Is The Christian God A Personal God?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

We all recognize that people don't get fed, partly because of the actions of other people. But wasn't the story also about God? Isn't God's character at issue? Why is it all our fault when there is a God who supposedly cares about humans?

 

I think that is the whole point as I said earlier. God's character can't be accessed by our status, actions, life styles because at the very same time that their are suffering, dying, stomache swelled up, ALL the sadistic desciptions throughout this thread have described these suffering people; at the same time, their our people that don't even have to stand up and get their mail, drink, food, newspaper because they have more money than one needs in any life.

 

 

Simple truth here. If we added up everyone's assets in this world, and helped the suffering, there would be enough to not only not suffer anyone anymore, but for everyone to live above well off.

 

Why is God even computed into this scenario?

 

Because we wonder why God gave strawberries when asked, and He didn't give them anything when they asked.

[Vixentrox]

 

I say, Come on God. You say, God has taken to long, he is monstrous.

 

 

You so easily gloss over the suffering of real flesh and blood people for a theological concept you can't see or speak to or feel with your senses. It's almost like you don't believe there are actually people out there dying. Or that those people don't matter.

 

Maybe that's the whole point of christian theology. To make believers somehow forget or not care about the lives of the starving so that indignant people won't rise up and overthrow their christian rulers and christian clergy.

 

And how quickly you forget the words omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent . So God is immortal and he has a different perspective. And thus it is okay for him to let these children and impoverished adults die slow, withering gnawing, undignified deaths. Sounds like you are tacitly admitting that your god is not benevolent.

 

 

You know, it's funny. I took a bit off from here and am reading through responses when I got to Kathlene's responses. I was thinking about this whole people suffering thing last few days and realized the same thing that Kathlene suggested.

 

WE are the reason people starve, not God. All the millionaires billionaires who do nothing, and even on a smaller scale, people with more than one human could ever need do nothing. People love their money.

Well, why haven't you done as you have been commanded? Are you a fraud for Jesus? Intentionally disobeying? Give away all your shit now.

[par4dcourse]

 

I think that is the entire point. If everyone sold everything they had except what they needed to survive, and gave the rest to people that are poor, suffering, etc; that WOULD be from God because it is not from us (obviously) and Jesus SAID this is exactly what WE are suppose to do.

So, you are incorrect.

communism:a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common,

 

Now I understand. God is a communist.

[Abiyoyo]

 

Well, why haven't you done as you have been commanded? Are you a fraud for Jesus? Intentionally disobeying? Give away all your shit now.

 

 

I'm not in any of those classes of people. I'm not suffering, but I have enough to live, but not really even comfortably. But, if I do ever win the lottery, that is probably what I would do.

[Abiyoyo]

 

I think that is the entire point. If everyone sold everything they had except what they needed to survive, and gave the rest to people that are poor, suffering, etc; that WOULD be from God because it is not from us (obviously) and Jesus SAID this is exactly what WE are suppose to do.

So, you are incorrect.

communism:a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common,

 

Now I understand. God is a communist.

 

Holding and distributing are different things. You a smart guy, you should know that. I'm not saying that people should give to a common thing, then it be given to whatever is needed like in a government system, as you defined; but rather, EVERYONE that is richer than any one human would ever NEED to give to the suffering, which I believe if totaled up would surpass needs and all would be in good care.

 

So, definiton doesn't fit there.

[NotBlinded]

I was kind of hoping people would comment more on what they thought of the story. Did you all think it was just pure coincidence that this incident happened?

I don't think it happened at all. It sounds just like the countless smarmy Christian propaganda e-mails everybody gets.

 

Seriously, do you think providing free strawberries to a woman too cheap to pay the going price is some kind of answer to prayer or need?

You missed my point florduh.

My point was that it was God teaching her about His character. Not necassarily about a prayer or need.

The whole point within that story was I think that God wanted to show this woman that she could have faith, not whinging and complaining. I think He was teaching her a bit about who His character is. Her mindset was one of lack, not thankfulness in the God who provides for her.

Then what is this God's character? A provider? That she should be thankful for being provided for? All of those assumptions lead back to those that don't get provided for. IMO, being thankful for the things we have to a provider is nothing more than elitism. Imagine that there was a country and this king in this country provides for all people (since the kingdom of God is a monarchy). If he is a fair king, he will provide for all, not a select group. Let's say this king isn't so nice and starts singling out a few people to give food to. The ones that received nothing look upon the others as they give thanks to the king for their food. They are starving. The full ones look over at them and think it must be something they these "others" have done to not get anything from the king. They walk away in false humility...smugness.

 

Giving thanks to a God that is supposed to provide for everyone and doesn't is just saying that they are somehow chosen and above the ones that don't receive. So, I guess I'm not getting what you are saying about the character of God.

[NotBlinded]

 

I say, Come on God. You say, God has taken to long, he is monstrous.

 

 

You so easily gloss over the suffering of real flesh and blood people for a theological concept you can't see or speak to or feel with your senses. It's almost like you don't believe there are actually people out there dying. Or that those people don't matter.

 

Maybe that's the whole point of christian theology. To make believers somehow forget or not care about the lives of the starving so that indignant people won't rise up and overthrow their christian rulers and christian clergy.

 

And how quickly you forget the words omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent . So God is immortal and he has a different perspective. And thus it is okay for him to let these children and impoverished adults die slow, withering gnawing, undignified deaths. Sounds like you are tacitly admitting that your god is not benevolent.

You know OB, when I believed and food was served, we were sometimes reminded of the starving kids and not to waste food and to give thanks for the food we received. I never thought about what that is actually saying. It's a mind-game that isn't recognized as being a game. I became thankful that I wasn't one of those children and thankful that God thought enough about me and cared enough for me that food was on my table. How wonderful!! How horrible that we teach our children to feel superior to those without. Yet, we do it to comfort our children because feeling special is so nice. There has got to be a better way...

[dagnarus]

 

 

You know, the big problem with this argument is that it backfires big time.

 

The problems of the world are our fault, I agree.

 

What's the solution? We have to start caring and helping others around us.

 

If this actually happens, what did God do? Absolutely nothing. We did it. Without him.

 

If two billion Christians haven't solved the world's problems by now, if 33 per cent of the world's population can't follow the most basic teachings of Jesus of helping others in poverty, it's up to everyone else. Again, if this happens, God had nothing to do with it.

 

I think that is the entire point. If everyone sold everything they had except what they needed to survive, and gave the rest to people that are poor, suffering, etc; that WOULD be from God because it is not from us (obviously) and Jesus SAID this is exactly what WE are suppose to do.

 

So, you are incorrect.

 

No, your qualifying what Jesus said. Jesus said everything. Why do you qualify this, because you know that when Jesus said that you need not worry for you food, your clothing, your shelter, that he was full of shit.

[NotBlinded]

 

 

We all recognize that people don't get fed, partly because of the actions of other people. But wasn't the story also about God? Isn't God's character at issue? Why is it all our fault when there is a God who supposedly cares about humans?

 

I think that is the whole point as I said earlier. God's character can't be accessed by our status, actions, life styles because at the very same time that their are suffering, dying, stomache swelled up, ALL the sadistic desciptions throughout this thread have described these suffering people; at the same time, their our people that don't even have to stand up and get their mail, drink, food, newspaper because they have more money than one needs in any life.

 

 

Simple truth here. If we added up everyone's assets in this world, and helped the suffering, there would be enough to not only not suffer anyone anymore, but for everyone to live above well off.

 

Why is God even computed into this scenario?

 

Because we wonder why God gave strawberries when asked, and He didn't give them anything when they asked.

God didn't give strawberries when asked. A person did. One can't give thanks to the same provider (God) and then place blame elsewhere.

[dagnarus]

 

 

We all recognize that people don't get fed, partly because of the actions of other people. But wasn't the story also about God? Isn't God's character at issue? Why is it all our fault when there is a God who supposedly cares about humans?

 

I think that is the whole point as I said earlier. God's character can't be accessed by our status, actions, life styles because at the very same time that their are suffering, dying, stomache swelled up, ALL the sadistic desciptions throughout this thread have described these suffering people; at the same time, their our people that don't even have to stand up and get their mail, drink, food, newspaper because they have more money than one needs in any life.

 

So if all the rich people suddenly decided to give hand outs to third world nations, right then and their poverty would be solved, hurray. This reminds me of what happened when their was drought in Ethiopia, the first world, gave all this free food to the Ethiopians, and the Ethiopian farmers went out of business, and the famine continued after the drought because foreign aid destroyed the agricultural industry. And that's not taking into account corruption. Everybody giving up all their money isn't going to save the all the suffering in the third world. It's more complicated than that.

 

Simple truth here. If we added up everyone's assets in this world, and helped the suffering, there would be enough to not only not suffer anyone anymore, but for everyone to live above well off.

 

Why is God even computed into this scenario?

 

Because we wonder why God gave strawberries when asked, and He didn't give them anything when they asked.

 

Um, you are the guys who computed God into this scenario, not us, it's not our fault you refuse to think the consequences through fully.

[dagnarus]

 

Well, why haven't you done as you have been commanded? Are you a fraud for Jesus? Intentionally disobeying? Give away all your shit now.

 

 

I'm not in any of those classes of people. I'm not suffering, but I have enough to live, but not really even comfortably. But, if I do ever win the lottery, that is probably what I would do.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if you live better than a first century Jew, which suggests to me that you could live a lot worse, and survive, then there's the fact you should not worry yourself about things like food and clothing, Jesus will take care of you, don't you believe that

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

So if all the rich people suddenly decided to give hand outs to third world nations, right then and their poverty would be solved, hurray. This reminds me of what happened when their was drought in Ethiopia, the first world, gave all this free food to the Ethiopians, and the Ethiopian farmers went out of business, and the famine continued after the drought because foreign aid destroyed the agricultural industry. And that's not taking into account corruption. Everybody giving up all their money isn't going to save the all the suffering in the third world. It's more complicated than that.

 

 

 

Exactly.Others suffer because nothing is free, right. Just like giving firearms to third world countries, then they start terrorist groups, right?

 

When people are left to their own devices, they destroy or conquer.

 

This goes back to what I was saying earlier, their is continual cycles that can't be overlooked, like the examples I gave Oddbird about God relieving the suffering.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if you live better than a first century Jew, which suggests to me that you could live a lot worse, and survive, then there's the fact you should not worry yourself about things like food and clothing, Jesus will take care of you, don't you believe that

 

Your probably correct, but, that doesn't mean your correct, just that your curtailing the debate. To the flip side of that coin, I'm sure their are people possibly within this group that live better than a Roman. But, the point is that we, in 2012, have a multitude of people that make hundreds of thousands, millions, billions, yet; there are suffering people in third world countries.

 

Slice and dice it however which way and it all adds up the same.

[Guest Valkyrie0010]

Imagine for a second, that I am a deity. I look down at my creation, instead of what yoyo believes. I would say they need, my help. Not that the need people to get there acts together. A loving personal good, would have compassion, and want to help every chance possible. Because that would be in the loving perfect nature of the deity.

[oddbird1963]

 

I say, Come on God. You say, God has taken to long, he is monstrous.

 

 

You so easily gloss over the suffering of real flesh and blood people for a theological concept you can't see or speak to or feel with your senses. It's almost like you don't believe there are actually people out there dying. Or that those people don't matter.

 

Maybe that's the whole point of christian theology. To make believers somehow forget or not care about the lives of the starving so that indignant people won't rise up and overthrow their christian rulers and christian clergy.

 

And how quickly you forget the words omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent . So God is immortal and he has a different perspective. And thus it is okay for him to let these children and impoverished adults die slow, withering gnawing, undignified deaths. Sounds like you are tacitly admitting that your god is not benevolent.

 

 

You know, it's funny. I took a bit off from here and am reading through responses when I got to Kathlene's responses. I was thinking about this whole people suffering thing last few days and realized the same thing that Kathlene suggested.

 

WE are the reason people starve, not God. All the millionaires billionaires who do nothing, and even on a smaller scale, people with more than one human could ever need do nothing. People love their money.

 

Abiyoyo,

 

You and Kathleen are just deflecting. This 'It's our fault' line of thinking is just a red herring. It diverts attention from the real issues that you just cannot seem to bring yourself to face.

 

Not once did you deal with the fact that Christians believe three things to be true about God. These things cannot be true with such evil and suffering still in the world AND the Christian got be real.

1) God is all-powerful : He can do anything. "With God nothing shall be impossible." He is able to end hunger.

2) God is all-knowing: he is keenly aware that people are dying. He also knew that the plan that all believers sell their possessions and give them to the poor would not be followed.

3) God is benevolent. Stated another way, God is Good and compassionate. If he knows that people are starving, then he is moved to compassion.

 

Stated another way, God is aware of the problem and is able to solve it. Yet he doesn't. Can he at the same time be good?

 

He is also smart enough to know that the "plan" of giving all you have except what you need to survive would not be followed. Yet, he lets children shrivel up and die with faces hollow and spirits crushed. So which is it? Is he less than All-Powerful? Is he sub-benevolent?

 

So, which truth about God are you willing to compromise, Abiyoyo and Kathleen? There's just three here. If you compromise any of the three, is he still your god?

 

And remember, any being who has the awareness and the means to come to the aid of the dying yet does not is not good. Ultimately it is GOD who lets them starve (assuming your Christian biblical God exists) because he knows his plan as you state it will still leave people starving and dying.

 

Face it. Deal with the issues. Nice try on the guilt trip.

[dagnarus]

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if you live better than a first century Jew, which suggests to me that you could live a lot worse, and survive, then there's the fact you should not worry yourself about things like food and clothing, Jesus will take care of you, don't you believe that

 

Your probably correct, but, that doesn't mean your correct, just that your curtailing the debate. To the flip side of that coin, I'm sure their are people possibly within this group that live better than a Roman. But, the point is that we, in 2012, have a multitude of people that make hundreds of thousands, millions, billions, yet; there are suffering people in third world countries.

 

Slice and dice it however which way and it all adds up the same.

 

And my point was that slice and dice it however you want, your still not following Jesus command that you give up all your possessions to the less fortunate, and you don't really trust that he would be willing to provide for your earthly needs, like he promised. Nice deflection though, your good at that.

[Vixentrox]

 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if you live better than a first century Jew, which suggests to me that you could live a lot worse, and survive, then there's the fact you should not worry yourself about things like food and clothing, Jesus will take care of you, don't you believe that

 

Your probably correct, but, that doesn't mean your correct, just that your curtailing the debate. To the flip side of that coin, I'm sure their are people possibly within this group that live better than a Roman. But, the point is that we, in 2012, have a multitude of people that make hundreds of thousands, millions, billions, yet; there are suffering people in third world countries.

 

Slice and dice it however which way and it all adds up the same.

 

And my point was that slice and dice it however you want, your still not following Jesus command that you give up all your possessions to the less fortunate, and you don't real trust that he would be willing to provide for your earthly needs, like he promised. Nice deflection though, your good at that.

We must be taking those words out of context.....or he's just a typicaly hypocrite Christian that picks and choses to listen to just the parts of the bible that appeals and ignores the rest.

[Shyone]

You know, it's funny. I took a bit off from here and am reading through responses when I got to Kathlene's responses. I was thinking about this whole people suffering thing last few days and realized the same thing that Kathlene suggested.

 

WE are the reason people starve, not God. All the millionaires billionaires who do nothing, and even on a smaller scale, people with more than one human could ever need do nothing. People love their money.

You're slmost there.

 

You are absolutely right. We do everything that gets done, and what doesn't get done is not done by us.

 

There is inequality of ability, and therefore inequality of responsibility, to help others on a massive scale, but the rich do not belong to only one group of people (except, of course, "rich").

 

What can you say about what gets done and what doesn't? The only thing that is completely and entirely missing is God. No direct help, no indirect help, no nothing.

 

Put that together with the promises from the Bible, the supposed nature of God, and the supposed effect of the Holy Spirit, and what you get is that - there are only people. The next time you hear something needs to be done, don't bother praying. Try helping.

 

"Two hands working are worth an infinite number clasped in prayer."

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Abiyoyo,

 

You and Kathleen are just deflecting. This 'It's our fault' line of thinking is just a red herring. It diverts attention from the real issues that you just cannot seem to bring yourself to face.

 

Not once did you deal with the fact that Christians believe three things to be true about God. These things cannot be true with such evil and suffering still in the world AND the Christian got be real.

1) God is all-powerful : He can do anything. "With God nothing shall be impossible." He is able to end hunger.

2) God is all-knowing: he is keenly aware that people are dying. He also knew that the plan that all believers sell their possessions and give them to the poor would not be followed.

3) God is benevolent. Stated another way, God is Good and compassionate. If he knows that people are starving, then he is moved to compassion.

 

Stated another way, God is aware of the problem and is able to solve it. Yet he doesn't. Can he at the same time be good?

 

He is also smart enough to know that the "plan" of giving all you have except what you need to survive would not be followed. Yet, he lets children shrivel up and die with faces hollow and spirits crushed. So which is it? Is he less than All-Powerful? Is he sub-benevolent?

 

So, which truth about God are you willing to compromise, Abiyoyo and Kathleen? There's just three here. If you compromise any of the three, is he still your god?

 

And remember, any being who has the awareness and the means to come to the aid of the dying yet does not is not good. Ultimately it is GOD who lets them starve (assuming your Christian biblical God exists) because he knows his plan as you state it will still leave people starving and dying.

 

Face it. Deal with the issues. Nice try on the guilt trip.

 

1)God can do anything, He is all powerful, There are many more topics other than suffering that the Skeptic could use to point out God's lack of power, because to the Skeptic, as yourself, you need what Thomas needed, to touch Him and feel He is real for yourself. So, really, suffering, loss, pain, rape, torture, murderers, global warming, disease, animals that attack humans, child molesters, these are ALL under the category of, Why these things happen if He is all powerful and all knowing?

 

But, Oddbird, there are no red herrings as you claim, just different opinion. I have answered the questions, and the answers aren't good enough for you.

 

I believe I said I don't know why, and that God ways are not ours from Isaiah. You can't except that, but, that doesn't mean we are incorrect either, it just mean we disagree.

 

Another factor, you prpose your questioning as if there is no God, and your thoughts are surrounded by this concept when you ask your why's about God. My answers are composed around the idea that God is real. It's not about apologetic answers really, it is about differences.

 

I believe God is real, you don't. How could we ever see the same light? We can't. That's why I think it says in the Bible that you have to believe God is, before you can come to him. Because any other way is impossible. Just like our debate.

[Shyone]

My answers are composed around the idea that God is real. It's not about apologetic answers really, it is about differences.

 

I believe God is real, you don't. How could we ever see the same light? We can't. That's why I think it says in the Bible that you have to believe God is, before you can come to him. Because any other way is impossible. Just like our debate.

When will you see that you are making excuses for a god that does nothing?

 

"God's ways are not our ways." Nice excuse, so when nothing happens, you can be happy that nothing happens. Whew! Still believing.

 

You could pray to a brick and get the same excuses to work. Why does the brick not help people even though the brick is all powerful etc? "The brick's ways are not our ways."

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

And my point was that slice and dice it however you want, your still not following Jesus command that you give up all your possessions to the less fortunate, and you don't really trust that he would be willing to provide for your earthly needs, like he promised. Nice deflection though, your good at that.

 

You are deflecting Dagnarus. That is the second time you have asked me about my possessions? Which one of my possessions? My laptop? My car? My clothes? My food? My house? What do you feel I have more than any man could ever have that I should give away???

 

I already said I have what is needed, honestly, I am not a rich person. Yet, again, you ask me the same question and even have the nerve to say that I am deflecting, when you, are the obvious deflector of the questions which had nothing to do with anyone personally on the forums giving away their money, ..unless, you fit that category of having more than one human ever needed

 

Is that the case? Are you a rich guy Dagnarus? If so, don't take it so personal, or take it personal, own up to it, and lets discuss why you feel you should keep your hundreds of thousands, or million, or billion?

[Abiyoyo]

 

We must be taking those words out of context.....or he's just a typicaly hypocrite Christian that picks and choses to listen to just the parts of the bible that appeals and ignores the rest.

 

No, I am just looking at it realistically. In America's society, or anywhere else, the people that live way beyond what they actually need. Is this a debate on how much a person really needs?? I'm lost. A Jew 2000 years ago doesn't fit into the subtopic. The discussion was geared toward people now, assets now, average lifestyle now.

 

So do we need to have an Ex-C poll of what an average American needs to live?

 

I am thinking in my mind, but some may be in another mind on the matter. I see it as, middle road house, middle road car,food, clothing, few extras?? Possibly, it could be based on average income in America, anything more than that could fit into 'extra' category?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

"Two hands working are worth an infinite number clasped in prayer."

 

God? Should a church sit and do nothing and just pray that God do it?

 

WE are God's people that He set to accomplish things on Earth. But, God is starting to fade away, and the some of the one's that do still claim Him would rather hold on to their money. Even in the religious scene, Is it God's fault?

 

Billions tithed in a year, yet people starving. The church is not blameless, but rather a part of it. I had the thought originally from the whole, Sell the Vatican thing. But, though true, maybe that famous actor could sell all she owed as ONE individual and give to the suffering, so her joke was moot to me because she is really a fine example.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

You could pray to a brick and get the same excuses to work. Why does the brick not help people even though the brick is all powerful etc? "The brick's ways are not our ways."

 

Because the brick didn't change my entire being. But regardless, I see your point, but you are a Skeptic, as I was saying to Oddbird. You see this all encompassed around the idea that God is likened to a brick, whereas, I see it as this God is real.

 

Before I was religious, I didn't pertain to the idea that God is omni anything. I always felt there was a reason for everything, kind of a hopeful thing, but even that wasn't directly by God, just in life. Now, I have had a experience with God, and my entire being is different than before, and will always be this way, and I have been even still in the position to wonder if we are just out here all alone, but then, if you keep looking, paying attention, for me, things would line up.

 

So, it's not an excuse, it is my belief. Yes, I do believe in the flying spaghetti monster in the sky. Why not?

 

I have been here for 5 years now and there hasn't been anyone convince or prove to me otherwise.

 

Not to say I have not gotten bogged down with new information from here, but, I have researched and found much of it to be misinterpreted, rhetoric, plain lie, etc.

 

There are a few wonders and truths the Skeptics offer that there is nothing around other than the Christian loosening up from the conformity of church doctrine and becoming open minded to other ideas. So, the church logic doesn't fully register for me because it will fail, but, the God logic is quite strong and able.

[Shyone]

 

 

"Two hands working are worth an infinite number clasped in prayer."

 

God? Should a church sit and do nothing and just pray that God do it?

 

WE are God's people that He set to accomplish things on Earth. But, God is starting to fade away, and the some of the one's that do still claim Him would rather hold on to their money. Even in the religious scene, Is it God's fault?

 

Billions tithed in a year, yet people starving. The church is not blameless, but rather a part of it. I had the thought originally from the whole, Sell the Vatican thing. But, though true, maybe that famous actor could sell all she owed as ONE individual and give to the suffering, so her joke was moot to me because she is really a fine example.

Don't you see that people do things because they are people, even if they don't go to church?

 

Nothing is "God's fault." The churches do seem to be more concerned about architecture than altruism.

 

God isn't fading away except in the sense that he was never there to begin with. Prayer? Pointless. Should a church sit and do nothing except pray? That's their business I suppose. They do pray, don't they?

 

I admire people that act on principle regardless of religion or lack of it. You should too. "The Church is not blameless". But it has no more responsibility than any organization dedicated to humanitarian causes.

 

I'm telling you - a church is nothing more than an organization of people. A non-profit corporation. It will act only as good as the people that run it.