God, rather than what we simply believed. And that's how I ended up here.

NO! It was politicians that were debating with one another over who should rule but since they want to woo the gullible masses over to their side they tie their ambition to religion making you feel they're representing God.
Christians don't argue once you don't believe in a supreme being. Titus 3:9

Debates are simply discussions between 2 people with opposing or contradictory beliefs or ideas. It isn't exclusively meant for politicians or people who want control. It's for anyone who wants to share their thoughts and ideas with people around them.

This is why i said "you were never a Christian" because true Christians know that fightings and killings are instruments of politicians not evangelism! Matthew 5:43-48; 26:52

I was making a reference to the old times. The holy wars. The inquisitions, and the different battles fought in the name of religion. Some smaller versions of those conflicts still exist today.

Wilgrea7:

Have you heard of the "No true scotsman" fallacy? It's saying just because someone left a group, then they weren't a true member of the group. That's exactly what you're doing now

If i should ask you few questions about Christ and how his disciples ought to do things are you ready to prove that you were once one of his disciples?
My guy all what you know is the churchy ideas not Christianity but if you think you were once a Christian let's test how much you know about CHRISTIANITY!

Wilgrea7:

I'm sure you're aware of the thread I created titled "It's OK to question your beliefs". I was at that stage once. I asked the questions. The only difference was that I looked for objective answers. A lot of the "Christian" answers to my questions were incredibly biased, since they focused on the christian worldview, which is based on the Christian concept of God.

You've said it all!
Christianity is a movement of millions of people from different races throughout the earth having the same line of thought {John 17:22} but you were asking misinformed Churchgoers like you who are gullibly credulous like you.

Wilgrea7:

Other religions also have their own worldviews based on their own different concepts. They couldn't all be right. So i sought out to find out what we knew about God, rather than what we simply believed. And that's how I ended up here.

Once again that shows you were never a Christian! Because true Christians go from house to house and door to door preaching zealously and industriously teaching in their neighbourhood. That gives us the edge above all other religions because by the time we sit down to discuss what we know about God no other religion can stand against the truth!

Wilgrea7:

Debates are simply discussions between 2 people with opposing or contradictory beliefs or ideas. It isn't exclusively meant for politicians or people who want control. It's for anyone who wants to share their thoughts and ideas with people around them.

That's a lie!
There is no religion on this planet that sends it's adherents to go out there and reason with people except Christianity. So if you find anyone debating over matters regarding God what they have in mind is politics not Faith. That's why Muslims do turn such into bloody war because they believe you're trying to rule over them after convincing them to believe in your own God. Whereas Christianity is all about cooperation to live together as peaceful neighbours using God's word as guide book!

Wilgrea7:

I was making a reference to the old times. The holy wars. The inquisitions, and the different battles fought in the name of religion. Some smaller versions of those conflicts still exist today.

Now you're confirming that you were never a Christian!
For your information i was once a Muslim but after reading about the inquisition and crusades i began suspecting that something is wrong somewhere because it totally differs from what the man called Christ taught his followers. That's what led me to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses today!

MaxInDHouse:

If i should ask you few questions about Christ and how his disciples ought to do things are you ready to prove that you were once one of his disciples?
My guy all what you know is the churchy ideas not Christianity but if you think you were once a Christian let's test how much you know about CHRISTIANITY!

Sure, go ahead. It's important to also note that a lot of different people interpret the bible in different ways. And your view, being a JW may differ slightly from the ones i once held, since i wasn't a JW.. but by all means.
Please go ahead.

You've said it all!
Christianity is a movement of millions of people from different races throughout the earth having the same line of thought {John 17:22} but you were asking misinformed Churchgoers like you who are gullibly credulous like you.

Once again, No true scotsman. The fact that the others couldn't give me objective answers doesn't mean they were misinformed or not true christians.

Once again that shows you were never a Christian! Because true Christians go from house to house and door to door preaching zealously and industriously teaching in their neighbourhood. That gives us the edge above all other religions because by the time we sit down to discuss what we know about God no other religion can stand against the truth!

You seem to have completely missed the part where i said that the answers i got were based on the Christian worldview, which was hinged on the Christian concept of God.

Going out for evangelism doesn't change that. You discuss the concept of God you believe in with others, and try to show them why they're wrong based on your worldview. You preach based on an already preconceived notion of how things are.

That's a lie!
There is no religion on this planet that sends it's adherents to go out there and reason with people except Christianity.

I don't see how that changes anything. Christianity gives it's followers the opportunity to go out and share the concept of God it believes in.. doesn't make it any more or less true.

So if you find anyone debating over matters regarding God what they have in mind is politics not Faith.

If you meet someone that holds a different belief than you.. and you both start discussing your beliefs and views... that's a debate. Nothing political about it

For your information i was once a Muslim but after reading about the inquisition and crusades i began suspecting that something is wrong somewhere because it totally differs from what the man called Christ taught his followers. That's what led me to become one of Jehovah's Witnesses today!

By your logic, i could go ahead and say you were never a true muslim, because you let the actions of a few misinformed mosquegoers confuse you. But that would be undermining your experiences, as well as your reasons for leaving the faith.

The difference between us is that while you questioned and criticized your concept of the Abrahamic God which was held by Islam, I on the other hand, questioned the concept of a God in general.

Wilgrea7:

Sure, go ahead. It's important to also note that a lot of different people interpret the bible in different ways. And your view, being a JW may differ slightly from the ones i once held, since i wasn't a JW.. but by all means.
Please go ahead.

Jesus is God's Son meaning he is the only one who can teach us how to get God's approval to live forever.
So do you agree that you must love your enemies by never think of hurting him even though he planning to kill you! Matthew 5:43-45
Do you agree that the world's political system is in the hands of Satan {John 14:30 compare to Luke 4:5-7} and so a Christian must stay clear from politics? John 18:36
Do you agree that you must have the same line of thought with all those claiming believers {John 17:22} and that different beliefs mean you're not on the same page? Matthew 12:46-50
Do you agree that there shouldn't be any title chiefs recognized among worshipers of God? Matthew 23:8-10
Do you agree that you can only pray with persons sharing the same faith with you? John 17:8-9
Do you agree that you must not raise weapons in settling disputes? Matthew 26:52
Do you agree that you must always spend time preaching and teaching in your neighbourhood? Matthew 10:11-13
Do you agree that a man having multiple sex partners is not a Christian? Matthew 19:4-7
Do you agree that you must love your neighbour as yourself {Mark 12:31} and fellow believers just as Christ loves us? John 13:34-35

If you disagree with any of the above then you're not a Christian but misinformed Churchgoer!

Wilgrea7:

Once again, No true scotsman. The fact that the others couldn't give me objective answers doesn't mean they were misinformed or not true christians.

To erase the idea of this Scotsman issue Jesus gave us the direct answer to the question of faith.
So if your religion is not meeting up with the fruit of God's Holy Spirit then it simply means you're not associating with the right group.
The purpose of establishing Christianity is to form one big and happy family of peace loving worshipers {Isaiah 2:2-4} that's the expected result of true faith so if your religion can't do this with imperfect humans then it's nothing but false religion! James 2:18-26

Wilgrea7:

You seem to have completely missed the part where i said that the answers i got were based on the Christian worldview, which was hinged on the Christian concept of God.
Going out for evangelism doesn't change that. You discuss the concept of God you believe in with others, and try to show them why they're wrong based on your worldview. You preach based on an already preconceived notion of how things are.

You seems to be carried away with this idea of "WORLD VIEW" whereas the world view can never produce what is expected of true faith that's why Jesus said "by their FRUITS you will know them" Matthew 7:16

Wilgrea7:

I don't see how that changes anything. Christianity gives it's followers the opportunity to go out and share the concept of God it believes in.. doesn't make it any more or less true. If you meet someone that holds a different belief than you.. and you both start discussing your beliefs and views... that's a debate. Nothing political about it

That's where you lost the key!
We are to search for the LOST SHEEP meaning people who are already looking for pure worship not those who feel that every religion is OK simply because nice people could be found there. One Jesus, one faith and one baptism {Ephesians 4:5} once someone isn't ready for that we don't have to waste our time because such a person will surely end up thinking there is a politician that can perform better than the other whereas we already have our own King Christ Jesus!

Wilgrea7:

By your logic, i could go ahead and say you were never a true muslim, because you let the actions of a few misinformed mosquegoers confuse you. But that would be undermining your experiences, as well as your reasons for leaving the faith. The difference between us is that while you questioned and criticized your concept of the Abrahamic God which was held by Islam, I on the other hand, questioned the concept of a God in general.

Muslims have nothing like oneness in thought that's why you can't see them agree on how to live a holy life unlike Jehovah's Witnesses who have agreed globally on how to practice their faith Muslims are always at loggerheads the only thing that brings them together is bowing towards the black stone in Mecca, apart from that politics, racism and military services can make them slaughter one another like goats.

No they have nothing like FAITH!

MaxInDHouse:

1) Jesus is God's Son meaning he is the only one who can teach us how to get God's approval to live forever.
2) So do you agree that you must love your enemies by never think of hurting him even though he planning to kill you! Matthew 5:43-45
3) Do you agree that the world's political system is in the hands of Satan {John 14:30 compare to Luke 4:5-7} and so a Christian must stay clear from politics? John 18:36
4) Do you agree that you must have the same line of thought with all those claiming believers {John 17:22} and that different beliefs mean you're not on the same page? Matthew 12:46-50
5) Do you agree that there shouldn't be any title chiefs recognized among worshipers of God? Matthew 23:8-10
6) Do you agree that you can only pray with persons sharing the same faith with you? John 17:8-9
7) Do you agree that you must not raise weapons in settling disputes? Matthew 26:52
8 ) Do you agree that you must always spend time preaching and teaching in your neighbourhood? Matthew 10:11-13
9) Do you agree that a man having multiple sex partners is not a Christian? Matthew 19:4-7
10) Do you agree that you must love your neighbour as yourself {Mark 12:31} and fellow believers just as Christ loves us? John 13:34-35

If you disagree with any of the above then you're not a Christian but misinformed Churchgoer!

There are a lot of points here, So i'll break down my response into 2 parts. I've also added numbers to the questions here to make them easier to answer.

Also, before I answer them, I want to make it clear that I'm answering them based on the beliefs I held as a Christian, and NOT my current beliefs. Ok

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No. That's your own personal belief. The world being of the devil doesn't prevent Christians from leading their communities if they desire.
4) Yes
5) I didn't have an opinion on this at the time.
6) No
7) Yes
8 ) Yes
9) No. I believed he was a sinful christian. Not necessarily that he's not a christian.
10) Yes

Once again, I answered based on the beliefs I previously had as a christian. Not the ones I hold today.

Wilgrea7:


There are a lot of points here, So i'll break down my response into 2 parts. I've also added numbers to the questions here to make them easier to answer.

Also, before I answer them, I want to make it clear that I'm answering them based on the beliefs I held as a Christian, and NOT my current beliefs. Ok

1) Yes
2) Yes
3) No. That's your own personal belief. The world being of the devil doesn't prevent Christians from leading their communities if they desire.
4) Yes
5) I didn't have an opinion on this at the time.
6) No
7) Yes
8 ) Yes
9) No. I believed he was a sinful christian. Not necessarily that he's not a christian.
10) Yes

Once again, I answered based on the beliefs I previously had as a christian. Not the ones I hold today.

So you were never a Christian because the correct answer to all these questions is "YES" as it's all based on what Jesus himself said.
Therefore if you believe he is God's son you must follow his footsteps closely! 1Peter 2:21

MaxInDHouse:


To erase the idea of this Scotsman issue Jesus gave us the direct answer to the question of faith.
So if your religion is not meeting up with the fruit of God's Holy Spirit then it simply means you're not associating with the right group.
The purpose of establishing Christianity is to form one big and happy family of peace loving worshipers {Isaiah 2:2-4} that's the expected result of true faith so if your religion can't do this with imperfect humans then it's nothing but false religion! James 2:18-26

I gave the example of someone being a bad/sinful christian, rather than them not being a christian entirely, simply because they fall short of one of your expected virtues. In general, the term Christian, refers to people who believe in Jesus, and accept him as their personal Lord and savior.

To say that a christian is not a true christian simply because they fall short, is like saying Peter was never a disciple of Christ because he ended up denying Jesus, or that Judas was never a disciple because he betrayed him. It's still no true scotsman at its finest.

You seems to be carried away with this idea of "WORLD VIEW" whereas the world view can never produce what is expected of true faith that's why Jesus said "by their FRUITS you will know them" Matthew 7:16

I don't see how this in any way relates to what I was saying. Worldview refers to how you view the world through the lens of your beliefs or ideologies. It has nothing to do with fruits of the spirit or whatever. You're trying to change the goalpost here. So I'll say it again, and I'll try to explain it more simply this time.

You go around, preaching to people, based on your concept of how you think the world is. And this concept, is based on the beliefs in God that you already have. A worldview tries to explain things through a certain lens.

The reason why you go around, telling people from other faiths that they're wrong, is because that's how your worldview describes them. With your God being the ultimate, revealing himself through the concept you believe, while other concepts for some reason or the other have it wrong. The fruits of the spirit, and the other things you're talking about, that one has to have to prove truth, are based on your concept of what the truth should be.

That's where you lost the key!
We are to search for the LOST SHEEP meaning people who are already looking for pure worship not those who feel that every religion is OK simply because nice people could be found there. One Jesus, one faith and one baptism {Ephesians 4:5} once someone isn't ready for that we don't have to waste our time because such a person will surely end up thinking there is a politician that can perform better than the other whereas we already have our own King Christ Jesus!

There are so many issues with this statement.

1) You are the one defining the lost sheep, as people looking for pure worship. Jesus, was the one who claimed to be looking for the lost sheep of Israel. And if I remember correctly, your assignment was to preach the gospel to EVERY CREATURE. Don't try to twist things.

2) I don't know whoever made the statement that every religion is ok simply because they have nice people. But I'm certain it wasn't from me.

3) My point still stands. Everything you've been saying so far, is based on your beliefs about the world, which is dictated by your religion and it's concept of God.

Muslims have nothing like oneness in thought that's why you can't see them agree on how to live a holy life unlike Jehovah's Witnesses who have agreed globally on how to practice their faith Muslims are always at loggerheads the only thing that brings them together is bowing towards the black stone in Mecca, apart from that politics, racism and military services can make them slaughter one another like goats.

No they have nothing like FAITH!

First of all, that's a really messed up analogy. Second of all, I don't care much for Muslims or the muslim belief, so I won't say much on this. But the very analogy you used for them can be used for you as well. It goes a bit like this .

1) There are different sects of Christianity. There are different sects of Islam.
2) My sect, A.K.A JWs, have got it right, because we understand the scripture. My sect, A.K.A Shia/Sunni have got it right, because we understand the scripture
3) The other sects are wrong, for whatever reason (bearing fruits, interpretation of scripture, etc). Same can be said for the other side.

Every single argument you raise in your favor can literally be used against you.

MaxInDHouse:


So you were never a Christian because the correct answer to all these questions is "YES" as it's all based on what Jesus himself said.
Therefore if you believe he is God's son you must follow his footsteps closely! 1Peter 2:21

I hear you sir. Different sects of Christianity have always disagreed on what different verses of the bible meant. It's nothing new.

Wilgrea7:

I gave the example of someone being a bad/sinful christian, rather than them not being a christian entirely, simply because they fall short of one of your expected virtues. In general, the term Christian, refers to people who believe in Jesus, and accept him as their personal Lord and savior.

Falling differs from practicing falls.
If a person falls and is ready to accept wise counsel which will help him/her not to return to the quagmire. Such a person must be sober not rejoicing over unrighteousness. Even though he will be forgiven he must be cut off Christian assignments {1Corinthians 5:11-13} until he is reinstated back to practice Christianity. So he/she will be relieved of his/her duty as a Christian!

Wilgrea7:

To say that a christian is not a true christian simply because they fall short, is like saying Peter was never a disciple of Christ because he ended up denying Jesus, or that Judas was never a disciple because he betrayed him. It's still no true scotsman at its finest.

Fall differs from practicing falls!

Wilgrea7:

I don't see how this in any way relates to what I was saying. Worldview refers to how you view the world through the lens of your beliefs or ideologies. It has nothing to do with fruits of the spirit or whatever. You're trying to change the goalpost here. So I'll say it again, and I'll try to explain it more simply this time.

Christians have our own view so it's never in line with the common views that's why Jesus said "we are no part of the world" John 17:14

Wilgrea7:

You go around, preaching to people, based on your concept of how you think the world is. And this concept, is based on the beliefs in God that you already have. A worldview tries to explain things through a certain lens.
The reason why you go around, telling people from other faiths that they're wrong, is because that's how your worldview describes them. With your God being the ultimate, revealing himself through the concept you believe, while other concepts for some reason or the other have it wrong. The fruits of the spirit, and the other things you're talking about, that one has to have to prove truth, are based on your concept of what the truth should be.

An electrical engineering company supposed to solve issues having to do with electricity, a carpentry factory supposed to solve the issue having to do with wood work, a bank supposed to solve issues having to do with cash transfer so a group of believers supposed to solve issues having to deal with peaceful coexistence. So if your faith can't make all the adherents to see themselves as brothers and sisters having the same father ever ready to resolve disputes amicably without the use of weapons then it's hopeless!

Wilgrea7:

There are so many issues with this statement.
1) You are the one defining the lost sheep, as people looking for pure worship. Jesus, was the one who claimed to be looking for the lost sheep of Israel. And if I remember correctly, your assignment was to preach the gospel to EVERY CREATURE. Don't try to twist things.

"Lost sheep of Israel" is metaphorical, since Jesus isn't talking about literal sheep then it must be understood that he wasn't referring to literal Israelites. Note that he said the lost sheep of the house of Israel yet he ordered them not to go to Samaria whereas Samaritans are also Israelites! So he was talking about humble and obedient people seeking for pure worship not natural Israelites!

Wilgrea7:

2) I don't know whoever made the statement that every religion is ok simply because they have nice people. But I'm certain it wasn't from me. 3) My point still stands. Everything you've been saying so far, is based on your beliefs about the world, which is dictated by your religion and it's concept of God.

NO! If all people are practicing what Jesus taught then there will be no more wars just as Jehovah's Witnesses have successfully erased the politics, racism and military services from their midst! Isaiah 2:2-4
Any right thinking person know that if these three are removed the world will be peaceful.

Wilgrea7:

First of all, that's a really messed up analogy. Second of all, I don't care much for Muslims or the muslim belief, so I won't say much on this. But the very analogy you used for them can be used for you as well. It goes a bit like this .

1) There are different sects of Christianity. There are different sects of Islam.
2) My sect, A.K.A JWs, have got it right, because we understand the scripture. My sect, A.K.A Shia/Sunni have got it right, because we understand the scripture
3) The other sects are wrong, for whatever reason (bearing fruits, interpretation of scripture, etc). Same can be said for the other side.

Can the other groups you mentioned stop their members from killing people indiscriminately during politics and racism?
Guy they can't! in fact they will kill their own members in other countries justifying it with military services. That is what JWs will never do!

Wilgrea7:

Every single argument you raise in your favor can literally be used against you.

No group on this planet can boast of erasing politics, racism and military services from the hearts of their adherents because they're all thinking of how to vote the right person into their government house and that's what will cause a division among them no matter the religion except Jesus' true disciples (JWs) who only believe in God's Kingdom.
So my friend you're wrong, what i'm telling you can never be use against me because in my faith we must not raise weapons against anyone no matter what happens!

Wilgrea7:

I hear you sir. Different sects of Christianity have always disagreed on what different verses of the bible meant. It's nothing new.

YES unbelievers will never agree {Luke 11:23} but as for true believers we will have the same line of thought globally {John 17:22} and the evidence to prove that it's from the true God is way God's Holy Spirit is using imperfect humans to erase politics, racism and military services from the hearts of millions across the globe. Let any RELIGION come out and tell us what they've achieved so far apart from just gathering gullible followers who will end up killing their fellow believers in other countries!

Wilgrea7:

The issue of moral law is something I've actually been wanting to discuss for a while. I think I may create a thread on it soon. But there's a question I've been wanting to ask you.

I deliberately said "Law" and not moral Law.

Wilgrea7:

Do you agree that moral laws, like physical laws should be the same across the world/universe. Meaning regardless of where you go, that such a law should exist?

It would be tidier for you to raise a thread.

Wilgrea7:

So my question is, if a god can choose not to adopt these negative attributes described here, isn't it possible for it not to adopt attributes that would lead to conflict in the case of multiple deities?

Correction! You don't need to be bad to use or adopt snakes, sticks, acid and poison.

2. Creations do not dictate to their Creators. A pencil or phone cannot instruct you on what would cause conflict or not.

MaxInDHouse:

Falling differs from practicing falls.
If a person falls and is ready to accept wise counsel which will help him/her not to return to the quagmire. Such a person must be sober not rejoicing over unrighteousness. Even though he will be forgiven he must be cut off Christian assignments {1Corinthians 5:11-13} until he is reinstated back to practice Christianity. So he/she will be relieved of his/her duty as a Christian!

I don't see how that in any way, negates my points. The only thing I see here is you trying to define conditions that separates a "true Christian" from a regular one.

Christians have our own view so it's never in line with the common views that's why Jesus said "we are no part of the world" John 17:14

Sir. Once again, you're using a statement from your worldview to justify why it's superior to the others. It's circular reasoning. My worldview says I'm not of this world and my views are not of this world, and the other people got it wrong, or are influenced by Satan because my worldview says so. It's a perfect circle.

An electrical engineering company supposed to solve issues having to do with electricity, a carpentry factory supposed to solve the issue having to do with wood work, a bank supposed to solve issues having to do with cash transfer so a group of believers supposed to solve issues having to deal with peaceful coexistence. So if your faith can't make all the adherents to see themselves as brothers and sisters having the same father ever ready to resolve disputes amicably without the use of weapons then it's hopeless!

I don't even know how to start pointing out how wrong this analogy is. Issues that have to do with electricity are solved by an electrical company, because they are the EXPERTS on electricity and how it works. The lay man has no idea about how electrical circuits and so on, work. That's why they'll need the electric company.

A group of believers do not qualify on experts on peaceful matters. They qualify as experts on belief. Belief is not intertwined with peaceful coexistence. Peace can exist without religion. Peaceful comes from mutual understanding and reasonable tolerance. And none of those, require religion, or believers to be achieved.

"Lost sheep of Israel" is metaphorical, since Jesus isn't talking about literal sheep then it must be understood that he wasn't referring to literal Israelites. Note that he said the lost sheep of the house of Israel yet he ordered them not to go to Samaria whereas Samaritans are also Israelites! So he was talking about humble and obedient people seeking for pure worship not natural Israelites!

I don't want to begin to argue what the bible meant. But you're shifting the goalpost here. So please, tell me. When jesus said, go and preach the gospel to EVERY creature, how did it refer to ONLY people looking for fellowship?

NO! If all people are practicing what Jesus taught then there will be no more wars just as Jehovah's Witnesses have successfully erased the politics, racism and military services from their midst! Isaiah 2:2-4
Any right thinking person know that if these three are removed the world will be peaceful.

Congratulations on erasing ..... military services? Look. I wasn't making any reference to peace in that reply. I don't know why you keep bringing it up. I said all arguments you use for your faith, can be used for others as well.

You seem to hold the notion that the truth, about God, or the right religion is whatever brings peace on earth. But that is already presupposing what the truth should be. The truth about a god, or gods, is the truth, irrespective of whether it leads to peace or not. Peace is not dependent on a god. It is dependent on human relations, and understanding. Stop trying to rope God, and moreover, your specific concept of God, into everything.

Can the other groups you mentioned stop their members from killing people indiscriminately during politics and racism?
Guy they can't! in fact they will kill their own members in other countries justifying it with military services. That is what JWs will never do!

No group on this planet can boast of erasing politics, racism and military services from the hearts of their adherents because they're all thinking of how to vote the right person into their government house and that's what will cause a division among them no matter the religion except Jesus' true disciples (JWs) who only believe in God's Kingdom.
So my friend you're wrong, what i'm telling you can never be use against me because in my faith we must not raise weapons against anyone no matter what happens!

Ok... I think i know where this is going. It's beginning to look like a case of "my belief system is better than your own, and is the only way to peace/heaven/paradise/utopia", which un-ironically, leads to conflict. And because of the mindset you have, you'll use the squabbles between other religions to justify your beliefs.

Also, you're comparing JWs, which are a sect in Christianiy (a religion), to the entirety of other religions. That's a faulty comparison. Why not actually search for the different sects of different religions, and check if they also promote peace like you. There are sects of buddhism, hinduism, taoism, and even islam that all promote peace. JWs are not an exception to the rule.

Also, I don't know if you noticed, but not everyone wants to be ruled by the supposed words of a Palestinian dude that got shanked while he was on a cross. I say this with no disrespect to the individual. Running the affairs of the world is a lot more complex than just saying "love your neighbor". And the fact that JWs tend to stay away from political affairs only seems to prove my point even further.

Dtruthspeaker:


Correction! You don't need to be bad to use or adopt snakes, sticks, acid and poison.

2. Creations do not dictate to their Creators. A pencil or phone cannot instruct you on what would cause conflict or not.

You haven't answered my question. I asked... If it is possible, like we've seen, for a human to not look like a pencil, then isn't it possible, for a god, to not have the bad attributes assigned to humans, like envy, greed, jealousy, hatred, and so on?

You seem to lean towards the position that a god, if it exists, MUST have these attributes that would lead to conflict in the presence of other gods. And I'm saying that while it's theoretically possible, it's also possible for it NOT to, just as we, the creators of pencils, do not look like pencils.

I never said a pencil instructs me on what to do. I am not instructing a god, if it exists, on what qualities to have. I, like the pencil, if it were sentient, am only wondering what qualities a creator, if it existed, would have. It could look like a pencil like me, or it could look like something else.

A god/gods could have our attributes, and then be at risk of conflict, or it could have a whole different set of attributes, and not be at risk on conflict in the presence of other gods or deities.

"For everything, there's a creator"

Nothing happens until it is created.

HE IS "THE SUPREME SPIRIT AND LIVES IN "GOD'S SPHERE" FROM THE PRYING SELFISH HUMAN EYES.

Wilgrea7:

You haven't answered my question. I asked... If it is possible, like we've seen, for a human to not look like a pencil, then isn't it possible, for a god, to not have the bad attributes assigned to humans, like envy, greed, jealousy, hatred, and so on?

I have answered the question by showing you that it is unreasonable and invalid.

Because like you, you have a right to make the pencil different from you and giving it many things plus creating other things which can affect the continuity or discontinuuity of it eg sharpener, eraser, pencil shredder etc..

Wilgrea7:

You seem to lean towards the position that a god, if it exists, MUST have these attributes that would lead to conflict in the presence of other gods.

Reargument! I have already concluded showing and proving how God Truly Exists and you could not give any reasonable rebuttal nor counter to it.

Secondly, I have already conclusively shown and proven how it is impossible for 2 Powers to rule over a subject that can be lawbreaking and you had no reasonable rebuttal either.

So this is you showing that in spite of the evidence given in proof of this matter which as you said, you find no fault in them, choosing to refuse to believe and accept the Existence of God, as I had told you since the beginning, in accordance with your wish and powers (rights).

And this is in addition to your contrary double position of "God does not exist /more than one God", which is incompatible with each other for it should be that it is either God does not exist or that God exist but He is not One, A-Lone.

The 2 positions can not exist side by side. One cancels the other. Therefore, you are not within reasonable limits as I told you earlier that anti-God people are not reasonable.

Thus, this debate shows that you have no reasonable reason for refusing to accept the existence of God other than the obvious mere exercise of your right to refuse to accept God, even in the light of Proof!

Which itself proves that you have already rejected Him in the first instance, as I told you at the first, therefore this whole debate was a nullity as I said in the beginning save at least now you are a witness that in Truth you have seen for yourself that there are many irrefutable reasonable grounds to substantiate that God is Real and He does exist.

Thus, my case is done!

Dtruthspeaker:


I have answered the question by showing you that it is unreasonable and invalid.

Because like you, you have a right to make the pencil different from you and giving it many things plus creating other things which can affect the continuity or discontinuuity of it eg sharpener, eraser, pencil shredder etc..

I'm not trying to troll or anything. I sincerely, don't see how this answers my question. You just said I have the right to make a pencil to be different from me. So i'm saying, based on that analogy, doesn't a god have a right to make humans different from it?? It's a simple yes or no answer.

Reargument! I have already concluded showing and proving how God Truly Exists and you could not give any reasonable rebuttal nor counter to it.

Secondly, I have already conclusively shown and proven how it is impossible for 2 Powers to rule over a subject that can be lawbreaking and you had no reasonable rebuttal either.

So this is you showing that in spite of the evidence given in proof of this matter which as you said, you find no fault in them, choosing to refuse to believe and accept the Existence of God, as I had told you since the beginning, in accordance with your wish and powers (rights).

Your argument for the existence of a god, is whether or not a thing can create itself. The answer is clearly no. Then, you jump to the conclusion that a god exists. I simply put forth an argument that if a thing is created, it can be done so by multiple people, and not just 1 person. And that brought us to the case of ownership.

Your position on ownership is that there can only be one owner. I gave you multiple instances, where something can be "owned" by multiple people

1. I gave the example of companies like apple, paypal, and others that were initially owned, and run by multiple people
2. I gave the example of group projects
3. I gave the example of multiple people contributing to pay someone to do something for them. In the last instance, you kept making reference to a contract without saying how the contract would resolve the ownership issue.
4. I gave the example of a child, being born to 2 parents.

I put forward the argument that even in the midst of multiple people, there could still be unity of laws, as long as all the parties involved agreed on one thing. I gave the example of parents agreeing on a child's bedtime. I gave the example of multiple engineers agreeing on what the dimensions of a car door would be. I stated that the latter applies to physical laws, like gravity, strength of the EM field, and so on.

You made reference to moral laws, and I said that moral laws are not very well defined. I agreed to open another thread on the subject to debate it more extensively. Every point you've put forward, I've shown alternatives. How am I the one who is rejecting the existence of God?

And this is in addition to your contrary double position of "God does not exist /more than one God", which is incompatible with each other for it should be that it is either God does not exist or that God exist but He is not One, A-Lone.

The 2 positions can not exist side by side. One cancels the other. Therefore, you are not within reasonable limits as I told you earlier that anti-God people are not reasonable.

I never said God doesn't exist. I said I can't find evidence that a god exists. I literally said in the past that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I also never said that multiple gods exist. For you to make such a claim, shows you really haven't been paying attention to my posts.

I've said this multiple times here. I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE, OR DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD. I am simply showing that the reason for our existence, if approached logically, can happen through a number of ways, and that it doesn't NECESSARILY have to be the way monotheists like Christians believe.

Thus, this debate shows that you have no reasonable reason for refusing to accept the existence of God other than the obvious mere exercise of your right to refuse to accept God, even in the light of Proof!

Which itself proves that you have already rejected Him in the first instance, as I told you at the first, therefore this whole debate was a nullity as I said in the beginning save at least now you are a witness that in Truth you have seen for yourself that there are many irrefutable reasonable grounds to substantiate that God is Real and He does exist.
Thus, my case is done!

I will try and spell it out very carefully again. I'm not denying, or affirming the existence of a god/gods. I'm putting forth different arguments, as to why the monotheistic position, where a single god creates and run everything, isn't the only logical conclusion that can be arrived at.

I'm asking, for people who hold such claims, they need to provide some sort of logical proof, why the other alternative points I've put forward, are impossible.

I will hand it to you. You've put forth really good points. What I did was simply counter them with other instances under which shows the same conditions could still exist. This is not a debate to prove the existence of a God. This is a debate to prove w[b]hy a certain concept of a god, is more logically possible, than another one[/b].

Wilgrea7:

I don't even know how to start pointing out how wrong this analogy is. Issues that have to do with electricity are solved by an electrical company, because they are the EXPERTS on electricity and how it works. The lay man has no idea about how electrical circuits and so on, work. That's why they'll need the electric company.

Good! So if it's not an electric company they can't solve problems having to do with electricity. That's exactly what is happening today. The only job of a SUPREME BEING is to make peace reign among his/her/it's worshipers. Remember that each human being feel he/she is free to do whatever he/she likes so in order not to endanger the lives of others a SUPREME BEING (ruler) must set the standard for right and wrong so as to make peace reign in His domain.
Therefore the one and only duty of faith is to make peace reign among adherents so in the absence of peace then such faith or religion is false! James 2:26

Wilgrea7:

A group of believers do not qualify on experts on peaceful matters. They qualify as experts on belief. Belief is not intertwined with peaceful coexistence. Peace can exist without religion. Peaceful comes from mutual understanding and reasonable tolerance. And none of those, require religion, or believers to be achieved.

The highlighted shows you're lying to your own soul!
How do you come about the idea of believers that can't work out peace among themselves?

Well perhaps you don't know what the word BELIEVE means, for your information the word BELIEVE connotes TRUST so believers are those who trust in what their fellow believer say. Imagine people who are supposed to have TRUST among themselves unable to maintain PEACE. Can you truthfully call them believers?

That's what the illustration of electric company means.

And as for your assertion that peace can work out without believe (trust) i challenge you to present any global group that has successfully achieved peace apart from Jehovah's Witnesses: the one and only organization of true believers!

Wilgrea7:

I'm not trying to troll or anything. I sincerely, don't see how this answers my question. You just said I have the right to make a pencil to be different from me. So i'm saying, based on that analogy, doesn't a god have a right to make humans different from it?

You are really messed up if you are not able to comprehend my answer because it is beyond dispute that we have exercised our right to create pencils and we do not look like them, so this re-questioning is crazy.

Wilgrea7:

The answer is clearly no. Then, you jump to the conclusion that a god exists. I simply put forth an argument that if a thing is created, it can be done so by multiple people, and not just 1 person.

And in the end your argument was based on speculation and imagination and conjectures not on any real natural living condition.

Wilgrea7:

You made reference to moral laws,..

It is you who did, I did not. I said "Law". Which is where Contract stays under, hence you are talking about creations.

quote author=Wilgrea7 post=115033154]I am simply showing that the reason for our existence, if approached logically, can happen through a number of ways, and that it doesn't NECESSARILY have to be the way monotheists like Christians believe. [/quote]

Which you did not show. I did all the showing while you queried until you either ran out of valid questions or changed post to other issues.

Wilgrea7:
I AM NOT TRYING TO PROVE, OR DISPROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A GOD...

I'm not denying, or affirming the existence of a god/gods.

And this is what is called "Double Speak". Approbating and Reprobating. Speaking from all sides of your mouth and none at all!

You can not be cutting grass in the farm and swimming at the same time which is why you are messed up.

Fix yourself!

Dtruthspeaker:


You are really messed up if you are not able to comprehend my answer because it is beyond dispute that we have exercised our right to create pencils and we do not look like them, so this re-questioning is crazy.

Thanks for pointing out the fact that I'm messed up. It means a lot to me. Going by your response, I will assume your answer is yes. So then, is it not also [b]possible[/b]for a God, to have created humans, without the God itself having human attributes like envy, greed and hatred?

And in the end your argument was based on speculation and imagination and conjectures not on any real natural living condition.

The 4 examples I gave were speculation?? Literally 3 of them are things we HAVE observed.

It is you who did, I did not. I said "Law". Which is where Contract stays under, hence you are talking about creations.

What laws were you talking about then? Because there are only 2 types that relate to this discussion. Physical and moral. And I gave you very good instances for both.

Which you did not show. I did all the showing while you queried until you either ran out of valid questions or changed post to other issues.

I gave examples. You gave examples. What exactly are you talking about?

And this is what is called "Double Speak". Approbating and Reprobating. Speaking from all sides of your mouth and none at all!

You can not be cutting grass in the farm and swimming at the same time which is why you are messed up.

Fix yourself!

How is it doublespeak? I am, and have been repeatedly saying that this discussion is not about whether or not a God exists. You're the one who thinks I'm trying to disprove god or whatever. I'm only offering different concept of God/gods.. Different views... Different ideologies. How many times do i need to say it?

MaxInDHouse:

Good! So if it's not an electric company they can't solve problems having to do with electricity.

Agreed.

The only job of a SUPREME BEING is to make peace reign among his/her/it's worshipers.

This is where we disagree. A supreme being, if it exists, does not owe you anything. It is not obligated in any way, to do anything for you. There is no law anywhere, that states that a supreme being has to care about you, or your peace.

What you're doing is imposing your desires and ideologies on what it means to be a supreme being. If you want to approach the existence of a God objectively, you need to drop ALL preconceived notions.

Remember that each human being feel he/she is free to do whatever he/she likes so in order not to endanger the lives of others a SUPREME BEING (ruler) must set the standard for right and wrong so as to make peace reign in His domain.
Therefore the one and only duty of faith is to make peace reign among adherents so in the absence of peace then such faith or religion is false! James 2:26

Same as my point above. You're projecting your desires and notions on what a supreme being is supposed to do, or has to do. If it exists, it doesn't HAVE to do anything. It's not a must. It could be a choice, but it is certainly not obligated to in any way.

The highlighted shows you're lying to your own soul!

Thanks

How do you come about the idea of believers that can't work out peace among themselves?

Well perhaps you don't know what the word BELIEVE means, for your information the word BELIEVE connotes TRUST so believers are those who trust in what their fellow believer say. Imagine people who are supposed to have TRUST among themselves unable to maintain PEACE. Can you truthfully call them believers?

You're changing the meaning of the word "believers" in the context of what we're talking about. We both know throughout this discussion, the word was used to refer to people who adhere to a certain faith, like Christianity ans Islam, and not people who simply trust each other. These linguistic gymnastics are not helping your case.

And as for your assertion that peace can work out without believe (trust) i challenge you to present a global group that has successfully achieved peace apart from Jehovah's Witnesses: the one and only organization of true believers!

I will say it once again. This is NOT a discussion about peace. I don't know why you insist on bringing it up. You don't need a "group" or "religion" to be peaceful. Your argument in favor of JWs doesn't really work. Mutual understanding, empathy, and yes, trust, are required. And those are attributes that need to exist on an individual level, not on a group level.

Wilgrea7:

This is where we disagree. A supreme being, if it exists, does not owe you anything. It is not obligated in any way, to do anything for you. There is no law anywhere, that states that a supreme being has to care about you, or your peace.

BEING means a living person therefore the one who is SUPREME connotes the highest authority over all other BEINGS.

In all cultures people do have rulers and the purpose of a ruler is to maintain peace within the subjects in anyway possible, that's why ruler do have armed security operatives to maintain law and order. It's agreed throughout the earth that rulers must be highly intelligent and capable of making the best decisions that's why imbeciles are never allowed to be king in any sane society.
Now the SUPREME BEING is believed to be higher than any ruler so in all cultures the rulers are referred to as second in command to God or demigods.
So if you don't know the real purpose of the SUPREME BEING just say you are learning for the first time, this is not rocket science the SUPREME BEING supposed to maintain PEACE in His domain, it's not His duty towards you or anybody but the reason why He is regarded as the one who is SUPREME!

Wilgrea7:
So then, is it not also [b]possible[/b]for a God, to have created humans, without the God itself having human attributes like envy, greed and hatred?

O boy, it goes without saying!

Wilgrea7:

The 4 examples I gave were speculation?? Literally 3 of them are things we HAVE observed.

Not the examples but the point you tried to raise using those examples, which was extinguished by my answer.

Wilgrea7:

What laws were you talking about then?

Just Law as it is. Both man and iPhone are under Law and have Law over them.

Wilgrea7:

How is it doublespeak? I am, and have been repeatedly saying that this discussion is not about whether or not a God exists...

You can not say that you are not trying to disprove God's existence when when you attack the proof of it on one hand.

You can not say that you not trying to prove when you give proof of disprove on the other hand.

And you can cannot say that you are not being Anti-God when you say

"This is a debate to prove WHY a certain concept of a god is more logically possible, than another one."

Dtruthspeaker:


O boy, it goes without saying!

I'll take that as another yes.

Not the examples but the point you tried to raise using those examples, which was extinguished by my answer.

I missed the part where my points were extinguished by your answer. If I'm remembering correctly, the last argument hinged on law.
Also, I wanted to say that I've not forgotten about the new thread on moral laws or morality. I've been real busy today, but I will open it soon, tomorrow, or in the next few days.

Just Law as it is. Both man and iPhone are under Law and have Law over them.

Yeah, but saying "just law as it is" doesn't really do much to take the discussion forward. In regards to laws, I showed you how the laws we can agree, that objectively govern both us, and the iphones, are physical laws. The reason I made reference to moral laws was because you said the creator would need to award judgement to people based on whether or not they adhered to the law. Which I said it can only refer to moral laws, and not physical laws.

You can not say that you are not trying to disprove God's existence when when you attack the proof of it on one hand.

You can not say that you not trying to prove when you give proof of disprove on the other hand.

2 things. First of all, I'm not "attacking" any proof. Any sort of evidence should be subject to scrutiny. That's how you know real evidence from fakes. Secondly, I don't remember having attacked your arguments in any sense. I never tried to prove your arguments false. I only showed possible alternatives.

If you read through my replies, you'll see where I said several times, that your concepts or arguments could be right, just as much as the other ones I put forth. So if i were to choose one over the other, I'd need a sort of extra proof.

And you can cannot say that you are not being Anti-God when you say

"This is a debate to prove WHY a certain concept of a god is more logically possible, than another one."

How is presenting alternative concepts of a creator being anti-god? Being anti-god would be if i tried to prove that a god DIDN'T exist at all. Not me trying to offer alternative concepts of how the supposed God/Gods would be like.

MaxInDHouse:


BEING means a living person therefore the one who is SUPREME connotes the highest authority over all other BEINGS.

Granted

In all cultures people do have rulers and the purpose of a ruler is to maintain peace within the subjects in anyway possible, that's why ruler do have armed security operatives to maintain law and order. It's agreed throughout the earth that rulers must be highly intelligent and capable of making the best decisions that's why imbeciles are never allowed to be king in any sane society.
Now the SUPREME BEING is believed to be higher than any ruler so in all cultures the rulers are referred to as second in command to God or demigods.
So if you don't know the real purpose of the SUPREME BEING just say you are learning for the first time, this is not rocket science the SUPREME BEING supposed to maintain PEACE in His domain, it's not His duty towards you or anybody but the reason why He is regarded as the one who is SUPREME!

Good analogy, but still faulty. People elect leaders from among themselves, to rule them, based on who they think is the best choice. Because of the process of election, and choosing one from among themselves, the leader is obligated to serve the masses, and as you've described, promote peace and so on.

Let's assume monotheism is true, and a single creator God exists. You did not create him. You did not elect him. You did not choose him from among yourselves to be your leader. You had absolutely no say in his position as a creator, or in his affairs, but he can choose to have a say in yours. In terms of ranking, he is ranked above every other thing he created, because he is the creator. But that doesn't bind him to any obligation.

He could create you, and choose to watch you fight each other, simply for the sake of his amusement
He could simply not care
He could choose to interfere in your affairs, simply to cause chaos
He could choose to interfere, for the sake of your wellbeing, as you've described
He could choose not to interfere at all
He could choose to act in a million other ways towards you

HE IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION, TO GIVE YOU ANYTHING, OR DO ANYTHING FOR YOU. Not peace, not protection. Nothing. I repeat. He can choose to, but he is under no obligation to

Wilgrea7:

I missed the part where my points were extinguished by your answer. If I'm remembering correctly, the last argument hinged on law.

And when you hear Law, then you know that you have landed on creations.

Wilgrea7:

2 things. First of all, I'm not "attacking" any proof. Any sort of evidence should be subject to scrutiny.

And when you counter after your scrutiny, you attack.

Wilgrea7:

If you read through my replies, you'll see where I said several times, that your concepts or arguments could be right,

1 x 1 is 1, which is right. No "could be right" just "right". Any other answer other than 1, eg you saying 1 x 1 is 11 will not stand.

But you can say so that it is 11 and there is absolutely nothing I can do if you refuse to accept that 1 is the only Right answer.

Wilgrea7:

How is presenting alternative concepts of a creator being anti-god? ...

That is the import of your statement "This is a debate to prove WHY a certain concept of a god is more logically possible, than another one."

In which you spell God with small letter "g" exactly as one who hates or has no regard for God would do!

Dtruthspeaker:


1 x 1 is 1, which is right. No "could be right" just "right". Any other answer other than 1, eg you saying 1 x 1 is 11 will not stand.

But you can say so that it is 11 and there is absolutely nothing I can do if you refuse to accept that 1 is the only Right answer.

Wrong analogy. We're not discussing mathematics here. We're discussing about the nature of something we cannot see, and cannot verify. So our only tool here is logic.

A much better analogy, is to see a box, and to be told that there is a ball in the box. The ball could be

1) Blue
2) Yellow
3) Orange
4) Brown
5) Transparent

I think you get my point. The ball could be logically any of the options, and even more. Saying the ball could be one, or the other, is being intellectually honest. Saying that you could be right, is being intellectually honest. It doesn't mean I'm saying you ARE right. Not until we can prove or verify your claims. You could also be wrong.

The example of 1x1 does not relate to the nature of our discussion in the slightest possible way.

That is the import of your statement "This is a debate to prove WHY a certain concept of a god is more logically possible, than another one."

I ask again. How is proving a certain concept of a god over another concept anti-god? If I prove to you that the sky is blue, rather than red, would you say I am anti-sky? Also, I'm not saying one concept is better than the other. It's YOU who's trying to prove that the monotheistic position for example, is the only possible scenario. I'm just showing other scenarios, where things could still work out.

In which you spell God with small letter "g" exactly as one who hates or has no regard for God would do!

I apologize if my use of the small letter offends you. I don't believe in any specific God, so I tend to use both small g and big G interchangeably. It's more of a case of whether i want to go through the stress of capitalizing, rather than hatred or intended disrespect.

Wilgrea7:

Granted
Good analogy, but still faulty. People elect leaders from among themselves, to rule them, based on who they think is the best choice. Because of the process of election, and choosing one from among themselves, the leader is obligated to serve the masses, and as you've described, promote peace and so on.
Let's assume monotheism is true, and a single creator God exists. You did not create him. You did not elect him. You did not choose him from among yourselves to be your leader. You had absolutely no say in his position as a creator, or in his affairs, but he can choose to have a say in yours. In terms of ranking, he is ranked above every other thing he created, because he is the creator. But that doesn't bind him to any obligation.
He could create you, and choose to watch you fight each other, simply for the sake of his amusement
He could simply not care
He could choose to interfere in your affairs, simply to cause chaos
He could choose to interfere, for the sake of your wellbeing, as you've described
He could choose not to interfere at all
He could choose to act in a million other ways towards you
HE IS UNDER NO OBLIGATION, TO GIVE YOU ANYTHING, OR DO ANYTHING FOR YOU. Not peace, not protection. Nothing. I repeat. He can choose to, but he is under no obligation to

Now this is where the Bible is incomparable to whatever you might have heard about other Gods!

First of all the Bible explained when the idea of someone being chosen to rule over others started, that's the meaning of the tree of good and evil God strictly warned the first human pair not to eat. Genesis 2:17

According to that book the one and only ruler who supposed to set standards for right and wrong among humans is God {Psalms 83:18} not humans because nepotism will surely lead humans to prejudice {Ecclesiastes 4:1; 8:9} that's why the true God didn't appoint a King over His people until they demanded for a human king like other nations {1Samuel 8:5} even though the idea sounds really bad in the hearing of Samuel God's prophet {1Samuel 8:6} yet the true God told Samuel to give them what they wanted, in fact the true God uttered a statement that clearly shows it's the job of God to provide all what a ruler supposed to do for His people! 1Samuel 8:7

Then God told Samuel to explain to the people what the king they're demanding will require of them {1Samuel 8:10-18} but they insisted on their demand! 1Samuel 8:19-20

Out of all the deities ever known on this planet it's only the God of Israel that gave His people a written constitution of over 600 laws, and do you know the significance of those laws? Well it's to maintain law and order (PEACE) among his people! Mark 12:28-31

That's why Jehovah's Witnesses are confident to stand before anybody to prove to you that there is no other God apart from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who knows the root cause of mankind's troubles which is the struggle among humans over whose right is it to set standards for right and wrong (Rulership)

So let it be known today that the major role of a SUPREME BEING is to maintain PEACE among His worshipers in the absence of that such a being is not supreme but lesser spirits creatures ~ demons!