In Sao Paulo, Brazil, seven people were killed and at least 50 injured after the ceiling of an evangelical church collapsed.
These poor people were worshipping their God and he couldn’t even stop their roof from falling. It’s almost like he’s not there or doesn’t care, you know? Or maybe he wants them to stop worshiping him.
But, thank God, the church founders are safe:
It was founded in 1986 by Estevam and Sonia Hernandes, a couple who were arrested in Miami in 2007 for failing to declare a large sum of cash brought into the United States…. They are wanted in Brazil on money laundering charges.
Praise be his holy name! His ways are beyond our ways, his thoughts beyond our thoughts!
Hallelujah brother, the Lord he does work in mysterious ways!!
But the roof fell in between services, so obviously far more people could have been killed if the church had been full – in many ways it was a miracle that more people weren’t hurt! Praise God for His mercy in only smiting 57 people (who, let’s face it, were probably sinners and hence had it coming anyway) when He could have smushed a whole lot more of them! Don’t you see how good God is?Jebus, we love you, etc. etc.
Yes, He took seven people off to an entirely-not-in-any-way-fictitious Heaven, where they’ll be happier anyway. But so many more people were saved by the roof not falling in during a busy period that I think we can clearly see God’s merciful hand at work. Praise Jebus, etc. etc.
Of course, Sao Paulo’s atheist community were never in any danger at all…
See, even god can’t stand his worshippers.
Why does this have anything to do with an existent or non-existent God? Couldn’t they have just been too cheap to hire a carpenter? (No pun intended)
@jstrocel: It doesn’t really. Just try and appreciate the irony. :)
“Couldn’t they have just been too cheap to hire a carpenter? (No pun intended)”
Mark: What you say is possible, however that still dosent explain why god allowed the building to fall on folks trying to show him love, he could have stopped the building from falling until the church was empty.
At which point they could hire a carpenter.
God was still a little tired from that “miracle on the Hudson” — you know, letting that airliner down gently? Those things are damned heavy! So he just wasn’t up to supporting the church roof long enough to let everyone escape.
So your evidence that God made the roof cave in…is?
It’s still pointing and laughing because something bad happened to some religious people. Ted Haggard getting caught soliciting was funny and ironic. This is just kind of tragic.
@Alex: If God is all-powerful and knows everything, he knew it was going to happen. He didn’t intervene, which is the same as doing it. If you see a child drowning and don’t do anything to save him, you’re partly responsible for his death.
So you equate your decision making which comes in the form of a finite person who is not omniscient, not omnipotent, not omnipresent with that of (“if there were such a person” I understand you are making the argument from what you belief is my or many other’s belief system and not yours with respect to whether there is a God or not) God? A rather extraordinary leap.
If one wishes to define God as a being required to stop or alleviate all misery here on earth, well then you might have an argument but it is an arbitrary argument. I don’t see the Scriptures forwarding that view. If you wish to know what I believe about the Scriptures and God and then argue what you believe are inconsistencies, then it would not be arbitrary (but such a dialog tends to be quite protracted and often derailed by many sidebars but I am glad to plod along over such a monument).
But even at that, you are not providing evidence, instead it is just a conclusion based on a theological formula of your own determination which is minus numerous variables viewed both in Scripture and in the matter.
P.S. I am not a Calvinist by the way. I don’t subscribe to their doctrine of divine sovereignty so in case you weren’t sure of my theological orientation, it isn’t Calvinistic.
@Alex Guggenheim
“But even at that, you are not providing evidence, instead it is just a conclusion based on a theological formula of your own determination which is minus numerous variables viewed both in Scripture and in the matter.”
Fair enough can you therefore post your conclusion?
Jabster
@Alex Guggenheim
“But even at that, you are not providing evidence, instead it is just a conclusion based on a theological formula of your own determination which is minus numerous variables viewed both in Scripture and in the matter.”
Fair enough can you therefore post your conclusion?
________________________________________
Not comprehensively seeing that I have already made it clear in the post to which you are responding that such a dialog would be protracted and battled with sidebars. But just for an appetizer…I see no claim in the Bible were God says he promises to stop or alleviate all misery.
The roof fell because of some element of structural failure. Whether it was due to poor design, deterioration I don’t know of course since no public information is available on that.
I see no claim in the Bible were God says he promises to stop or alleviate all misery while we are here on earth (please add that to the sentence since it needs qualified for those that have trouble with determining the context of the discussion, i.e. life on earth)
Alex
I think it was not as much pointing out that God should have done something about the roof falling in, as it was poking fun at those who claim they know God and that he does “good” things (“good” by their non-omnipotent standards), and yet they ignore that he also does “bad” things (“bad” by their non-omnipotent standards).
As Daniel said, you can’t think he does some things and not others. By both intervening AND NOT intervening, he does all things, does he not? It’s either all or none. Therefore, he did this.
@Alex: But why didn’t God stop the roof from falling? Do you not believe God can do such a thing? If he can, and he isn’t willing, how can he be called good?
The odds were good that at least one homosexual was in there, so there you have it. Boom. Smiting people is not as precise as God would like it.
@Alex Guggenheim
“Not comprehensively seeing that I have already made it clear in the post to which you are responding that such a dialog would be protracted and battled with sidebars. But just for an appetizer…I see no claim in the Bible were God says he promises to stop or alleviate all misery.”
Well I’ve had the appetizer so why do you think that god did let this happen?
heh… That sounds like something the blogger (I mean God) would say on StuffGodHates.com.
That blog is hilarious, by the way.
@ alex
“So you equate your decision making which comes in the form of a finite person who is not omniscient, not omnipotent, not omnipresent with that of (”if there were such a person” I understand you are making the argument from what you belief is my or many other’s belief system and not yours with respect to whether there is a God or not) God? A rather extraordinary leap.”
mark: Even if Daniel in finite in his thinking and understanding, it is god who is responsible for that. Also god created the rest of mankind finite as well. If your god does exist, why not act in ways everyone can understand, because that way there would be a lot less confusion.
What earthly sense does it make for god to be using hidden messages and other mystical workings when he didnt create us with the ability to decode his mysterious was.
If a teacher is going to history class strictly in mandarin, then it would make sense to teach the students mandarin first before instructing the students in mandarin. All of these hidden meanings really puzzle me, because why would a god that wants me to know who he is not be crystal clear in his messages?
“If one wishes to define God as a being required to stop or alleviate all misery here on earth, well then you might have an argument but it is an arbitrary argument. I don’t see the Scriptures forwarding that view”
mark: I dont require him to stop all or even most of the misery here on earth. But I would expect a just and loving god (which I dont believe in) to prevent pain and suffering at least in babies and children. Im not asking to hit the lottery only a littly more equity in the way god allows suffering to occur.
markbey
If a teacher is going to history class strictly in mandarin, then it would make sense to teach the students mandarin first before instructing the students in mandarin. All of these hidden meanings really puzzle me, because why would a god that wants me to know who he is not be crystal clear in his messages?
___________________________________
It is your claim that God is not clear, apparently and obviously to some he is quite clear (even those claims are disputable since clarity of God might be an issue or relevance but it does not negate the point). Now the most you can offer is that he is not clear to YOU. But is the lack of clarity due to God’s communication or your inability or refusal to see?
mark: I dont require him to stop all or even most of the misery here on earth. But I would expect a just and loving god (which I dont believe in) to prevent pain and suffering at least in babies and children.
_________________________________
Once again you are determine and defining God and not acquiescing to the claims of Scripture. That is fine if you wish to tell God how he to be God and reject him because he does not meet your expectations of how God should be (odd a non-divine being telling a divine being how to be but…) but know that is the issue, that he hasn’t met YOUR definition and expectation.
@Alex Guggenheim
“It is your claim that God is not clear, apparently and obviously to some he is quite clear (even those claims are disputable since clarity of God might be an issue or relevance but it does not negate the point). Now the most you can offer is that he is not clear to YOU. But is the lack of clarity due to God’s communication or your inability or refusal to see?”
I agree absolutely so the question remains … why do you think that god did let this happen?
Jabster
Well I’ve had the appetizer so why do you think that god did let this happen?
___________________________________
I am flattered you believe I am God’s counsel but you are asking the wrong person.
Again, it happened due to a structural failure. It is quite obvious that God allows the consequences of life to occur which includes the laws of physics.
I have rarely seen a theist’s argument yet that doesn’t resort to “We can’t comprehend the mind of God” when backed into a corner about their position. I believe you have even said this on this thread or another. And yet, you say that for some the language of God is perfectly clear?
Why is it clear to them, and not others? Is it only because they have managed to forgo reason and logic and their own personal morals (all of the smokescreens) so as to see him crystal clear?
McBloggenstein
I have rarely seen a theist’s argument yet that doesn’t resort to “We can’t comprehend the mind of God” when backed into a corner about their position. I believe you have even said this on this thread or another. And yet, you say that for some the language of God is perfectly clear?
Why is it clear to them, and not others? Is it only because they have managed to forgo reason and logic and their own personal morals (all of the smokescreens) so as to see him crystal clear?
_____________________________________
That certainly is a possibility, however if that is the only possibility or an overwhelmingly predominant possibility, so great that all others are dismissed as aberrant, you have a rather small world of possibilities and considerations as to why God is clear to some and not to others.
I have discovered that when people have epiphanies, when they become enlightened to the truth of a matter it isn’t because the information neither existed or was not readily available to them. On the contrary, most enlightenment comes from information readily available to a person and often rejected or treated by them in some fashion before hand.
So in my estimation most blindness in such matters is voluntary in nature.
Gruggenheim: “If one wishes to define God as a being required to stop or alleviate all misery here on earth, well then you might have an argument but it is an arbitrary argument.”
No one is “requiring” your “God” to do anything. Although, consistancy would make the idea of “God” a little more believable. If the Theist insists “Miracles” are evidence that “God” intervenes in our lives because it “cares”, why is it irrational to presume “God” doesn’t care when “God” doesn’t act? Again, consistancy.
If “God” stands on the sidelines as a fricking ceiling falls in on its followers, or as a child is being held down against his or her will and sodomized, then I believe I am perfectly rational to assume one of two things: a) God doesn’t care, or b) God does care, but is unable to intervene. In either case, such a being is not worthy of my respect, let alone my worship.
Guggenheim: “It is your claim that God is not clear, apparently and obviously to some he is quite clear”
Yes, “quite clear”…uh huh. Just look at all the denominations/sects/split-offs of the “One Truth”. Yes, of course, “obviously”.
“Now the most you can offer is that he is not clear to YOU. But is the lack of clarity due to God’s communication or your inability or refusal to see?”
mark: Not only is he not clear to me, but he is not clear to any of the non believers on this board. Is he clear to a Jehova witnesess who only believes that 144,000 people are going to make it to heaven, or what about all of the non catholics whom some Catholic clergy still believe (and sometime publicly claim) will go to hell for not being catholic not to mention all of the other contradictory religions and gods.
If only one religion will get you to heaven but thier are hundreds of religions, with billions of followers between them wouldnt that qualify as a lack of Clarity on gods part about what he word actually is. Is it really being clear if you allow conflicting god beliefs?
Also I have tried to figure out this god thing, starting back when I was a christian, If I dont have the ability (not smart enough) to figure out what god is saying then maybe god should have “blessed me” with more ability. Maybe god shouldnt allow so many different beliefs about his word to be going around the planet.
Also as far as my refusal to “see” goes that would also apply to all of the other religions that you do not accept as bieng gods word. Also it sounds like your comming close to questioning my motives for not believing in god, which I think is unfair.
@Alex Guggenheim
“Again, it happened due to a structural failure. It is quite obvious that God allows the consequences of life to occur which includes the laws of physics.”
Why is it quite obvious as you have already stated that “But is the lack of clarity due to God’s communication or your inability or refusal to see?” it’s certainly not obvious to me so can you state whether you think god ever intervenes in life on Earth or just created it and then sat back and did nothing. Obviously if you think he does intervene then you need to explain why he didn’t this time.
boomSLANG
If “God” stands on the sidelines as a fricking ceiling falls in on its followers, or as a child is being held down against his or her will and sodomized, then I believe I am perfectly rational to assume one of two things: a) God doesn’t care, or b) God does care, but is unable to intervene.
______________________________________
Obviously then you have reduced your world of considerations to only two possibilities along with characterizing God as “standing on the sidelines”. But so be it, however your complaint is due to your limited considerations not that the answers don’t exist.
@Alex Guggenheim
“Obviously then you have reduced your world of considerations to only two possibilities along with characterizing God as “standing on the sidelines”. But so be it, however your complaint is due to your limited considerations not that the answers don’t exist.”
Fair enough so give us the answer or is that an unfair question to ask?
“Once again you are determine and defining God and not acquiescing to the claims of Scripture.”
mark: What exactly is the true scripture, is it Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or christianity?
If the “true” scripture is christianity, then what style represents the “true” scripture Catholicism, baptist, protestant, J Witness ect?
Also who is qualified to answer my last question and how would we know that person is correct?
Jabster
Why is it quite obvious as you have already stated that “But is the lack of clarity due to God’s communication or your inability or refusal to see?” it’s certainly not obvious to me so can you state whether you think god ever intervenes in life on Earth or just created it and then sat back and did nothing. Obviously if you think he does intervene then you need to explain why he didn’t this time.
_________________________________________
You only offer two options, a God that intervenes or one that sits back. The query itself starts out invalid, I see more than those two choices so I can’t offer you an answer with those limited considerations.
@Alex Guggenheim
“You only offer two options, a God that intervenes or one that sits back. The query itself starts out invalid, I see more than those two choices so I can’t offer you an answer with those limited considerations.”
Fair enough so please can you state the options that you see?
markbey
“Once again you are determine and defining God and not acquiescing to the claims of Scripture.”
mark: What exactly is the true scripture, is it Islam, Judaism, Hinduism or christianity?
If the “true” scripture is christianity, then what style represents the “true” scripture Catholicism, baptist, protestant, J Witness ect?
Also who is qualified to answer my last question and how would we know that person is correct?
____________________________________
True Scripture is not represented by a certain sect, Scripture in and of itself is true. Sects or denominations may be enlightened by the truth and hold to none or substantial portions of Scripture in a truthful manner but Scripture’s veracity is not caused or validated by a denomination.
As to who is qualified to answer? I hope your mind is sound enough to make qualifications and conclusions. That is after all the purpose of your brain, to think.
Jabster
Fair enough so please can you state the options that you see?
__________________________________
So you accept that there are other options?
“True Scripture is not represented by a certain sect, Scripture in and of itself is true.”
mark: Spherical argument my friend and you didnt answer my question. Thier are different scriptures even within christianity. Using christianity for example how is one to determine accuracy between the different denominations that have different holy books.
” I hope your mind is sound enough to make qualifications and conclusions. That is after all the purpose of your brain, to think.”
mark: Maybe my mind isnt sound enough to make the correct conclusions and wouldnt that be gods doing since he created me (and mankind) flawed and with limity intelligence and ability?
“As to who is qualified to answer? I hope your mind is sound enough to make qualifications and conclusions. That is after all the purpose of your brain, to think.”
mark: The problem I have with this statement is this, every religion can parade this weak argument out for those who disagree with them.
Once again how is your god being clear if he allows more than one holy book to call itself the true scripture and word of god?
Previously, I said: “If ‘God’ stands on the sidelines as a fricking ceiling falls in on its followers, or as a child is being held down against his or her will and sodomized, then I believe I am perfectly rational to assume one of two things: a) God doesn’t care, or b) God does care, but is unable to intervene. In either case, such a being is not worthy of my respect, let alone my worship.”
Gruggenheim responds: “Obviously then you have reduced your world of considerations to only two possibilities….”
Yes; correct….i.e…either “God” cares, or “God” does not care. I don’t think it’s an irrational position to hold, especially if you and the balance of Christians insist that your “God” is a “personal”, “all-loving” being, as opposed to a impartial “deistic” entity with no emotions or regard for human life.
Gruggenheim: “…. along with characterizing God as ‘standing on the sidelines’.
If the “God” you hope exists is “Omnipresent”, then the description suits just fine. If it offends you, then pick another. If you disagree that “God” is “Omnipresent”, then say so.
Gruggenheim: “But so be it, however your complaint is due to your limited considerations not that the answers don’t exist.”
FYI, as a non-theist, I never claim/claimed to have all the possible “answers”. I’m not the one who is “Omniscient”. If there are, um, “good” reasons for human suffering – including the egregious suffering of children – and these reasons are beyond my “limited” understanding, than as a human being, I couldn’t give a %$#@ less what the “Reasons” are. I hope you understand.
Furthermore, if we don’t have access to these “answers” that are supposely beyond *our* “limited” understanding(as you make clear), then I’m not quite sure how one can claim to have access to “Absolute Truth.” It seems to blatantly contradict the idea.
Gruggenheim: “True Scripture…”
Does not “True Scripture” imply “false scripture”? It seems that “false scripture” is an oxymoron, and thus, the term “True Scripture” is redundant and pointless.
Gruggenheim: “['True Scripture'] is not represented by a certain sect, Scripture in and of itself is true.”
Yet, by your previous remarks, it is clear that ascertaining the intended meaning of said “Scripture” is actually *dependent* upon interpetation of it, and thus, completely subjective. This becomes even more apparent when we throw the “limited considerations” axiom into the equation.
Gruggenheim: “Sects or denominations may be enlightened by the truth and hold to none or substantial portions of Scripture in a truthful manner but Scripture’s veracity is not caused or validated by a denomination.”
Thus, underscoring the subjectiveness of religious belief.
Gruggenheim: “As to who is qualified to answer? I hope your mind is sound enough to make qualifications and conclusions. That is after all the purpose of your brain, to think.”
Good grief, are you kidding?!?! We are encouraged to use our “brains”, yet, when/if we come up conclusions that are in disagreement with the Christian philosophy, we are berrated and scolded, and last-but-not-least, punished for it by spending eternity in a “lake of fire”. Good one.
@Alex Guggenheim
“So you accept that there are other options?”
Well lets see them then … please fire away as you’re just coming across as a troll now.
I am reminded of one of my favorite lines from (the brilliant) God On Trial:
“Do you know what a God who is not personal is?
Weather. Just weather.”
Jabster
@Alex Guggenheim
“So you accept that there are other options?”
Well lets see them then … please fire away as you’re just coming across as a troll now.
_________________________
I see, I ask a question and since it appears to be one that intimidates you, you resort to calling me a troll. Look, either you want some mutual respect or you don’t.
You want to ask me questions, fine, I answer them. But pal, the rules go both ways. Now if you want to quit and go home and cry foul because you don’t get to write all the rules well then feel free to depart the discussion, there are many more willing participants.
markbey
“As to who is qualified to answer? I hope your mind is sound enough to make qualifications and conclusions. That is after all the purpose of your brain, to think.”
mark: The problem I have with this statement is this, every religion can parade this weak argument out for those who disagree with them.
Once again how is your god being clear if he allows more than one holy book to call itself the true scripture and word of god?
____________________________________________
That isn’t an argument with respect to who is qualified to understand. In fact it is the opposite of weak. If you are able to understand then the religious “elitists” have taken from them this special claim. Friend the person qualified to make such determinations is you. Either you have confidence in your ability to process information or you are subject to the claims of others. Should you value the claims of others? Sure, if you can validate them and again it comes back to you.
As for God “allowing” more than one book to exist that claims to be his Word, that doesn’t make God unclear that makes many men unclear and responsible for clouding the truth, not God.
God gave you a brain and capacity for reason. Often people fail to find what they claim they are looking for because the path of the journey tells a different story.
@ alex
Please answer these questions, please stop trying to avoid answering questions. They really are very simple
mark:Once again how is your god being clear if he allows more than one holy book to call itself the true scripture and word of god?
“True Scripture is not represented by a certain sect, Scripture in and of itself is true.”
mark: Spherical argument my friend and you didnt answer my question. Thier are different scriptures even within christianity. Using christianity for example how is one to determine the accuracy between the different denominations that have different holy books.
@ alex
disregard my last email I am responding to your last email now. Mark
boom slang
Previously, I said: “If ‘God’ stands on the sidelines as a fricking ceiling falls in on its followers, or as a child is being held down against his or her will and sodomized, then I believe I am perfectly rational to assume one of two things: a) God doesn’t care, or b) God does care, but is unable to intervene. In either case, such a being is not worthy of my respect, let alone my worship.”
Gruggenheim responds: “Obviously then you have reduced your world of considerations to only two possibilities….”
Yes; correct….i.e…either “God” cares, or “God” does not care. I don’t think it’s an irrational position to hold, especially if you and the balance of Christians insist that your “God” is a “personal”, “all-loving” being, as opposed to a impartial “deistic” entity with no emotions or regard for human life.
________________________________________
Again you place yourself on par with God an amazing leap. You presume and assume that divine caring must meet your standard or expectation. Because you cannot see God doing what you want you accuse him of complacency, ambivalence, or malevolence. If things don’t go your way with people, do you always reduce them to these, never minding God who is infinite and divine (I realize you reject God as existing and are making the argument from my position of believing there is a God)? God doesn’t care or act for your eyes to see and your mind to be satisfied so he doesn’t care or cares in some inconsistent fashion?
I will say I agree that if YOU are the one defining who God is and determining that he either cares or doesn’t and the only way to determine that is seeing him absolutely and always ending or preventing human misery then it is not irrational to expect him to do so and when he doesn’t you conclude he doesn’t care.
However, God does not present himself that way in the Scriptures or with those qualifiers.
_________________________________________
boomSLANG
Gruggenheim: “…. along with characterizing God as ’standing on the sidelines’.
If the “God” you hope exists is “Omnipresent”, then the description suits just fine. If it offends you, then pick another. If you disagree that “God” is “Omnipresent”, then say so.
__________________________________
I have already stated that God is omnipresent. Apparently you are of the belief that omnipresence means God must act as you expect as a feature of this characteristic. I disagree, omnipresence defined does not include the view that God is required to act on my behalf or the behalf of others as I demand or expect.
____________________________________
boomSLANG
FYI, as a non-theist, I never claim/claimed to have all the possible “answers”. I’m not the one who is “Omniscient”. If there are, um, “good” reasons for human suffering – including the egregious suffering of children – and these reasons are beyond my “limited” understanding, than as a human being, I couldn’t give a %$#@ less what the “Reasons” are. I hope you understand.
_____________________________________
I admire your honesty in admitted to your close mindedness on the matter. And I do have not taken the position that I believe you claim to have all the possible answers.
I do understand your frustration as well. It is a popular element of humanism to demand God be as we wish and not receive him as he declares himself to be. It will and does result in many cases of disappointment and understandable contempt. But do know your contempt is with the humanistic misidentification of God and the erring expectations that result, not in God as he has revealed himself and is.
_______________________________________
boomSLANG
Furthermore, if we don’t have access to these “answers” that are supposely beyond *our* “limited” understanding(as you make clear), then I’m not quite sure how one can claim to have access to “Absolute Truth.” It seems to blatantly contradict the idea.
______________________________________
Of which answers are you speaking? But truly it does not really matter because science does not have all the answers and never will yet we don’t abandon science now do we? Is your pursuit of God or his possibility so easily truncated simply because some answers to some questions cannot be ascertained in this life?
God has revealed himself in Scripture. Yes it is not the complete revelation of God since God is infinite it would be impossible for finite beings to have issued to them the infinite so by default you must at least come to accept the reality of the limitations of your finite mind and God’s understanding of that in issuing the revelation of himself in Scripture. I do submit however, that what is contained in Scripture is sufficient for our lives now until our translation into eternity.
P.S. Gruggenheim? Sounds interesting with the “r” after the G.
@ alex
“That isn’t an argument with respect to who is qualified to understand. In fact it is the opposite of weak. If you are able to understand then the religious “elitists” have taken from them this special claim. Friend the person qualified to make such determinations is you. ”
mark: Thank you for responding to my question but Im still having trouble understanding where you are coming from.
1) Who are these religious “elitist you are talking about?
2) What if I or others are not able to understand or do not have the same mental capacity as you and we come to a different conclusion about the god than you do?
3) Please explain to me how anyone is qualified to make a determination of true scripture when thier is more than one book claiming to be true scripture?
Your argument is circular, you are basically sayng that your bible is true because inside of the bible it says it is true and because these what I believe. I could use this same argument to affirm Islam, Judism, Zor or any other god I believed in.
“As for God “allowing” more than one book to exist that claims to be his Word, that doesn’t make God unclear that makes many men unclear and responsible for clouding the truth, not God.
“God gave you a brain and capacity for reason.”
mark: My problem with what you are saying is this, according to Catholics, J-Witnesses, Seventh day adventist, ect if I use my “god given brain and pick wrong I am going to burn in hell forever.
In spite of the fact that I have been given more than one choice with no evidence other than opinion and emotion as to which one is true if I pick wrong I burn, even if Im not that smart and I routinely make bad choices.
“Often people fail to find what they claim they are looking for because the path of the journey tells a different story.”
mark : You lost me on this one buddy. My problem with your line of reasoning is this. It is a fact that not all humans have had an oppurtunity to learn about your concept of god. There are societies where it is illegal to convert to christianity. There are also societies where people lived and died for thousands of years without any knowledge of Christianity.
If god is going to allow thousands of differents beliefs about him, then it makes no sense to sentence folks of different religions to hell, especially those who were never exposed to his true word.
markbey
__________________
Dinner and my lovely wife await so, tomorrow I will tackled your last response. I only have a few more days of vacation left here and then we are traveling so I will have to get off as much as I can tomorrow it seems, maybe the next day but I believe we travel them.
@ alex
mark: Enjoy your dinner my friend, you can continue to loose this debate later on.
At some point, we make the choices we do to our detriment or benefit. God created us with a Free Will Daniel. You can choose to accept or reject God. You can choose to ignore his prompting or respond to it. You can choose to disbelieve. I wouldn’t want to force myself on anyone nor force them to love me. That contradicts the very God of the scriptures. For our freedom to truly be free, then bad things must be allowed to happen as a result of our choices (i.e. a lousy roof we’ve neglected) or else we aren’t truly free are we? Freedom of the will means accepting both the good and bad…Not just the good…
@Scott:
Except it’s not free will when you have no choice, such as being killed in typhoons, earthquakes, snow storms and what have you. Apparently God chooses not to intervene even when our suffering has no connection to the use of our free will.
Something good happens…It’s a miracle…God is great…Blah blah blah!
Something bad happens…These things just happen…who says God should intervene?…Blah blah blah!
For christians it’s: Heads I win, tails you lose.
I am a gay atheist. How come my roof hasn’t fallen in on me?
Guggenheim: “Again you place yourself on par with God an amazing leap. You presume and assume that divine caring must meet your standard or expectation. Because you cannot see God doing what you want you accuse him of complacency, ambivalence, or malevolence.”
You have misrepresented my position(not that this is entirely shocking).
As I said previously, if the “God” in question exists, I am not…..repeat, NOT…”requiring” that it act in accordance with my wishes/desires; it can do whatever-the-hell it wishes. After all, god is “GOD!!”.
My point, again, is that there’s a double-standard among Theists, namely, Christians, in that they attribute the times when their biblegod’s actions produce desirable results..i.e..”it is a Miracle!!!”…”God saved them!!!”…”we are blessed!”…”Jesus must love me!”, etc., to the fact that their biblegod is a personal being who actually cares; to the fact that their “Jesus” is a personal being who is “All-loving”. ‘ Follow that much? Assuming so…
Thus, if according to you, we cannot/should not conclude that the non-actions of “God” point to “complacency, ambivalence, or malevolence”, etc., then by the same consideration, we cannot/should NOT conclude that when “God” chooses to act in accordance with what we find desirable/what we want, that it’s because “God” is “merciful”" and “all-loving”, yada, yada. In other words–if “God” works a supposed “Miracle”, it could be for some irrelevent, immaterial, impartial reason that we “can’t understand”. You must admit this, or what you have left is a double-standard. ‘Get it?
Guggenheim: “I will say I agree that if YOU are the one defining who God is and determining that he either cares or doesn’t…..”
Arrrg. I’m *attempting* to determine if such a being “cares or doesn’t care” based precisely on the definitions/descriptions that the Xian doctrine and its adherents assign to it. If you, Guggenheim, feel like also “assigning” the notion that the “God” in question might have “good” reasons for human suffering that we cannot relate to(due to its “Divinity”), then again…. ‘irrelevent, because such a being is STILL not worthy of my respect or worship.
Guggenheim: “I have already stated that God is omnipresent. Apparently you are of the belief that omnipresence means God must act as you expect as a feature of this characteristic. I disagree, omnipresence defined does not include the view that God is required to act on my behalf or the behalf of others as I demand or expect. ”
Let the record show that I have NEVER once used the “Omnipresence” argument *soley* as an argument for how I would expect “God” to act. No, I use it in CONJUCTION with the many other attributes that Christians assign to their “Lord”..i.e “all-loving”, “omnibenevolent”, “omnipotent”, “merciful”, etc. If you’d like to redefine your deity by revoking some of the latter attributes?… then fine; do so. Otherwise, you hold a mutually incompatible definition of a “God”. If the biblegod you insist exists is everywhere at once, then it is certainly in the presence of children when they are being violated in dispicable ways. Thus, repeat: whether it, a) Chooses to watch and do nothing, or b) Is unable to do anything, or c) has a “Divine” reason why human suffering is necessary, it can bugger off, as I don’t want a “relationship” with any such being(if it exists)
Guggenheim: “But do know your contempt is with the humanistic misidentification of God and the erring expectations that result, not in God as he has revealed himself and is.”
Yes, yes, of course…..we can understand “God” perfectly if/when it’s reasonable to believe in “God”, but we cannot understand “God” if/when it is painfully clear that it’s not reasonable to believe in “God”. How convenient.
Guggenheim: “P.S. Gruggenheim? Sounds interesting with the ‘r’ after the G.”
My apologies for the oversight. Thank you…as I’d much rather acknowledge my errors, than defend them inperpetuity.
Scott Cheatham: “You can choose to accept or reject God.”
Yes, similar to how you can “choose to accept or reject” an armed mugger’s request for your wallet. It’s your “choice”, nevermind that your head will get turned into red confetti if you “reject”.
Scott Cheatham: “You can choose to ignore his prompting or respond to it.”
What “prompting” would that be?? You mean, deliberately withholding whatever it would take to get me to believe?… which, incidentally, it knows per its Omniscience”?
Scott Cheatham: “You can choose to disbelieve”.
This implies that one can “choose” to believe what they cannot believe. Question: Can you “choose” to believe in a giant Bunny that lays chocolate eggs? If you cannot, then your “disbelief” is not a “choice”. It(non-belief) is simply the default position, in light of the available data(or lack thereof)
Scott Cheatham: “I wouldn’t want to force myself on anyone nor force them to love me. That contradicts the very God of the scriptures”
A “God” who “must remain hidden” contradicts “the scriptures”, as in, “God” was allegedly making appearances all over the place back then, and this didn’t harm anyone’s “faith”. Moreover, the whole “free will” argument for why “God” must remain hidden is non-sequitur, because you can still “choose” to not love something, even if/when its existence is undeniable. You’ll have to do better.
If god is all knowing then there is no free will. This god would know what you were going to do before you did it, even before you were born, so at no point did you actually have free will. The two concepts are mutually incompatible.
What a mighty God we serve!
The church who goes by the name of “Renascer” (reborn) become quite famous worldwide for the famous devot, the FIFA Best Soccer Player Kaka who pays the 10% dizim (and his 10% are quite fucking money)
Another point who made the church name popular was the fact that the creators of that church were arrested for dirty money laundry and other finnacial crimes.
This fact dont make the zealots question themselfs about the truth behind the church (well, christians are not allowed to make many questions anyway since no-thinking is the base behind the whole faith thing) or become his popularity smaller.
Recently, after this tragedy the church ministers said to brazilliam newspapers that they are not concerned by the event and that was only God will.
That’s Renascer for you
PS: Sorry my poor english, obviously isnt my main language
Time to quote Epicurus, again, I think:
wintermute
Time to quote Epicurus, again, I think:
Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?
_________________________________
Poor Epicurus, because he cannot understand not see the work of God he claims God is absent, malevolent, or just not God. A better summation of Epicurus would be:
God is not what I demand
Therefore I judge him to be like me
I do not understand omnipotence
Yet I stand in judgment of its function
I do not know the source of evil
Yet I point to God as its source
Why call him God
When I am able to stand in judgment of him?
Shorter Alex:
Poor Epicurus, able to accurately define words like “omnipotent” and “malevolent”.
boomSLANG
Thus, if according to you, we cannot/should not conclude that the non-actions of “God” point to “complacency, ambivalence, or malevolence”, etc., then by the same consideration, we cannot/should NOT conclude that when “God” chooses to act in accordance with what we find desirable/what we want, that it’s because “God” is “merciful”” and “all-loving”, yada, yada. In other words–if “God” works a supposed “Miracle”, it could be for some irrelevent, immaterial, impartial reason that we “can’t understand”. You must admit this, or what you have left is a double-standard. ‘Get it?
_____________________________________
I don’t disagree. The claims of God doing something, whether favorable or not whether to eliminate misery or increase pleasure, are many by many types of people.
They aren’t the authority as to whether God did something or not, I don’t care how many times they claim to be a born again, are saved, love Jesus and so on. Such claims does not elevate a person to license to use God’s name as the source of some event.
But let’s take the second half of the concern. What if God really does do something? What if he really did remove misery from someone? Great.
That is suppose to be an indictment on God because he does not do it universally? Remember, God is divine and omniscient. When you possess omniscience then I believe you would be qualified to judge the decisions of the omniscience. Yes, it is understandable in YOUR finite mind that you do not understand the decisions and acts of an infinite God and end up at a point of judging him and abandoning any consideration of him. But that is not due to his failure but yours. You have failed to receive him as he has revealed himself and instead have demanded the infinite be and act as the finite.
wintermute
Shorter Alex:
Poor Epicurus, able to accurately define words like “omnipotent” and “malevolent”.
_________________________
Yes, I understand you believe omnipotence requires such power be exercised at your discretion and to your benefit. No such qualifier exists in the definition of omnipotent.
Let’s make this simple:
Is God omnipotent?
Yes [ ]
No [ ]
If yes, then by definition he could have prevented this disaster. What’s more, any aim he wanted to accheive, he could construct a plan that achieved it without any suffering or harm to anyone, so these deaths can’t possibly have been in service of a greater good. God must have allowed it to happen purely because he wanted these people to suffer for the sake of suffering. That makes him malevolent. It doesn’t matter whether or not we judge God, these are simply the plain meanings of the words.
It’s amazing to me how many people claim to believe in an omnipotent God, but then define a whole list of things he’s incapable of doing, like making good things happen without killing people, or writing his thoughts down in a way that doesn’t lead to millennia of sectarian warfare…
Aor
If god is all knowing then there is no free will. This god would know what you were going to do before you did it, even before you were born, so at no point did you actually have free will. The two concepts are mutually incompatible.
______________________________________
Free will refers to volition not knowledge. The knowledge of someone’s choice neither forces or prevents that choice.
No, it doesn’t have to be exercised. I’m quite happy to accept that God love watching babies die slowly and painfully, and deliberately refuses to do anything to prevent it. If that’s the God you worship, then fine. Just be man enough to admit it, and don’t try and pretend he’s “good”…
wintermute
Let’s make this simple:
Is God omnipotent?
Yes [ ]
No [ ]
If yes, then by definition he could have prevented this disaster. What’s more, any aim he wanted to accheive, he could construct a plan that achieved it without any suffering or harm to anyone, so these deaths can’t possibly have been in service of a greater good. God must have allowed it to happen purely because he wanted these people to suffer for the sake of suffering. That makes him malevolent.
________________________________________
Again, omnipotence is not qualified by whether it functions to the pleasure of a particular person or people. Your argument gets nowhere with that. Yes, omnipotence can do an incalculable number of things. Your problem is that God is not ONLY omnipotence. If omnipotence existed solely by itself (this is impossible but for the sake of argument I construct this) then it would constantly be everywhere exercise its omnipotence without purpose, i.e. chaotic omnipotence.
God is MORE than omnipotence. You appeal to one feature and demand it serve you. God has a divine viewpoint a divine system of thought apart from our considerations. Hence his omnipotence is exercised from that frame of reference, not mine and not yours. God is not measured by human rationale, that is a finite measure and inadequate for judgment.
You accuse God of having people suffer for the sake of suffering. Once again you allow finite measures to judge the decisions and work of the divine which is omnipotent, omniscience and omnipresent. How do you know this? Where is your case? Where is the testimony of God? I know where God’s testimony is, the Scriptures and he claims otherwise in his revelation of God to man yet you by-pass his own testimony and build a case purely on the witnesses of the prosecution.
@wintermute/boomSlang
Amazing it’s got to the “go works in mysterious ways” already and we can;t hope to fathom his mind.
Well god has obviously decided to make me an atheist as he has failed to reveal himself to me so I think it’s incredibly arrogant for believers to come in here trying to convince me that god exists. How can they judge who he should and shouldn’t reveal himself to? I think they should look deep into their hearts as it is self-evident that it’s Satan that is deceiving them to go against god’s will.
wintermute
Yes, I understand you believe omnipotence requires such power be exercised at your discretion and to your benefit. No such qualifier exists in the definition of omnipotent.
No, it doesn’t have to be exercised. I’m quite happy to accept that God love watching babies die slowly and painfully, and deliberately refuses to do anything to prevent it. If that’s the God you worship, then fine. Just be man enough to admit it, and don’t try and pretend he’s “good”…
________________________________________
Death and pain are not the consequences of the actions of God but are the source of man’s own doing. However, God has provided the means by which we may be reconciled to him and upon death my live in eternity without any trace of death, pain, suffering, misery and without the potential to ever lose our place with the divine.
You seem to demand God remove the very realities of life. God never made any such promise nor revealed any such intentions for mankind. And in fact it is by the very process and through it but in a much worse way that our salvation was secured. God in Christ suffered death for us so that we may live in eternity.
Death, pain and suffering are part of the reality of sin and our condition. Your promise of its alleviation is in eternity.
Now, I do understand that because you don’t AGREE with God and believe our salvation should begin NOW with ALLEVIATION of pain, suffering and so on that you have contempt for God in that context. But your contempt is your own doing, not God’s. You have contempt because God does not act as you demand, not that he has not acted.
Alex makes the point repeatedly that non-theists want “God” to act according to their own wishes. Yet how do Christians know God:
1) Tells the truth?
2) Keeps his promises?
3) Will send you to heaven?
You don’t……unless you are assume God acts according to *your own* desires and beliefs. No group more than believers hold God accountable to their own personal demands.
You’re arguing that the apparent suffering is in the cause of greater good, and therefore we can’t call it evil that God allows it to happen? If you’re not arguing that, then please spell out your position in more understandable language. That’s the best I can come up with, but I’m far from convinced I’ve adequately understood your position.
Anyway, if that is your position, you’re arguing that God is incapable of making those good outcomes happen without people suffering along that way. If you believe that there are things that God cannot do, then clearly God is not omnipotent.
Honestly, I don’t care what God does or does not do; if he wants to make newborn babies die in horrible, painful ways because they sinned while they were in the womb, or because it’ll teach them something that they couldn’t learn by being alive more than a week, then fine. I just want you to be consistent in your terms. Either God can prevent all suffering without there being any bad side effects (in which case he’s omnipotent, but we must ask why he deliberately allows so much suffering to exist), or he’s unable to do so (in which case he may be wonderfully good, but the term “omnipotent” simply doesn’t apply.
You’ve indicated that you believe that God does have the property of “omnipotence”, but you then seem to be putting limits on what he’s capable of doing.
Regardless of whether or not I personally might think that suffering is a bad thing, do you believe that God is physically capable of preventing all suffering without causing any undesired side-effects, if he were to so choose?
@ alex
Alex please stop running and answer a few simple questions. Mark
alex: “True Scripture is not represented by a certain sect, Scripture in and of itself is true.”
mark: Spherical argument my friend and you didnt answer my question. Thier are different scriptures even within christianity. Using christianity for example how is one to determine accuracy between the different denominations that have different holy books.
cello
Alex makes the point repeatedly that non-theists want “God” to act according to their own wishes. Yet how do Christians know God:
1) Tells the truth?
2) Keeps his promises?
3) Will send you to heaven?
You don’t……unless you are assume God acts according to *your own* desires and beliefs. No group more than believers hold God accountable to their own personal demands.
____________________________________________
On the contrary, I don’t believe God acts according to my desires. Being human I certainly cannot desire that which meets the threshold of the divine. God acts in the interest of the divine. Now it might be at times it is to our pleasure and at times to our displeasure. However, our countenance or our contentions in response to divine acts doesn’t obligate God to act in what WE determine would be to our favor, neither does it validate or invalidate his divinity. God acts according to the divine, not according to my expectations.
Rule of thumb: The adjustment to divinity requires your adjustment to God, not God’s adjustment to you.
Alex said ” Now it might be at times it is to our pleasure and at times to our displeasure. However, our countenance or our contentions in response to divine acts doesn’t obligate God to act in what WE determine would be to our favor, neither does it validate or invalidate his divinity.”
Okay. That has been the theme from many believers on all the good or bad posts we’ve had. God can do whatever God wants. We can’t judge God’s behavior.
And I don’t have a problem with that……as long as people are consistent about it. No one can call God “good” – that would be casting a judgement on God.
No one can claim God does “good” things like tell the truth or keep his promises. Because we can’t KNOW that God does those things. We can only DESIRE that that is what God does.
Guggenheim: “I don’t disagree. The claims of God doing something, whether favorable or not whether to eliminate misery or increase pleasure, are many by many types of people.”
Yes, limited to those who believe in “God”, of course.
Now…..can the Theist offer evidence that it is in fact their respective “God” that is fulfilling their wishes? No, not other than insisting that it is so, which you have really become quite good at around here.
Guggenheim: “[Christians] aren’t the authority as to whether God did something or not, I don’t care how many times they claim to be a born again, are saved, love Jesus and so on.”
Astonishing. So, you evidentally have the “authority” to tell other believers that they don’t have the “authority” to speculate on the “mind of God”. Well, pardon me, but I find that ‘slightly’ hypocritial. If we are to believe you over some other believer simply because you self-elect yourself as an authority on the subject, then there’s nothing stopping them from saying “Guggenheimer” has it all wrong, and that we should take them on their word for the same “reason” you want us to take you on your “word”…i.e..”because I said so”. Time and time again, illustrating the subjectiveness of religious belief—-not just “Christianity”—but ALL religious belief. Thanks for solidifying my position on this matter.
Guggenheimer: “Such claims does not elevate a person to license to use God’s name as the source of some event.”
Boy-o-boy, that makes an awful lot of wrong-minded “Christians”, doesn’t it?(rhetorically asked)
Guggenheimer: “But let’s take the second half of the concern. What if God really does do something? What if he really did remove misery from someone? Great.”
More speculation. Here, let me try—what if “God” really DID sit by and do nothing as a young girl was being raped in the middle of the night by her drunken step-father for 4 months straight? What “if”? The problem is, you cannot rule one “if” in, and the other “if” out, without erecting a blatant double-standard. Again, if we are to believe that “God is Sovereign”, and/or, that “God is incomprehensible to our limited human intellect”, then you are implicitly arguing that there is a “good” reason for this child’s suffering. Please get it through your noggin—I don’t buy such a propostion; “good” exists outside of your “God” concept.
Guggenheim: “That is suppose to be an indictment on God because he does not do it[alleviate human suffering] universally?”
No, it’s not “an indictment on God”, because I don’t %#$@ing believe in “God”. Let’s review: I’m arguing under the *pretense* that the “God” in question exists, and I’m simply asking for some CONSISTANCY in what you and your constituents propose on the *behalf* of your respective versions of your “God”……that is, if you expect me to believe what you are proposing. ‘Get it? Understand—from my POV, it is more rational to simply believe that, statistically, “good” and “bad” things happen to anyone who lives in a Natural Universe. To inject a “Divine” overseer into the equation simply creates more problems than it solves, especially when that overseer presumably sees EVERYTHING(is “omnipresent”); knows EVERYTHING(is “omniscient”); is ALL-GOOD(omnibenevolent); is all-powerful(is “omnipotent”), and is….ha, ha… “Just”. “Just”? Please.
Guggenheim: “****Yes, it is understandable in YOUR finite mind that you do not understand the decisions and acts of an infinite God and end up at a point of judging him and abandoning any consideration of him.”
This is remarkable disclosure, and I hope you won’t mind if I hold you to it.
Okay, if it is “understandable” in my “finite mind”, then swell. Then I shouldn’t be blamed, and/or, persecuted, and/or, held accountable for not exceding the limitations that I’m stuck with. No infinitely intelligent being would create a fish with gills, and then blame it for getting wet. (Of course, “intelligent” is a key-word here)
Guggenheimer: “But that is not due to his failure but yours.”
WRONG; it’s ultimately NOT my “failure”. See here****, above. Read it, and reread it, until you get it through your skullcap that I didn’t choose to have a “limited mind”.
___________________________________________
Jabster: “@wintermute/boomSlang
“Amazing it’s got to the ‘[god] works in mysterious ways’ already and we can;t hope to fathom his mind.”
Yes, “amazing”, as in, amazingly predictable. Contradictions, question-begging, and double standards out the kazoo. Par for the course, actually.
Peace.
Alex said ” Now it might be at times it is to our pleasure and at times to our displeasure. However, our countenance or our contentions in response to divine acts doesn’t obligate God to act in what WE determine would be to our favor, neither does it validate or invalidate his divinity.”
Okay. That has been the theme from many believers on all the good or bad posts we’ve had. God can do whatever God wants. We can’t judge God’s behavior.
And I don’t have a problem with that……as long as people are consistent about it. No one can call God “good” or “mercyful” – that would be casting a judgement on God.
No one can claim God does “good” things like tell the truth or keep his promises. Because we can’t KNOW that God does those things. We can only DESIRE that that is what God does.
Sorry for the double post.
wintermute
You’re arguing that the apparent suffering is in the cause of greater good, and therefore we can’t call it evil that God allows it to happen? If you’re not arguing that, then please spell out your position in more understandable language. That’s the best I can come up with, but I’m far from convinced I’ve adequately understood your position.
Anyway, if that is your position, you’re arguing that God is incapable of making those good outcomes happen without people suffering along that way. If you believe that there are things that God cannot do, then clearly God is not omnipotent.
________________________________________
You are calling it the “greater good” I am saying what occurs in human suffering is the consequence of man, not God. If you take hammer and smash your finger, God is not responsible. God has created a system whereby the benefits and deficits of human volition exist along with innumerable realities.
God obviously has set up a system where human volition and the consequences of such choices are not suspended. You want it suspended for your benefit.
You seem to want to include in the definition of omnipotent the idea that if God does not act in a way you expect, to your benefit or the benefit of others as you have determined, then he is not omnipotent. Omnipotent has to do with capacity, NOT whether it is used. Your issue is NOT with omnipotence but with the schematics God has designed for humanity which includes suffering the consequences of our decisions and the realities of life.
Now I will tell you in eternity future those realities will end. That is the plan of God, it isn’t to end them now. However, there is another reality, which is the prime target of the message of God to man, that can end and is his focus in revealing himself to you and that is your separation from God in sin. God has provided the means by which your condemnation can be permanently and wholly removed through Christ and you become his child, an inheritor of eternal life with the divine that indeed will be absent of all of the consequences of sin and man’s condition.
__________________________________________
wintermute
Honestly, I don’t care what God does or does not do; if he wants to make newborn babies die in horrible, painful ways because they sinned while they were in the womb, or because it’ll teach them something that they couldn’t learn by being alive more than a week, then fine. I just want you to be consistent in your terms. Either God can prevent all suffering without there being any bad side effects (in which case he’s omnipotent, but we must ask why he deliberately allows so much suffering to exist), or he’s unable to do so (in which case he may be wonderfully good, but the term “omnipotent” simply doesn’t apply.
You’ve indicated that you believe that God does have the property of “omnipotence”, but you then seem to be putting limits on what he’s capable of doing.
Regardless of whether or not I personally might think that suffering is a bad thing, do you believe that God is physically capable of preventing all suffering without causing any undesired side-effects, if he were to so choose?
_______________________________________
My concern is not with imagining what God can do with his omnipotence, that is the right of the divine to make such decisions. My concern is with what I am to do with my choices, my powers, my gifts and my good reason.
Our Lord, Jesus, made it clear that until we are translated into eternity here on this earth we will have suffering, both believers and unbelievers. Believers are not magically spared the consequences of their own decisions. If you are a believe and eat poison berries you will die just like an unbeliever.
Suffering is at the hands of man. Death and suffering entered by man’s inauguration, not God’s. But God has provided for you and me both spiritual redemption and eternity with him free from those conditions.
@ alex
Are you going to answer my question? It really isnt that complicated.
cello
Okay. That has been the theme from many believers on all the good or bad posts we’ve had. God can do whatever God wants. We can’t judge God’s behavior.
And I don’t have a problem with that……as long as people are consistent about it. No one can call God “good” or “mercyful” – that would be casting a judgement on God.
No one can claim God does “good” things like tell the truth or keep his promises. Because we can’t KNOW that God does those things. We can only DESIRE that that is what God does.
______________________________________
I am going to agree with you to some degree on a point. When believers have something pleasurable happen to them and then exclaim God is good they introduce a value system based on performance, hence opening the door to others then to point to bad things and claim, based on performance, that God is bad.
I can claim, by way of God’s own declaration in Scripture, that he is good, however but that is due to him already being good in his essence. Then one can rightly conclude God does good acts and never bad since God declares also to be divine, without blemish.
And if a baby is born with Foetal Harlequin Syndrome and dies in excruciating agony a few hours later, this is clearly the baby’s own fault because it did something to bring on that horrible condition, right?
When a hurricane or earthquake kills thousands of people, their death is caused by the “deficits of human volition”?
Bear in hind that these “innumerable realities” were put in place by God; if he had wanted to create a world in which babies didn’t die of horrible diseases without cause, it would have been trivial for him to create such a world, right? Again, this come back to God being omnipotent. In fact, given that he’s omnipotent, he has the option to choose to suspend those “innumerable realities”, if he so desired, right?
So, you accept that God is omnipotent, and that he deliberately allows people to suffer and die. You feel qualified to judge that anything God does is either “good” or “bad”, but simply that they are “things God does”.
Yeah, I hate to point this out, but suffering doesn’t just come from your own decisions. In fact, many people suffer who don’t have the capacity to make any decisions at all. many people suffer because of decisions other people make, that they have no influence over. many people suffer because of what insurance companies call “acts of God”.
I wonder what Jesus has to say on that topic….
–Mark 16:16-18
So, are you calling Jesus a liar? Or are you wrong about the poison berry thing?
markbey
@ alex
Alex please stop running and answer a few simple questions. Mark
______________________________
At least save me the overstatements and drama about not answering questions, I have answered quite a number in length already.
______________________________
markbey
alex: “True Scripture is not represented by a certain sect, Scripture in and of itself is true.”
mark: Spherical argument my friend and you didnt answer my question. Thier are different scriptures even within christianity. Using christianity for example how is one to determine accuracy between the different denominations that have different holy books.
___________________________
Let me be clear since you have asked quite a number and I am so sorry I don’t have time to devote such exclusivity to your posts and my responses to filter them all, so with that in mind is this the question to which you are referring?
If so tell me which “Different Scriptures” within Christianity are you referring to and yes I gladly can provide you a rather lengthy treatment of the canonicity of Scripture.
“Let me be clear since you have asked quite a number and I am so sorry I don’t have time to devote such exclusivity to your posts and my responses to filter them all, so with that in mind is this the question to which you are referring?”
mark: Yes this is the question and thank you for bieng a gentleman and keeping your word.
wintermute
You are calling it the “greater good” I am saying what occurs in human suffering is the consequence of man, not God. If you take hammer and smash your finger, God is not responsible. God has created a system whereby the benefits and deficits of human volition exist along with innumerable realities.
And if a baby is born with Foetal Harlequin Syndrome and dies in excruciating agony a few hours later, this is clearly the baby’s own fault because it did something to bring on that horrible condition, right?
________________________________
Wrong. It is a result of genetic defects.
@Alex Guggenheim
False. An omniscient god would know all actions a person would take in their entire lives before that person was even born. At no point did that person ever make a choice. All those decisions were pre-decided or the god would not be omniscient.
You cannot escape this paradox by pretending it doesn’t exist.
Wrong. It is a result of genetic defects.
So, you’re stepping back from your “Man hits himself in the thumb with a hammer” explanation for all the suffering and pain in existence? What causes the genetic defects? Is it the fault of poor decisions made by people?
You agree that there are forms of suffering that we’re literally incapable of avoiding? And that God could, if he so chose, prevent them? Not that doing so would make him “more good”, of course, but it would be an option for him, right?
God made the baby right? Did god copy down the DNA wrong? Did god purposely screw up the genetics so the baby would die early? Did god just miss this one, forget to check for a genetic defect?
This is quite simple, Alex. If god makes people, then god makes some of them so that they die early and in a great deal of pain. That god would know a baby would be stillborn or aborted or born without a skull BEFORE the baby was conceived. Before the baby’s parents met. Before the universe existed, god would have known exactly how much pain this baby he was going to make one day was going to feel. And despite that, he still made that baby feel that pain.
If god didn’t want babies to be aborted he could have caused the mother to not get pregnant, right?
I am sure you will try to pretend that none of this matters, but sadly it does. Face it: if god made Goodfellas then god made Gigli. If god made one team win the world series, then he makes the other lose. These things are all tied together. You cannot give your god credit for good things without also giving him blame for bad.
It’s like God is watching a movie he sees before. The characters think they have free will, and they make decisions as if they have free will, but they cannot do anything other than what they did the last time you watched it. Thus, they don’t actually have free will.
The fact that you know what they will do absolutely precludes them from doing anything else. If it didn’t, you wouldn’t know what they were going to do.
“he’s seen before”, sorry.
@Alex G:
Bingo! How do you propose we verify the claims of scripture?
Well then you have a problem, since all “holy” texts are written by men. In fact the only knowledge you have of a god is through texts written by men. In that case, how can you even know that some “truths” have been altered?
Alex
This is the kicker. You recognize that it is silly to place a value system on God based on our Earthly morals, yet you still claim God is good…
…because he said so.
And that brings us back to why do you believe anything the Bible tells you?
@McBloggenstein
Yep that’s another old chestnut thrown into the mix … we can’t place our value system on god and in the next breath place our value system on him by saying he’s all good. It never ceases to amaze my how many believers trot this one out yet are in capable of seeing just how flawed it is.
McBloggenstein
This is the kicker. You recognize that it is silly to place a value system on God based on our Earthly morals, yet you still claim God is good…
…because he said so.
And that brings us back to why do you believe anything the Bible tells you?
____________________________________
Be more precise, I did not say on earthy moral but on the finite, they are not necessarily synonymous. But that aside, God’s claims in Scripture are not the same as finite measures. So there really is no kicker.
Your last query is a new one all together. Why I believe the Bible. Unfortunately for empiricists, while certain claims of Scripture have been validated and some yet to be validated, the reach of science ends with the SPIRITUAL. So speaking to you about a measure you deny would seem a bit fruitless of not ironic, eh?
alan_h
Bingo! How do you propose we verify the claims of scripture?
Well then you have a problem, since all “holy” texts are written by men. In fact the only knowledge you have of a god is through texts written by men. In that case, how can you even know that some “truths” have been altered?
____________________________
Some have been verified, some have yet to be verified and some cannot be verified in your mind since they are spiritual in nature, a matter you deny.
Aor
@Alex Guggenheim
Free will refers to volition not knowledge. The knowledge of someone’s choice neither forces or prevents that choice.
False. An omniscient god would know all actions a person would take in their entire lives before that person was even born. At no point did that person ever make a choice. All those decisions were pre-decided or the god would not be omniscient.
__________________________
Dude, get with the program. Knowledge of a real or potential action does not require the view that such knowledge either forces or prevents that decision.
Aor
Wrong. It is a result of genetic defects.
God made the baby right?
__________________________
No, two humans did, surely you took sex ed in school
#
Alex Guggenheim
markbey
@ alex
Alex please stop running and answer a few simple questions. Mark
______________________________
At least save me the overstatements and drama about not answering questions, I have answered quite a number in length already.
______________________________
markbey
alex: “True Scripture is not represented by a certain sect, Scripture in and of itself is true.”
mark: Spherical argument my friend and you didnt answer my question. Thier are different scriptures even within christianity. Using christianity for example how is one to determine accuracy between the different denominations that have different holy books.
___________________________
Let me be clear since you have asked quite a number and I am so sorry I don’t have time to devote such exclusivity to your posts and my responses to filter them all, so with that in mind is this the question to which you are referring?
If so tell me which “Different Scriptures” within Christianity are you referring to and yes I gladly can provide you a rather lengthy treatment of the canonicity of Scripture.
_____________________________
MARKBEY,
Again before I proceed, tell me which “Different Scriptures” within Christianity it is to which you are referring
Alex.
wintermute
Wrong. It is a result of genetic defects.
So, you’re stepping back from your “Man hits himself in the thumb with a hammer” explanation for all the suffering and pain in existence? What causes the genetic defects? Is it the fault of poor decisions made by people?
You agree that there are forms of suffering that we’re literally incapable of avoiding? And that God could, if he so chose, prevent them? Not that doing so would make him “more good”, of course, but it would be an option for him, right?
______________________________________
I never proffered any explanation for ALL THE SUFFERING and PAIN in existence as merely or only or exclusively being derived from “man hits himself in the thumb with a hammer”. It was an example of the consequences of human behavior not some thesis on why all suffering and pain exists.
But let’s deal with the cause of genetic defects. Right now we have limited answers for that. Do you want a theological one or a scientific one.
wintermute
Free will refers to volition not knowledge. The knowledge of someone’s choice neither forces or prevents that choice.
It’s like God is watching a movie he sees before.
___________________________________
It’s nice to see a non-omniscient being explain the mechanics of omniscience, a trait he neither possess nor has ever used…interesting.
@Alex
Which ones? You have an opportunity here to actually provide evidence for your beliefs.
I’m perfectly willing to accept that a spiritual realm exists, if credible evidence can be presented that does not depend on confirmation bias.
Alex,
You are not realizing that you are saying that what the Bible says about God (devine, infallible, without blemish) is true because it says so. There is no other reason you believe this. Perhaps also because other people believe it too.
Can you clarify what you mean here? Do you mean that what science has not been able to answer yet, the supernatural can?
@ alex
” MARKBEY,
Again before I proceed, tell me which “Different Scriptures” within Christianity it is to which you are referring
Alex.”
mark: Well for starters the bible that the catholics and Jehova Witnesses use is different than the King James version. I list others but this enough for you to get started on my question.
And ornithologists can describe the mechanics of bird flight, despite neither possessing nor using the ability to fly like a bird. Physicists don’t possess the ability to travel at 99% of the speed of light, but they can accurately describe the mechanics of doing so. Does this surprise you?
I’m able to logically extrapolate a hypothetical situation. I find that most people are.
If you honestly don’t believe it’s possible for you to say what it means for a being to be omniscient, how does it make sense for you to say that a given being is omniscient? Just as you define “good” as being “that which God is”, with no moral judgement on whether or not “good” is, well… good, you define “omniscient” as “that which God is” with no thought as to what that implies. The rest of use who like words to have actual useful meanings, on the other hand, are quite capable of considering what it would mean to literally know everything that can be known. And if you know that someone will definitely choose Option A, then you also know that they cannot possibly choose Option B, and that their “free will” is merely an illusion. This follows inescapably from the very existence of omniscience – if I can freely choose either A or B, then an omniscient being could not know with certainty which I was going to choose.
Scientific answer: DNA copying isn’t perfect. Sometimes, for reasons that are as close to random as makes no odds, mistakes happen. Some of those mistakes are lethal. Terribly unfortunate, but there’s no blame to be assigned, and nothing we can really do about it, unless you’re in favour of abortion in such cases.
My best guess at a theological answer, based on the position you’ve outlined so far is: God could prevent such (subjectively) horrible things from happening, but he chooses not to, for his own reasons, which we cannot possibly judge as being either good or bad. In fact, for all we know, God deliberately created the copying error that lead to the suffering of a tiny baby. This, of course, is neither good nor bad. As flies to wanton boys, and all that.
Is that about right?
How many of the Books of Maccabees are True Scripture?
[ ] 0 – The Catholics are right
[ ] 2 – The Protestants are right
[ ] 4 – The Rastafarians are right
[ ] 5 – The Syriacs are right
[ ] 8 – The Coptics are right
wintermute
It’s nice to see a non-omniscient being explain the mechanics of omniscience, a trait he neither possess nor has ever used…interesting.
And ornithologists can describe the mechanics of bird flight, despite neither possessing nor using the ability to fly like a bird.
______________________________
Yes they can view a bird, arrest a bird and examine both microscopically and macroscopically its capacities. Are you suggesting you have arrested God and done the same?
I agree that we can observe some “facets” of God’s omniscience but we are far removed from the equivocation of arresting him as a subject of our exhaustive examination. One is a finite capacity the infinite. You might have some conclusions about omniscience but I would hesitate to place them limited to the certain conclusions you can ascertain regarding bird flight.
If you honestly don’t believe it’s possible for you to say what it means for a being to be omniscient, how does it make sense for you to say that a given being is omniscient?
_______________________________
God has declared himself to be so. I have received his declaration.
Now as to the comprehension of omniscience, we have some capacity but a drop compared to its extent so understanding it with a finite mind and defining it is reasonable but not equal to the infinite understanding of its scope and function, thus rendering us unqualified to judge it.
I used to think that as well, until I finally realized its a cop-out. If a spiritual realm exists and it interacts with our physical world then it can be studied scientifically. Not necessarily directly, but through its effects. And the majority of religious followers claim that they interact with this spiritual realm.
wintermute
Again before I proceed, tell me which “Different Scriptures” within Christianity it is to which you are referring
How many of the Books of Maccabees are True Scripture?
[ ] 0 – The Catholics are right
[ ] 2 – The Protestants are right
[ ] 4 – The Rastafarians are right
[ ] 5 – The Syriacs are right
[ ] 8 – The Coptics are right
_______________________________________
So, if I am correct, you are asking if Maccabees is True Scripture? Correct? Your numeric system needs expansion with regard to its use.
alan_h
…the reach of science ends with the SPIRITUAL.
I used to think that as well, until I finally realized its a cop-out. If a spiritual realm exists and it interacts with our physical world then it can be studied scientifically.
_______________________________________
It appears the cop out is on you. Since you cannot measure it with the convenient tools of science and math you claim it must not exist. Magical thinking.
A rather significant cop out if you ask me. Many realities exist that have yet to be captured through empirical means. Maybe science is lagging in its duty to provide such a tool but simply to claim it does not exist because you do not have the tools to measure it is…well rather a head buried in the sand approach.
@Alex
How do you know?
So, you do not attach any meaning to “omniscient” other than “it’s a property that God has”. You do not assume that there are any specific things that God could or could not do, because that would be judging his omniscience, which you (in your finite way) are not capable of doing.
In short, you are not using the word the way anyone else in the world is using it. In fact, you’re not really using it at all. If I say that “God is not capable of doing X”, you could argue that I’m not qualified to make that declaration, but you emphatically could not argue that he is capable of doing X, because you’re no more qualified.
Is that about right?
alan_h
@Alex
Many realities exist that have yet to be captured through empirical means
How do you know?
_______________________________
1. History demonstrates that certain realities, while beyond the measure of empirical documentation, were later able to be ascertained through scientific and mathematic development.
2. The present realties of thought and love, for example (not the whole list of examples but easily identifiable examples), while being able to POSSIBLY measure their effects, their realities (that is their substance) cannot be observed or measure empirically, yet they are testified to and witness as truly existing.
Alex, dude, when a course of action has been decided since before you were born then any choice you make is an illusion. What decision could possibly be made when the course of action is not open to alternatives? Philosophers and logicians and religious leaders have had thousands of years to go over this simple concept. It is a paradox, plain and simple.
As for the genetic defect.. are you admitting that god doesn’t have any role in the creation of a child? That is a yes or no question, Alex. Don’t respond to me at all unless you intend to answer that question with a yes or no.
As for this…
No, what you did was read a book and believe the words. If god revealed himself to you then you would have proof of his existence, at least proof enough for yourself as an individual. Once you have proof you do not need faith. This means that since god has proven himself to you, you have no faith in your god.
And you dare to accuse others of magical thinking.
wintermute
So, you do not attach any meaning to “omniscient” other than “it’s a property that God has”. You do not assume that there are any specific things that God could or could not do, because that would be judging his omniscience, which you (in your finite way) are not capable of doing.
In short, you are not using the word the way anyone else in the world is using it. In fact, you’re not really using it at all. If I say that “God is not capable of doing X”, you could argue that I’m not qualified to make that declaration, but you emphatically could not argue that he is capable of doing X, because you’re no more qualified.
Is that about right?
________________________________
That would be about wrong. Let’s look at your claim that my definition of “omniscient” that does not include its potential use is “the way anyone else in the world is using it”. Merriam-Webster:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/omniscient
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight 2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge
A rather common source eh? And its defintion does NOT have in view its real or potential use.
Aor
Alex, dude, when a course of action has been decided since before you were born then any choice you make is an illusion.
______________________________
Friend, you have revealed a fatal flaw in your argument with me. You both presume and assume that this has been presently acceptable in my mind and the mind of all others which has yet to be revealed, discussed or presented.
It is a topic of discussion but so far I have yet to imply or insist that this view be present or accepted in any discussion nor have I included it through implication or direct contribution in any of my responses.
Aor
As for the genetic defect.. are you admitting that god doesn’t have any role in the creation of a child?
__________________________
You are projecting this admission. It certainly is not present in my argument. I have consistently presented within the framework of my argument that God allows the physical realities of the human condition to further themselves as mankind exercises his volition. Your choices are YOURS, not God’s.
Alex, you haven’t responded to the paradox. You can pretend this is a fatal flaw, but if it you have seen a fatal flaw in this paradox then you should go to the nearest telephone and call the pope, call the leaders of the largest religious institutions you know of, and tell them of this flaw. I assure you, they will want to hear of it. They will put you on the cover of magazines, you will have people flocking to your door for having solved a millenia old paradox. So if there is a flaw, make it clear. Make it public. Make yourself a millionaire. Congratulation, a person on the internet has solved an important paradox in theology! Your claim, in other words, amounts to overturning thousands of years of logic. I think you had best try to back that up with something. By now the nearest university to you should be calling you with an offer of an honorary theology degree. Is that happening yet? I wonder why not.
And again I will ask you about your position on genetic defects. I sense you are unwilling to speak plainly. Are you saying that god has no role in creating a chlid? Are you saying that god does not have the power to correct genetic abnormalities? Are you putting limits on god’s power? If you take the position that the parents are entirely responsible for the genetic makeup of the child then you are indeed taking the position that god has no power to change those things. This is an either/or position. Take a side and stay with it.
I have spent a little time on your blog, reading your testimony and other posts you have written and I have to say that it saddens me to have lost such a creative thinker from my team. But since I still believe that Hebrews 6:4-8 is accurately describing your condition, I will not attempt to change your mind.
I would like to throw my proverbial two cents in for your review. I myself am a staunch advocate for an open-minded pursuit of truth and love when someone or something stirs my mind and gets me to challenge what I believe. I must say however, that after reading your blog I find myself being more ammused then challenged.
It appears that you are doing a wonderful job in shedding your former method of processing world events in favor of the more popular viewpoint of sarcastic, secular humanism. In doing so, you are saying that your 3-pound brain is sufficient to decipher the secrets of the universe.
My method of interperetation, still open-minded, would be slightly more humble than that. I guess I am just not quite audacious enough to suppose that I, in my finite human frailty can give answers to the infinite amount of uncertainties in the world. One of which being the roof collapsing on this poor village.
Why does a poorly constructed roof collapse in the middle of a jungle? I don’t know, maybe because it was poorly constructed. Why doesn’t God intervene and stop the roof from collapsing? Well, why don’t you first ask why He didn’t intervene in the garden of Eden and stop this whole mess before it got ugly? Forget roofs falling on people, why didn’t he stop sin from entering the picture?
The answer, I believe, is that love without choice is not love at all. Humans are the only creature with the capacity to love God. This gift requires the correct response…the voluntary response of love. God created us to love Him, forever. We were never intended to die, but because we joined a rebellion that Satan started thousands of years ago, we were sentenced to share in His fate – the Lake of Fire. (Mt. 25:41)
Death, violence, disease, roofs falling on peoples heads, etc. were not part of the original plan. We had dominion of a perfect earth, walking in intimate communion with the God of the Universe and we traded it for slavery to the father of lies – Satan.
So when bad things happen, the sarcastic humanist will be the first one to say something like, “If God were a God of love, why would he have let this happen” when in reality it is because God is a God of love that He let’s these things happen. We chose to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil knowing fully that it would bring death (Gen. 2:17) and then when death comes we scream, “Why!”.
To sum it up, God has given us the ability to chose whom we will serve. You along with countless others have chosen a life apart from the One who made you. Others have chosen to lovingly submit to their Creator in an intimate union that will last forever. In either case, the life we live on this peanut called earth will be marked with the effects of sin. Man has given his dominion over to darkness and darkness is having its way.
Soon enough, Jesus Christ will split the sky and everyone will know that He was who He said He was and only then will the works of darkness be thwarted and the earth return to its blessed state. Until then, I pray that you and those who read your blog would be granted the spirit of repentance and that God would send forth His light and truth unto an unveiling of the most beautiful Man in human history.
David
Aor
And again I will ask you about your position on genetic defects. I sense you are unwilling to speak plainly.
_____________________________________
I have spoken quite plainly. I believe that you demand I indict God in order to qualify as speaking plainly. It is not necessary.
Again, do you want a scientific or theological answer?
What, exactly, is the choice that a baby makes in order to get a genetic defect? Or do the parents somehow deliberately decide to cause a serious mutation in their child? I thought you’d backed away from the idea that all suffering is caused by the previous choices of the “victim”.
Yes, that is the common definition. But it’s making an explicit judgement about what an omniscient being is capable of. Do you think that the editors of Merriam-Webster are qualified to making that judgement? Wouldn’t that, according to your previous arguments, require them to have the property of omniscience themselves?
Aor
You are insisting that if someone has the power to change they are obligated to enforce change satisfactory to your expectations, therein lies your error.
Genetic realties are subject to the laws of nature/physics. They will be what they will be based on the migration of all elements as nature/physics import and exports them. That is the system God set up. God is not absent, he designed and initiated this system.
No, we’re just pointing out that God is capable of fixing suffering that is caused by the system you admit he set up. As you point out, it’s not reasonable to say that God is either “good” or “bad”, using words that we are capable of understanding. As he’s not “good”, it doesn’t make sense for us to insist that he fix the problems that he himself caused.
Whether or not causing suffering and then refusing to alleviate it is “good” or “bad” is something you’ve gone to great lengths to avoid having to answer, simply because there’s a very obvious answer that you don’t like. Still, if it makes you happy to believe that God is justified in treating humans like shit just because he’s more powerful than they are, then more power to you.
@dbate
What’s more humble?
1) The position that we don’t know why we’re here, we’re not sure how we got here, and that we don’t presume to know the nature of things of which there is no evidence for… or
2) The position where we assume that we have a purpose, that God created us to be special, that we have a father figure watching over us, and that we do presume to know things such as this based on no evidence.
Which one? Which is more humble of a position? If you say #2, then you don’t know what “humble” means.
@Alex G:
Knowing something exists is not the same as assuming it will be proven to exist at a later date.
There are entire branches of science dedicated to studying these phenomena, such as: cognitive psychology, neuropsychology, personality psychology, and physiological psychology.
There is much scientific literature dealing with love, and several pen-and-paper measurement tools exist, such as Rubin’s Scales.
Again: how do you “know” a spiritual realm exists?
@alex
I notice you don’t mention the paradox at all. Do you imagine that pretending a problem doesn’t exist will make it go away? Respond to the point. Avoidance implies a great deal. To me it implies that you are unwilling to concede a point.
Anything other than avoidance and evasion would be nice. Do you think that not answering a question this simple earns you respect or makes you appear to be reliable? If you have spoken plainly, why ask what kind of an answer I want? I see a contradiction there. If speaking plainly would be to indict god, then I can understand why you don’t want to speak plainly. But you see, this is an admission that you intend to deceive. Plain speaking is to tell the truth, to be honest. You openly admit that to speak plainly would be to indict your god. The meaning is there, if you can’t see it. For you to be honest would be detrimental to your belief system, so you will not be honest.
My point on genetics seems rather clear, as wintermute pointed out above.
@dbate:
Can you admit that you may be wrong? That would be the hallmark of open-mindedness.
wintermute
No, we’re just pointing out that God is capable of fixing suffering that is caused by the system you admit he set up.
______________________________
On the contrary. The system set up by God was always consequential. However, the design by God was without suffering. In man’s disobedience he (man) manipulated that system and introduced the element of suffering, pain and death, not God. God set up a system of consequence that man chose to manipulate and introduce suffering. Suffering, pain and death was introduced by man, not God.
Alex Guggenheim
wintermute
No, we’re just pointing out that God is capable of fixing suffering that is caused by the system you admit he set up.
_____________________________________
Secondly, pointing out that God is capable of doing something proves only that he is capable, not that he is obligated or less than divine for not doing so. Your point only serves to address the obvious, not your contention.
@alan
Because the Bible says so, duh!
@Alex
You just argued against your own point. If God is omniscient, then he knew what Adam/Eve would do. He set up the system of consequence knowing full well what would happen. He set the trap. He created man in his own image, set the trap, and let it happen. Why would a just god do this? Man didn’t have free will to choose anything, because God created him to be of a specific nature, set up the scenario, knew already what would happen, and let it happen.
I know that the fact that something is unreasonable doesn’t mean that it’s not true, but if God is real, and he is this unreasonable, then I do not want to know him.
F%$# God.
@Alex G
So you are just going to pretend I never spoke at all, right?
McBloggenstein: “Man didn’t have free will to choose anything, because God created him to be of a specific nature, set up the scenario, knew already what would happen, and let it happen.”
Just thought I’d mention that this was the specific question which bugged me to no end about ten years ago after I was serving for a couple of years as a youth leader. I had all the other same apologetic defences still heard today (and forevermore, probably), but this was the one thing I could not satisfy. The argument of man having free will, and thus chose their own path, fails miserably. The argument that there is evil and suffering because everything must have an opposite, (i.e darkness is merely the absence of light, and since god is light/goodness, if god exists then it follows that evil must exist also) sounded pretty good at first (I may be wrong but I think I first read about this idea in ‘The problem of Pain’), but it still didn’t satisfy the problem.
By then, God to me was some kind of sadistic scriptwriter and we were merely the flammable extras in his sick play. It’s total bullshit how one can assert an omni-everything God and ascribe emotions like grief, regret, jealously, pride etc to it.
Gloating over people dying because they believed in God.
wtf man
Jacob
Where’s the gloating? And are you saying that they died *because* they believed in God? Wow…another reason not to believe.
dbate,
“In doing so, you are saying that your 3-pound brain is sufficient to decipher the secrets of the universe.”
No, Daniel and others are saying that the collective observations and experiments of humanity (a bunch of 3-pound brains, over time) is a better way to decipher the secrets of the universe than looking it up in a book that is thousands of years old, filled with numerous contradictions, lacking internal consistency, with a clear basis in mythological tradition.
“I guess I am just not quite audacious enough to suppose that I, in my finite human frailty can give answers to the infinite amount of uncertainties in the world.”
And yet you think other humans who lived thousands of years ago who had no knowledge of most of our natural world are more qualified to give us answers as to the uncertainties of the world? Your position is essentially special pleading in that regard. If you are not qualified to answer these questions, then those who compiled the Bible are certainly not qualified to answer these questions.
“Well, why don’t you first ask why He didn’t intervene in the garden of Eden and stop this whole mess before it got ugly?”
Have you spent any time around toddlers, dbate?
Do you know what toddlers are prone to do? They’re prone to question the basis of their parents’ authority.
“Timmy, I said not to play near the well!” a mother may instruct. However, Timmy doesn’t know the difference between right and wrong. He’s not sure why his mother should be obeyed: she told him to do something, but why should he obey just because she told him to do something?
Now, a normal parent would do their best to keep Timmy away from the well. Only a cruel parent would’ve let the child fallen into the well on purpose to teach them to obey their authority.
Yet your god supposedly let us fall into the well of sin on purpose? And you’re trying to tell me that this is a benevolent god?
Adam and Eve would have had no knowledge of good or evil. By “eating the fruit”, they would have been merely questioning the authority of a parental figure, something that every child does occasionally as a part of his or her behavioral development.
A good parental figure would tell Timmy that it was wrong to break the rules, and may administer a punishment. Ultimately, the parent and child could grow closer to each other as a result of the rule-breaking, when the mother tells Timmy that she makes these rules because she wants to protect him, and that she loves him.
A good parent would send Timmy to time-out. Your god sent Adam and Eve kicking and screaming from Paradise.
Your god’s rules aren’t for our benefit. If we live a life a “normal” life on Earth, make a few mistakes, but generally live a good life, but don’t believe in a god or follow the “wrong” religion, we are condemned to eternal torture. How is this for our benefit? Yahweh is a parental figure who doesn’t make rules because he loves us. How is it loving to send us to eternal torture for a mere lifetime of mistakes? Do we learn anything from hell? Do we gain anything out of it? If it were merely a temporary experience that could teach us how to be good people, then maybe your god would actually be up to par with the methods of modern parenting, but unfortunately he falls quite short of the mark.
The rules in the Bible aren’t for our benefit: they’re for the benefit of the tribes and civillizations which compiled them. The Biblical rules probably were beneficial at one point: beneficial to the human societies which compiled the Biblical accounts. The Bible is important, just as the Qur’an and the Bhagavad-Gita are important works, but it’s not a divinely inspired text.
“The answer, I believe, is that love without choice is not love at all.”
So if an armed mugger comes up to you on the street and says, give me your money or I’ll kill you, isn’t that also a choice? It seems your god is saying “love me, or I’ll have you tortured forever”. If he existed, he’d be the ultimate mugger. “Give me your wallet/ceaseless devotion or I’ll kill you/have you condemned to an eternity of torture”.
“We were never intended to die, but because we joined a rebellion that Satan started thousands of years ago.”
Where did Satan come from? Please tell me where Satan came from.
Is he a fallen angel? If he was an angel, he would have been created by your god, if your god created angels. Of course, supposedly your god created everything, so unless there is some other god he would’ve had to create angels.
So, if Satan had the free will to rebel against your god, who gave him that capacity? Your god must have given him that capacity. And if the capacity to commit evil existed, then evil must have previously existed if the capacity for it existed as well. Therefore, your god must have been the originator of evil. Given this circumstance, I believe that these are the two most likely explanations:
a) Your god purposefully brought evil into this world to separate “the chaff” and “the wheat” — I could not worship such a malevolent god
b) This whole mythology is a creation of human beings
When we account for other arguments (such as other Biblical contradictions and the general lack of evidence for supernatural phenomena), option (b) is far more plausible.
“Death, violence, disease, roofs falling on peoples heads, etc. were not part of the original plan.”
Ah ha, I see that you do agree with me that option (a) is not reasonable. Why would a benevolent god plan for all of these things to occur? Would you still not say that option (b) is more plausible? Unless you can more clearly explain the origins of “evil” according to the Biblical account, I will be forced to conclude that we are in agreement.
Also, I found it ironic that you mentioned Jesus and Adam in the same post.
Didn’t Jesus say about his tormentors “forgive them, for they know not what they do?”
Who in the entire history of our world would the phrase “forgive them, for they know not what they do?” apply better than to Adam or Eve? Sure, they would’ve known about death, but Timmy also knows about the well. Furthermore, neither Timmy nor Adam knows that the rules are set up because of love; Adam (not knowing good or evil) is mentally equivalent to Timmy the toddler. However, Adam’s parental figure’s rules are ultimately unmotivated by love.
Of course, the story of Adam and Eve could be metaphorical yet also spiritually true. However, if this is the case, how would one account for all the “death through Adam, life through Christ” passages? It seems as if the writers of Paul’s letters interpret this account literally.
@ Alex Guggenheim
“However, the design by God was without suffering”
Riiiight.
So, let’s recap: our ancestors are forced to endure millions of years of suffering in the course of the natural selection and evolution which formed homo sapiens, and you’re suggesting that “the design by God was without suffering”. We know that evolution occured. All life on Earth came from a common ancestor. Are you absolutely sure that you want to suggest that “the design by God was without suffering”?
I don’t think there was a designer for natural selection, but if there was, it would have to be an exceedingly cruel designer. Homo sapiens wouldn’t be who we are today without intensive suffering experienced continually for many millions and millions of years.
@dbate
“The answer, I believe, is that love without choice is not love at all.”
If you believe this is true, we must have vastly different definitions of love.
“We were never intended to die, but because we joined a rebellion that Satan started thousands of years ago, we were sentenced to share in His fate – the Lake of Fire.”
Only if you admit that your god is NOT omniscient can the assertion that “we were never intended to die” be acceptable. By saying this you are essentially saying that god doesn’t always have control over the outcomes of the events he puts in motion. So much for omnipotence.
1) God loves all mankind
2) God ‘intended’ for all mankind to stay in his happy garden/heaven
3) God made hell
3) Half of all mankind has gone, is in, will go, etc to hell
Now that’s some masochism at it’s best.
One of my recent favourites about the whole man was designed stuff is along the lines of what sort of designer puts the pleasure garden next to the sewage out.
aye, but then again some innovative people have converted said sewage to a second pleasure garden.
human ingenuity trumps intelligent design again!
So you do accept that God could, if he so chose, prevent all the suffering he has deliberately caused?
Isn’t that making a judgement about his omnipotence? Are you qualified to say that he can do that?
I’ll agree that he’s not obligated to undo the harm he’s caused, and nor does it make him “less than divine” not to do so, but only because “divine” seems to mean “like God”, making it as meaningless as your versions of “good” or “omnipotent”. It does make him less worthy of admiration and worship, though.
Well, if they hadn’t believed in God, they probably wouldn’t have been in Church, so arguably, yes they did die because they believed. It’s a bit of a stretch, though.
Has anyone seen my sandwich? I think I left it here yesterday.
Cheers
Paul
“Where’s the gloating? And are you saying that they died *because* they believed in God? Wow…another reason not to believe.”
No, I’m saying that he’s gloating *because* they believed in God and were crushed to death — fancy that. And, yeah, it’s clear he’s gloating. The irony is considered to be a victory for atheism.
Love doesn’t exist without freedom! If God had created us without the ability to choose and make decisions then what kind of existence is that? In His love He allows us to make choices which have consequences who knows what choices were made surrounded this roof collapsing? Maybe a choice was made not to repair when it could have been repaired? Maybe the workers did not put any effort into building it properly? Maybe the people who built & worshiped there just weren’t real bright?
God can be all knowing and at the same time allow us to make choices out of that love. Christians also believe that this life is temporary so some temporary pain of a roof falling does not compare at all to the joy of heaven. If those people in that church were truly worshipers and if what they believe is true then today they worship in heaven. Where there is no pain or suffering? How does that make God somehow absent or evil?
I will be honest there are moments when my gut reaction is to point my fingers at God and ask Him how could He allow this to happen and how could He be so calloused but what we fail to do is look at ourselves. How can God allow millions of people to go hungry in our world? Well how can we live in a world where there are millions in this world who have less to live on than what I spend each day on a cup of coffee?
If God has given us free will and He has asked us to care for the earth and its people then it seems like we are the ones failing not Him.
There are some great discussions on here and I appreciate the manner in which much of this is discussed. This is my first post on here and I look forward to these discussions!
Ben,
Thanks for joining the discussion.
“Love doesn’t exist without freedom! If God had created us without the ability to choose and make decisions then what kind of existence is that?”
So I have the freedom to accept your god or be tortured for eternity? Like the freedom I have to give a mugger my wallet or be shot? Why should I believe that either the mugger or the Biblical god really does love me?
Would a parent let a toddler burn their finger on a hot surface? Would a loving parent let a toddler stick their finger in an electrical socket? A wise parent recognizes when it is appropriate to let children make their own decisions, and the responsible parent also recognizes when the stakes are too high to let their children risk everything. What parent would let their child do something that would endanger their life? No sane, loving parent would let a child do something so risky! So why would your god so callously let us play with the fate of our eternal souls in the balance?
If our parents know what is best for us, and can take measures to protect us until we know how to make decisions for ourselves, then wouldn’t a creator of the universe and everything in it also know better than we do what is best for us, and wouldn’t such a being take measures to protect us until we know how to make decisions for ourselves?
A loving parent’s love for a child does not include the freedom for a child to endanger its own life. That is not love: that is negligence.
A loving parent wouldn’t let their child burn a finger on a stove, but your god would let some of his children burn every part of their body for the rest of time. What kind of love is that?
I completely understand what your thinking teleprompter i have struggled with those thoughts also! It seems that in our culture divine judgement along with the hypocricy of most believers is a huge struggle. Our culture seems to have no issue with a God who loves loves us and supports us no matter how we live. Throughout history many not just Christians have believed that the world has a moral order outside of itself. Our culture today seems to want to reverse that, we want to shape our desires to fit reality. We believe so deeply in our personal rights that we struggle to believe that anyone or anything has the right to judge us.
Wrath is actually a response of love. My family is adopting a little girl from Ethiopia and we are waiting for the paperwork to process until its done (can’t wait). The first time I visited the orphanage I was filled with rage! Anger that such poverty exists, the parents would leave their children on the street, that America is filled with such wealth and these children suffer each day. If you love a person and see something ruining them then you would feel the desire to respond! God’s wrath is not a grouchy explosion its a but a settled opposition to a way of life that He clearly believes is not best for the people He created and loved. The opposite of love is hate not anger or wrath – real anger or wrath is born out of love!
If God were not angry at injustice and oppression and pain and suffering around the world then He would not be a God worthy of worship at all.
Vengance is a part of all of us when someone wrongs us in the deepest most painful way we want to take revenge ourselves. Without divine justice awaiting, without a God of justice who eventually will put things right then my temptation is to take up the sword myself. The problem is if God really is God then isn’t He more equipped to judge the world he created than I am?
I think we have this thought (unfortunately many dumb Christians have preached this outside of football games or nightclubs or wherever) that there are people who at the end of time are going to be crying out for forgiveness and God says sorry hell for you. The truth is God gives us over to our own evil desires He allows us to choose and many of us choose eternity apart from Him. Which is as painful as a lake of fire if God is who He says He is.
As far as a parent and a child, I believe that is why the age of accountability exist. No child will be judged for his or her choices only those of us who can understand the deliberate choice to choose our way of life versus the path God has planned for us.
The problem with that is that the age of accountability has no biblical backing. The concept was invented in America in the late 19th Century, and only a tiny minority of Christians believe in it.
You believe in the age of accountability because it means that God doesn’t do something that you personally consider to be irredeemably evil. What God actually says on the subject, in Numbers 14:18 (which is a direct restatement of Exodus 34:7 and Deuteronomy 5:9):
In other words, if your great-grandfather sinned, God is going to punish you, with no regard to your age or culpability.
Why do you believe in the extra-biblical “age of accountability”, when God’s own word, repeated three times, directly contradicts it?
wintermute – thanks for your thoughts but I think you have taken those texts out of context – It is very clear that we learn from our fathers and mothers and even have a tendancy to repeat the same sins they have.
For me my father has a terrible temper and anger – I can feel this in me as well – I have to be very cautious about it or I will visit the iniquity of my father as well but scripture by no means says we are responsible for the sins of our father and need to ask forgiveness for them. It says we have a leaning towards them.
(Ezekiel 18:20) – “The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.”
Real anger is born out of love. Sorry, but that is blatantly false. Kids get angry at each other on the playground, are they loving each other? People get angry all the time, and its not from love. One specific example of how anger and love are connected in your mind proves nothing. Now that this has been shown, I think it would be a good sign if you make some mention that you have learned and maybe restate whatever it was you were trying to say with this anger and love business.
Omniscience conflicts with free will. If a god knows all your actions before you are born, before the universe existed, then you never have free will. None of your choices was really a choice. All predestined, understand?
Your religion contradicts itself, in this way as well as others.
PS. When accusing someone of taking words out of context, it is not wise to take words out of context. Bible quote vs bible quote, how can you claim which one is in context and which one is not? You may need to provide a justification for something like that.
Ben:
You still haven’t explained why you believe in the completely abiblical concept of an age of accountability. Do you think that the American Baptists of the late 19th Century had a special insight into the mind of God that no-one before them ever figured out? Does this imply that they’re also right on (for example) slavery?
I certainly don’t believe the American baptists have it figured out at all! In fact in many ways they frustrate me more than any other denomination that exists!
Here is the best I could do and I agree with you that scripture does not lay out a clear year when a child becomes accountable but here are my thoughts:
And this is pretty tricky stuff – You made me do some research which is why I am surfing this site recently I want to make certain I am clear in my understanding of my faith and I do want to have an open mind about this stuff.
Here is what I believe -
When Christ died on the cross, He died for the sins of the world but He also died to satisfy the sin problem. I do not have the time here to get much into the distinction between sin and sins. Simply speaking, sins refer to the individual sins we commit while sin deals with the sin nature itself. The Bible teaches that Christ died for all men. Yet I believe that all men are not saved. I believe that He solved the sin problem by satisfying God’s wrath. That is why He can potentially offer salvation to all men. But men also commit sins. Not only do they have a sin nature, they continually break the law of God. These sins are willing. Therefore, they require an act of the will in order to receive forgiveness.
But what is the condition of babies? They have not sinned willingly like you stated earlier, therefore they have not committed sins. Their only guilt is found in Adam’s guilt and in their sin nature. Christ took care of the sin problem in becoming a second Adam without sin and conquering sin on the cross. Since children have not willfully committed any sins, they are not unsaved in our understanding of the word.
You keep asking for biblical evidence and I believe there is. In Romans, chapter seven, Paul speaks of the effect the law had on him. In one critical passage, he states, “For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died. And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.” Paul grew up studying the law. He was brought up at the feet of Gamaliel (Acts 22:3), one of the great teachers of the law. So whatever the experience described here, it had to occur when he was very young because he speaks of a time that he was without the law.
What, then, was his condition without the law? Paul says that when he was without the law, he was alive. Then, when the commandment came (that is, when he understood the commandment against lusting – Romans 7:7), sin revived and he died. I believe this is a description of Paul passing from a state of innocence into a state of personal accountability to God. He realized what sin was and that he was guilty. Up until then, he was alive. At that point, he died. He was not saved before, but he had not yet died to God either. If he had physically died before this spiritual death, he would have gone to be with God because he was alive to Him. He belonged to God until his willful sin separated him from God. This is the condition of every baby. They are alive unto God until they die in sin.
I appreciate the discussion wintermute and I appreciate that I have a few posts on here and no one has told me I am uneducated or narrow minded – I seek to have an open mind and I have studied scripture for most of my 30 years. I am by no means an expert but I do want to know and understand what I believe and why I believe it. Thanks for asking me tough questions!
Ben. You did see my comment, yes? Are you ignoring it?
Ben? You there?
On a completely unrelated note, here is a quote from an article on David Attenborough.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/4345830/Sir-David-Attenborough-I-get-hate-mail-telling-me-to-burn-in-hell-for-not-crediting-God.html