God 3%. Satan 97%. Does God needs a new marketing man?

[Greatest I am]

God 3%. Satan 97%. Does God needs a new marketing man?

 

Many Christians take the view that the Bible says only a few will be saved. There are verses which show just that. You know, the narrow road and the wide road. It also shows that God would have known ahead of time that his program of salvation would be a marketing disaster. Scripture says he is all knowing. Yet he carried on with his present plan rather than choose a different program which could have been a marketing coup and show him as a successful planer instead of a dismal marketing flop.

 

Why would God not put forward a successful marketing plan?

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3LNL6wKhXA

 

It should have been quite easy for him. He had all the answers to any survey question he could have asked in order to gage the best approach to winning the hearts and minds of the population. Omnipotence includes infinite powers of persuasion and any sales or marketing man will know that with that at hand, anyone could deal with any objections to the sale, which is usually the only hindrance to the sale. In this case, selling us on the notion that he is God and should be followed.

 

Give those same tools to any fool and he would become the new Man/God of the whole world hands down. I am not saying that God is a fool but any marketing firm would fire his ass.

 

I find it quite strange that at the end of days, Satan will be sitting there in hell gloating over the fact that God has only a small % of all the souls he has created even as scripture says he created all of those souls perfect.

 

Perfect souls would of course make the perfect choice.

 

Perfect souls choosing who we are told is the bad guy? What the hell.

 

Poor God could not get out of heaven in the beginning without losing Satan and 1/3 of God’s angels. He could not get out of Eden without losing Adam and Eve. He could not impress all those of Noah’s day. Not even the dumb animals and even today, he is losing most of us to secular law instead of Biblical law.

 

Adam and Eve should have been a trophy for God as they did exactly what scripture says we should all do. Learn of good and evil and emulate him and be as bright as Gods. Yet when Adam and Eve became as Gods, God showed great displeasure and cursed everybody up and down including the earth. This I find really strange but then, God works in mysterious ways.

 

Perhaps that includes being a loser to Satan.

 

Can’t fight the Bible facts folks.

 

What do you think?

 

 

 

Does God need a new marketing man to reverse his dismal showing?

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Is God's ultimate goal to convert the most souls?

[ydoaPs]

Is God's ultimate goal to convert the most souls?

According to Supernatural, souls are quite powerful. In fact, a few extra souls are enough to change an angel into a god.

[Brainteaserfan]

According to Supernatural, souls are quite powerful. In fact, a few extra souls are enough to change an angel into a god.

Who is Supernatural? Where do you see that souls can change an angel into a god (unless you are considering that anything being worshipped by a couple of people turns anything into a god)

[lemur]

Maybe creating Satan, hell, and the freedom to choose evil over good IS God's marketing plan for heaven. If you believe in reincarnation as a means of experiencing eternal hell on Earth through the reaping of bad karma, everyone no matter how deep they've mired themselves in evil continues to have to option of choosing to confess sin and accept salvation. Admittedly, most Christians I know reject the idea of reincarnation and karma but I find that they are quite compatible with the Christian theology.

[Brainteaserfan]

Maybe creating Satan, hell, and the freedom to choose evil over good IS God's marketing plan for heaven. If you believe in reincarnation as a means of experiencing eternal hell on Earth through the reaping of bad karma, everyone no matter how deep they've mired themselves in evil continues to have to option of choosing to confess sin and accept salvation. Admittedly, most Christians I know reject the idea of reincarnation and karma but I find that they are quite compatible with the Christian theology.

Read Luke 16:19-31. There is no second chance.

[A Tripolation]

Is God's ultimate goal to convert the most souls?

 

It's not.

 

Greatest I Am: I can answer your entire post: Free Will.

[ydoaPs]

That doesn't really answer anything.

[A Tripolation]

God can't directly market, because that would interfere with free will. It answers everything.

[Greatest I am]

Is God's ultimate goal to convert the most souls?

 

2 Peter 3:9 KJ

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

Seems like it.

 

Regards

DL

 

Maybe creating Satan, hell, and the freedom to choose evil over good IS God's marketing plan for heaven. If you believe in reincarnation as a means of experiencing eternal hell on Earth through the reaping of bad karma, everyone no matter how deep they've mired themselves in evil continues to have to option of choosing to confess sin and accept salvation. Admittedly, most Christians I know reject the idea of reincarnation and karma but I find that they are quite compatible with the Christian theology.

 

2 Peter 3:9 KJ

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

If the above is true, then God wants all of us to sin so that we can repent.

 

Sinning is generally profitable to the sinner, and often fun, and since we are cursed with original sin and a sinning nature at birth, according to dogma, then all we can do is follow our sinning natures.

 

Enjoy your sins then, as I have often enjoyed mine, but keep them small.

 

Regards

DL

 

Read Luke 16:19-31. There is no second chance.

 

 

If not, consider.

 

Punishment is given to change attitudes or actions.

 

To torture forever without purpose is then just done for the sake of cruelty.

 

Hardly what a God would do.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

God can't directly market, because that would interfere with free will. It answers everything.

 

Is, though shalt do this and though shalt not do that, not interfering?

 

Do you realy think you can get away with your simplistic one liners in debate of complex issues?

 

Do you really see God's idea of free will-----Do things my way or burn forever---- as any kind of free will.

That is a threat.

Especially knowing that the first time A & E did their will instead of God's, he threw a super sissy fit all over all of mankind.

 

Regards

DL

[ydoaPs]

God can't directly market, because that would interfere with free will. It answers everything.

o.O

 

I was unaware that advertising interfered with free will. I should write my congressman about this. Thank you for opening my eyes, Trip.

[Edtharan]

It's not.

 

Greatest I Am: I can answer your entire post: Free Will.

Perhaps, but there are plenty of examples of God interfering in the bible. Even just to reveal Himself to people would be a kind of marketing, and thus violate "Free Will".

 

So, if God is truly against violating free will, then we can conclude that the God of the bible is not actually God. But then this means that violating free will might not be a problem, and the whole of the bible could be wrong (which opens a completely different set of problems for religions.

[Greatest I am]

Perhaps, but there are plenty of examples of God interfering in the bible. Even just to reveal Himself to people would be a kind of marketing, and thus violate "Free Will".

 

So, if God is truly against violating free will, then we can conclude that the God of the bible is not actually God. But then this means that violating free will might not be a problem, and the whole of the bible could be wrong (which opens a completely different set of problems for religions.

 

 

That and the 10 commandments.

Commandment play havoc with free will. Orders always negate free will if enforced.

 

Regards

DL

[Brainteaserfan]

2 Peter 3:9 KJ

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

Seems like it.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

2 Peter 3:9 KJ

The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

 

If the above is true, then God wants all of us to sin so that we can repent.

 

Sinning is generally profitable to the sinner, and often fun, and since we are cursed with original sin and a sinning nature at birth, according to dogma, then all we can do is follow our sinning natures.

 

Enjoy your sins then, as I have often enjoyed mine, but keep them small.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

 

 

If not, consider.

 

Punishment is given to change attitudes or actions.

 

To torture forever without purpose is then just done for the sake of cruelty.

 

Hardly what a God would do.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

 

 

Is, though shalt do this and though shalt not do that, not interfering?

 

Do you realy think you can get away with your simplistic one liners in debate of complex issues?

 

Do you really see God's idea of free will-----Do things my way or burn forever---- as any kind of free will.

That is a threat.

Especially knowing that the first time A & E did their will instead of God's, he threw a super sissy fit all over all of mankind.

 

Regards

DL

You say that He wants us to sin so that we can repent?

Romans 3:23

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

 

We have already sinned and he wants us to repent and believe on Him so that He does not need to punish us. Which leads me to my next point, that punishment is not necessarily given for a change of attitude. For example, what's the point of life in jail, or the death sentence? http://dictionary.com/d/?q=Punishment&submit-result-SEARCHD=Search Where do you see that punishment is given for a change of attitude?

[Marat]

Religion is stuck in a paradoxical situation. If God attempted to present himself, communicate his message to humanity, or represent himself in a human form, and did so adequately, then there is no way that anyone could have doubted that what they were encountering was divine, as even some of the Apostles seem to have done. So in this case there would have been no room for free will and thus no room for blame or sin, since everyone would have accepted the self-evident validity of what they saw.

 

They could only doubt it sufficiently to retain room for free will so that they could get credit for faith and belief if God presented himself inadequately or deceptively, but then why would he bother with the presentation at all? To trick people by doing a poor job of it?

[Greatest I am]

You say that He wants us to sin so that we can repent?

Romans 3:23

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;"

 

We have already sinned and he wants us to repent and believe on Him so that He does not need to punish us. Which leads me to my next point, that punishment is not necessarily given for a change of attitude. For example, what's the point of life in jail, or the death sentence? http://dictionary.co...-SEARCHD=Search Where do you see that punishment is given for a change of attitude?

 

We incarcerate for self protection.

 

God has no need of protection.

 

 

If we, like God, could know what is in the perpetrators heart and know that he has repented and changed his attitude, it would be foolish for us to continue to incarcerate.

 

If your God does, then he is not only foolish but senselessly cruel.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

Religion is stuck in a paradoxical situation. If God attempted to present himself, communicate his message to humanity, or represent himself in a human form, and did so adequately, then there is no way that anyone could have doubted that what they were encountering was divine, as even some of the Apostles seem to have done. So in this case there would have been no room for free will and thus no room for blame or sin, since everyone would have accepted the self-evident validity of what they saw.

 

They could only doubt it sufficiently to retain room for free will so that they could get credit for faith and belief if God presented himself inadequately or deceptively, but then why would he bother with the presentation at all? To trick people by doing a poor job of it?

 

It gets worse.

A & E are not shown as having any doubt of God being God, yet Christian dogma, not Jewish dogma, still shows then ignoring his command to stay as dumb as the lesser animals.

Christians see that as our fall yet the Jews thought of it as our elevation.

 

Regards

DL

 

 

[Brainteaserfan]

Religion is stuck in a paradoxical situation. If God attempted to present himself, communicate his message to humanity, or represent himself in a human form, and did so adequately, then there is no way that anyone could have doubted that what they were encountering was divine, as even some of the Apostles seem to have done. So in this case there would have been no room for free will and thus no room for blame or sin, since everyone would have accepted the self-evident validity of what they saw.

 

They could only doubt it sufficiently to retain room for free will so that they could get credit for faith and belief if God presented himself inadequately or deceptively, but then why would he bother with the presentation at all? To trick people by doing a poor job of it?

11 of the 12 disciples were killed for their faith. The other one was placed in a vat of boiling water, but it didn't kill him so he was exiled. Would these people (some quite well educated) give their lives for anything but something that they saw as divine?

 

We incarcerate for self protection.

 

God has no need of protection.

 

 

If we, like God, could know what is in the perpetrators heart and know that he has repented and changed his attitude, it would be foolish for us to continue to incarcerate.

 

If your God does, then he is not only foolish but senselessly cruel.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

 

 

 

It gets worse.

A & E are not shown as having any doubt of God being God, yet Christian dogma, not Jewish dogma, still shows then ignoring his command to stay as dumb as the lesser animals.

Christians see that as our fall yet the Jews thought of it as our elevation.

 

Regards

DL

In order to be a just God, he must give what is fair. Those who have earned punishment will get it. That is not senselessly cruel.

 

I think that this verse is what you were refering to. A & E, I believe, were intelligent before the fall. They simply didn't know right from wrong.

Genesis 2:17

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Not the tree of all knowledge.

Edited June 9, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[Marat]

But how do you explain 'doubting Thomas' and Peter denying Christ three times after the crucifixion? I would think that if a person had ever been in the presence of God, even embodied as a person, he would be so overwhelmed by the pressingly obvious divinity of the person that doubt would be out of the question. And how could his disciples be insufficiently motivated to stay awake with him on the night before the crucifixion? "Hey look, God-in-human-form over there is schmitzing because he has to die tomorrow, but I'm so sleepy I can't really be bothered staying up with him." It just doesn't seem to be a plausible response of people who had actually been in the presence of the divinity.

[Brainteaserfan]

But how do you explain 'doubting Thomas' and Peter denying Christ three times after the crucifixion? I would think that if a person had ever been in the presence of God, even embodied as a person, he would be so overwhelmed by the pressingly obvious divinity of the person that doubt would be out of the question. And how could his disciples be insufficiently motivated to stay awake with him on the night before the crucifixion? "Hey look, God-in-human-form over there is schmitzing because he has to die tomorrow, but I'm so sleepy I can't really be bothered staying up with him." It just doesn't seem to be a plausible response of people who had actually been in the presence of the divinity.

Firstly, I believe that we are always in the presence of God because He is omnipresent. However, I think that Peter and Thomas did what they did because the current Jewish thinking was that they were going to have a messiah that would rescue the from the Romans. (They were mixing the 2nd coming with the 1st.) With this in mind, I think that that is why the disciples were, understandably, confused when Jesus was crucified, despite all that He had said. They were human, just like you and me.

 

To answer why they didn't stay up with him is relatively easy. If you have ever attended a traditional Jewish Seder, you will find that they drink LOTS and LOTS of wine. (3 glasses if I remember correctly- that's a minimum, usually more that that). Being drunk and perhaps not yet fully believing what was about to take place, they fell asleep.

 

I think that you mean "schvitzing", not "schmitzing".

Edited June 10, 2011 by Brainteaserfan

[Edtharan]

Religion is stuck in a paradoxical situation. If God attempted to present himself, communicate his message to humanity, or represent himself in a human form, and did so adequately, then there is no way that anyone could have doubted that what they were encountering was divine, as even some of the Apostles seem to have done. So in this case there would have been no room for free will and thus no room for blame or sin, since everyone would have accepted the self-evident validity of what they saw.

 

They could only doubt it sufficiently to retain room for free will so that they could get credit for faith and belief if God presented himself inadequately or deceptively, but then why would he bother with the presentation at all? To trick people by doing a poor job of it?

If you truly have free will, then even absolute proof will not take it away, as you would still be free to believe against reality anyway. You are confusing having enough information to make the correct choice, with the loss of free will. They are not the same.

 

Physics is about as certain as we have come to how the universe works, but there are still people, even when presented with this almost absolute proof, will choose to believe otherwise. They will believe, against the evidence, in their own fantasy.

 

So, if you believe that we have free will, and that proof would remove that free will, then how can you account for these people?

 

Proof does not remove free will, it just makes good choices much more likely.

 

So, if God wanted us to make the right choices more often, then He should give us 100% certainty of His existence. It would not remove free will, it would only give us better information with which to make the right choice.

[Greatest I am]

In order to be a just God, he must give what is fair. Those who have earned punishment will get it. That is not senselessly cruel.

 

I think that this verse is what you were refering to. A & E, I believe, were intelligent before the fall. They simply didn't know right from wrong.

Genesis 2:17

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Not the tree of all knowledge.

 

 

If they did not know right from wrong, then it was wrong of God to punish them.

 

A just God would punish to change attitudes and actions.

 

To punish without these in mind is just purposeless torture and not any kind of justice at all.

 

Do you punish your children if no benefit is to be gained?

 

 

 

In order to be a just God, he must give what is fair. Those who have earned punishment will get it. That is not senselessly cruel.

 

I think that this verse is what you were refering to. A & E, I believe, were intelligent before the fall. They simply didn't know right from wrong.

Genesis 2:17

17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

 

It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Not the tree of all knowledge.

 

 

 

As to earning punishment. Punishment with a purpose perhaps but not if it serves no purpose.

 

Punishment is usually given to change ideas, attitudes and actions of a sinner.

 

If punishment is given for any other reason, then it is being given without an altruistic purpose and would be given out of a sense of cruelty.

 

Does hell serve the purpose above?

 

If so, to continue to torture a repented soul is not just.

 

If not then it is cruelty that is motivating the eternal torture.

 

Better to shovel coal in hell than to spend eternity watching friends, neighbors and our children in torture and flame forever.

Only a sick mind would conceive of such a situation or wish it upon anyone. That is why God would not do such because then, heaven would be hell.

 

If those in heaven did not go insane then they could not have once been human or good.

 

 

You should think of hell just a bit and recognize that God would not create such an immoral construct.

 

Regards

 

DL

Edited June 10, 2011 by Greatest I am

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

But how do you explain 'doubting Thomas' and Peter denying Christ three times after the crucifixion? I would think that if a person had ever been in the presence of God, even embodied as a person, he would be so overwhelmed by the pressingly obvious divinity of the person that doubt would be out of the question. And how could his disciples be insufficiently motivated to stay awake with him on the night before the crucifixion? "Hey look, God-in-human-form over there is schmitzing because he has to die tomorrow, but I'm so sleepy I can't really be bothered staying up with him." It just doesn't seem to be a plausible response of people who had actually been in the presence of the divinity.

I think that's a misrepresentation of the Biblical stories. Doubting Thomas did not doubt Christ's divinity, he doubted that the other disciples had seen him resurrected. He could not trust their eyewitness testimony on such an important matter.

 

Likewise, Peter's denials of Christ were because he wanted to stay out of trouble. He was not asked "is this man God?", he was asked "you aren't one of this man's disciples too, are you?" His denial kept him out of trouble. There's not much about sleepiness in the Gospel accounts.

[A Tripolation]

Do you realy think you can get away with your simplistic one liners in debate of complex issues?

 

Your issue isn't complex. Don't act like you've stumbled upon some new theological issue. You haven't. Yours is just a rehash of the same old "Why would God create people he knew were going to end up in Hell?"

 

Do you really see God's idea of free will-----Do things my way or burn forever---- as any kind of free will.

That is a threat.

 

As near as I understand the Christian sect that believes this, it's not God threatening anyone. He's not saying, "Choose me or die." He's saying, "Choose me, because you're already dead."

 

Especially knowing that the first time A & E did their will instead of God's, he threw a super sissy fit all over all of mankind.

 

No. He told them that there would be consequences. They valued their judgement over God's. He did nothing He did not warn was going to happen. They even knew afterwards they did something bad, because they tried to hide.

 

I was unaware that advertising interfered with free will. I should write my congressman about this. Thank you for opening my eyes, Trip.

 

Advertising does interfere with free will. It's trying to persuade you to do one thing over the other. Therefore, the choice is no longer wholly yours, as you can't control the subtle thoughts that now accompany your decisions, based on this marketing.

 

And you're welcome.

 

Even just to reveal Himself to people would be a kind of marketing, and thus violate "Free Will".

 

You're right. And ever since we were tasked with accepting Jesus as a personal savior, God has never revealed himself to man. Instead, Christians were tasked with spreading the word of God. I always assumed because he himself could no longer do it.

 

Or did I miss the part where a god-like entity revealed himself to humanity in the past 2000 years?

Edited June 10, 2011 by A Tripolation

[Marat]

My point about doubting Thomas, Peter's abjurations, and the Disciples inability to keep watch with Christ even though he wanted this is that this type of normal human response makes sense only if we are talking about the reactions of people to human authority figures. We don't always trust them 100%, we can't always be perfectly dedicated to them. But if you had really seen God incarnate before you and lived with him for some time, it is utterly inconceivable that you could doubt that he could do anything, no matter how miraculous; or that it was worth being murdered by an angry mob rather than offend him; or that it was worth staying up all night with him if he apparently needed this, no matter what the motivations for not doing so. This is supposed to be God we're talking about! Wouldn't you cut off your arm with a dull butter knife rather than do the most minor thing to disappoint him?

 

I think the reason the Bible stories don't make sense on this point is simply due to a failure of imagination on the part of the human authors; if the stories were real people would have been struck speechless on seeing God incarnate in human form, rather than being able to doubt or mock him, as the members of the Senhedron did.

[A Tripolation]

But how do you explain 'doubting Thomas' and Peter denying Christ three times after the crucifixion?

 

Peter wasn't denying his divinity. He was denying that he ever followed Christ at all.

 

Again, Doubting Thomas didn't disbelieve Christ's divinity. He didn't believe the others had seen Christ resurrected. In texts that are not part of the Catholic canon, there are at least three different resurrection stories, so I don't blame him.

 

Edit:

And I see Cap has already addressed these misinterpretations. My apologies for posting duplicate thoughts.

 

But if you had really seen God incarnate before you and lived with him for some time, it is utterly inconceivable that you could doubt that he could do anything, no matter how miraculous; or that it was worth being murdered by an angry mob rather than offend him;

 

Knowing what the Romans were capable of, it's not hard to believe that Peter denied Christ at first. Christ even foretold he would.

Edited June 10, 2011 by A Tripolation