Rule three:

No rule shall be considered valid until it has been published in a confirmation post by Lord of the Game, Sir Banno.
Any rule posted before aforementioned confirmation of previous post will be cancelled and considered null and void.

I had such high hopes for Fred as Supreme Leader, but he just drank the toilet water and started chewing on the wall, so I'm not sure he's the intellectual I thought he was. — Hanover

He sounds as though he is on the same level as some world leaders, don't give up on him yet.

We white people should feel guilty because we are the beneficiaries of racial privilege. We white people have more power, more stuff, and more resources, and nicer lives than people of color have. Not only do we have a nicer life than people of color, but we would prefer that it stay that way. — Bitter Crank

Maybe I am living in the wrong place at the wrong time.I don't have more stuff than people of color. And I certainly hope that those that have less than me, whatever their color, on day can have as much as me. Just like I wish I had as much as those rich people do. I don't prefer that thing stay the way they are.

If you don't feel guilty about being a rich white male, or his fortunate wife, how did you manage to solve your guilt problem? — Bitter Crank

I don't feel guilty about being about being a rich white male, because I am not one. So I don't have a problem to solve.

Since god is the creator of all; omnipresent, omniscient, then every thing that happens is the will of god. — charleton

But supposedly, according to the OP, we can "resist sin". So he must think it exists.
Personally I don't think sin exists either. We just manage to fuck things up sometimes.

This is a contradiction of the definition of the Classical God; so self refuting. — charleton

How so?

Sin does not exist, and so there are no consequences to it. — charleton

Sin - An act that is regarded by theologians as a transgression of God's will.

Without god there is no sin, only things that one should probably not do. To which there are consequences.

God cannot decide — bahman

Either that or he does not exist. X-)

I'd never use the bible for moral guidance, as there are so many more relevant books available. Even though there might be some good advice in the Bible I could never condone any book that supports genocide and the stoning of adulteresses. — charleton

That makes at least two of us. (Y)

And yet... The Bible is a book almost exclusively designed to elucidate God's intent and to exhort his followers to act accordingly. — charleton

I think the key word there is designed. The whole original books of writing have been combined, changed, edited and altered to suit the people that want to use it to control others.
How does a book full of stories, some true, some still unproven and some that are obviously fiction, need the guidance of a god to write?
Many books that have been written contain basically the same content, family histories, mystery, romance, sci-fi. And many of them contain advice and guidance on how to live a good life and give examples of what happens when you do not follow the rules.

Just put a thank you button there.

That cannot be mistaken for likes or up-votes and it will not confuse anyone about its purpose. At least I don't think it would be confusing.

But the Bible says that God's ways are mysterious so there is no reliable way to determine his intent. — Abdul

You answered your own question, we cannot know why god does things.

It is always beyond our strength when we sin or do something wrong. — bahman

If we have free will we can decide to do something or not. If we decide to do something knowing that it is a sin then we should be prepared to suffer the consequences.
If we don't have free will then as the saying goes "Shit happens"

Maybe there is no god! End of paradox.

We always do what God knows and there is no conflict between God's knowledge and free will unless we are informed and wish to do opposite. — bahman

So if we somehow find out what god knows we are going to do we are free to change the future? That would mean that god did not know the future.

But what does happen for their free will? — bahman

The existence of a god that knows everything that is going to happen means that there is no free will.
if he knows your future from the day you are born then nothing can be changed, you have no decisions to take.

There are claim of prophecy in the past and even now. — bahman

If indeed god did actually tell them the future then he told them what WOULD happen not what COULD happen. There was no way they were allowed to change the future.

One can ask God about this knowledge and decide opposite which is paradoxical. — bahman

Unfortunately this is not true, I have never heard of anyone getting answers from god. So no one can decide the opposite.

Space missions are about to get very complicated. — David Solman

They already are, but don't worry about it. Mankind will not be leaving the solar system in your lifetime.

Labels come and go from fashion. Today they are hip, tomorrow they are insulting. Political correctness says that labels should be non offensive, to race, age, gender, class, religion. But eventually any term used to specify a group will become offensive.
Hobo, bum, homeless, street dweller, rough sleeper all mean the same thing, a person with nowhere to live. But do the people that have the label attached to them care what they get called? I don't think it makes much difference to the few that I know. They mostly feel offended because no one cares about them than the names they are called.

One of the things I do find annoying is negative labeling used to describe people, not in the sense of offensive but in the sense of not applying. A non believer or non smoker seems like a stupid way to describe a person, like listing things that do not apply.

I resolved last year not to make resolutions that I probable would not keep, think I'll do the same this year because I actually managed to keep my resolution.

Are you in the same place as me when I'm in Times Square and you're 10 miles above? — Marchesk

Obviously no. That is kind of silly.
We are different people and would never been in the same place in this dimension.
I am 10 miles away so I am in a different position in this dimension.

Would different dimensions, if they exist, be a part of this universe?
If you say yes, then they have to occupy the same space.
If you say no, then you have to go onto another idea called multiverse theory.

How could it occupy the same place? — Marchesk

If it is in a different dimension why would there be a problem with it being in the same place.

Any idea what you want your last words to be? :D — ArguingWAristotleTiff

"Not working today."

I think that about covers it. :)

There are no better words than last words. — charleton

You are very confused, for without first words there can be no last words. So first words are the best.

When I'm intent on displaying my stupidity I prefer to do it by cartoon. — Mongrel

What kind do you prefer?

Got any last words? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Ultima palabra.

Last word in Spanish. :D

If the world itself is divine, then divine is all there is. — Cavacava

Sorry, but that does not explain how someone can be god.

God is the Being of beings. In loving us, he loves his creation, only we are aware of his love, which we can reciprocate and in doing so become one with God. — Cavacava

But one will never BE god.

God has no parts, — Cavacava

But if, as you said, god is everything then you would have to be part of god.

Yeah, those were the words that had other words written after them.

Could you explain just how that is possible, I see a lot of words after your posts.

Why can't separate entities be the same? — Purple Pond

Because then they could not be separate entities.

Nah, send it to the big guy up north. — Lone Wolf

Shucks, no candy then. Gonna keep on talkin.

Mwhahaha. You all must remain silent from here on. >:) — Lone Wolf

Say that with a Pakistani accent.

Stuff your mouths with cookies and candy, and you all shall be happily silent. — Lone Wolf

And I suppose that we can send the bills to you for this.

Is there not a difference between

Paul is God's tool

And

Paul's agency is God's tool

? — BlueBanana

I have no idea, why don't you explain it.

There is no God. — Mitchell

Spoil sport, can't you be nice and play the game. X-)

Other than that in your opinion the God doesn't exist, how can you know Sir2u isn't omnipotent and omniscient? — BlueBanana

I wish!

God's being (if) in us, constitutes us as part of itself. — Cavacava

So there is no me? Just part of god.

Therefore everyone is god.

The vigor of love (you have avoided that word assiduously in our brief conversation yet I think it is key) of his being, enables unification with him in us. — Cavacava

I have not avoided mentioning anything, it is irrelevant to the discussion of someone being god as described in the OP. Meta says that he is god, not a part of god.

Oh I almost forgot god is usually defined as:
Any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force.

So unless you want to change the definition then there is no way anyone who is not a god by this definition can be a god.

Yes but one isn't one's agency. — BlueBanana

?

I don't think the Bible thinks of Paul as a piece of equipment, rather I think Paul's agency is God's tool. — Cavacava

You are contradicting yourself, tool are equipment.

Paul's becomes one with God's because he recognizes/sees God's being in himself, which is possible only because of his love of God. Paul's willingness to carry out God's purpose is because it is part of his being & God's are merged. Perhaps that is what is meant by being a tool of God. — Cavacava

That still could not make some god. Being part of god, god being part of one,

Only god is god, and to be god you must fit the description, have the characteristics and properties of god. Having the characteristics on loan does not qualify you as god.