Is The Christian God A Personal God?

[Abiyoyo]

It will act only as good as the people that run it.

 

And we blame God because that is who those people encompass there life around, which is the point, people see God through other people, and half the time, we let God down because we fail. Instead, I see God around people, near people, and upon people, but never in the representation of the people. Does that make sense?

 

When I go to church (which is rarely lately), I see God, all around me, and even through people, and by people, but never wholly of people.

[par4dcourse]

It will act only as good as the people that run it.

 

And we blame God because that is who those people encompass there life around, which is the point, people see God through other people, and half the time, we let God down because we fail. Instead, I see God around people, near people, and upon people, but never in the representation of the people. Does that make sense?

 

When I go to church (which is rarely lately), I see God, all around me, and even through people, and by people, but never wholly of people.

Ok Abi, you win. Your imaginary friend is the bestest imaginary friend ever.

[Abiyoyo]

 

Ok Abi, you win. Your imaginary friend is the bestest imaginary friend ever.

 

 

The beffftest (with a siiiff)

[oddbird1963]

 

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?

 

I'm sure that preconceived notion about skeptics is what you need to feel that you belief system is reasonable. But, no. I don't need to touch Jesus and feel he is real like the story of Thomas illustrated. Just show some evidence that actually proves something.

 

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.

 

I'll go back and look at this thread, but I don't think I've seen you really deal with the problem that God is omnipotent, omniscient and loving, yet evil exists.

 

You made the assertion that "it's our fault," as the reason God lets people die of starvation. If we all would just share our excess wealth with others, the problem would go away.

 

But that assertion is irrelevant. There are still people who have died of starvation and who continue to die of starvation. That's the important issue. God sits idly by. Is he ignorant of the problem? Unable to do anything about it? Or, does he just not give a darn?

 

The answer to that question is relevant whether or not you are a believer.

 

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.

 

Abiyoyo, don't you realize that many people have dealt with the classic theodicy question while still believers? You act as if only skeptics and atheists struggle with the question. It is a struggle because the words people say about their god mean something and have consequences. Thus, when you say God can do all things or God knows all things that means something with respect to starvation or any other kind of suffering. The relevance of these questions is not limited to whether or not you are a skeptic.

 

The only thing that makes this debate impossible is that you won't deal with the issue head on. You keep spinning off red herrings or claiming that you know what motivates skeptics, but you won't address the irrationality of saying there is an All-Knowing, All-Powerful, benevolent deity in a world where evil ravages the people whom your religion says He loves.

 

I'll retract what I say about you not dealing with these issues if a review of this thread shows that you did. But for now, I don't see our difference as a difference of opinion. I see it as a difference of avoidance: I don't avoid the issue. You do.

[Kathlene]

Ok...here is what I think I am hearing in this thread. You all want to know why an all-loving all encompassing God still allows starvation and suffering in the world. Let me just sort my thoughts out first.

 

1.Lets go with this scenario as a hypothesis that you believe God created the world and there is a God, yada yada.ok?

 

So God creates the world, he puts people in it. He provides the earth with rich resources in the ground and then people grow and learn more how to work it all and we get farming, fire, information, techonology as the world goes on. So essentially we are responsible for how the earth is going and getting our own food and getting on with our lot in life. God doesn't really drop out of the sky every few days to fill the ground with food, we can do it ourselves with the information and research we have learnt.

 

Now during this, just remember there is and always will be sin in peoples hearts. So now of course there is greed, power, wars over resources, land, etc...and of course there is starvation and suffering. So just think about this for a minute. WE are the people who till the land, distribute food, have an economical platform for supply and demand. We make the rules for the financial world, in all essence...WE are in charge. Not God up above. He doesn't step down every 2 days to ensure it is all functioning smoothly. He is still in control of the earth because it is still spinning on its axis and gravity is still happening and the years roll on. I can hear you all saying get to the point already???

 

So what is it exactly that this all loving God IS doing on the earth? For starters he is dealing with each human being one by one to come to the knowledge of Him as their creator, for them to recognise that and realise that they have sinned against Him and other people. (ok, thats another debate, just go with me on this one). So what happens now? You get churches and people all over the world loving their creator and realising they sin and trying to live a more honorable life than they did before. This is however a life-time process of growth, healing and maturity. Yes christains still sin.

 

So why is it if we control the earths resources, we control the financial worlds, we control our own attitudes and ideals that starvation and suffering goes on in the world? Because WE as a human race still live under the banner of greed and power. I hear the argument that how can a loving God still stand back and let people die in starvation and suffering. God works through people. If our hearts aren't open enough to give then the blame falls squarely on us. I dont understand how people that dont believe in God can still blame that entity for what we as humans do to each other on this planet.

 

So what good is God you all ask? It is to change the lives and hearts of people one person at a time...

Now I know there are many atheist organisations that help the poor and starving in the world. So I am not arguing that it is only christians that see suffering and do something about it. Now you will argue that if God isnt doing anything then He is not as all-powerful as we are suggesting.

 

Where does greed and power come from? Mens hearts. How is there any hope on this planet that it will ever change?

 

As you can see Im no great debator, and definately not an apologist. Like Abi and End..I believe in something far greater than humans combined. There is no proof of it, I admit that, unless you take the Bible by faith and agree that nature cries out to the glory of God. That God is in control of the earth and the universe. He is the one that keeps all the physical laws going, like gravity etc..ok I hear you there is NO proof of that.

 

So at the end of the day what do we have? People asserting that God is real, and He lives in people's hearts. Where is the evidence of that I hear you say? The only evidence I have for that is by the healing and transformation I have gone through. The way I reject the worlds ways of doing things and instead strive to do things Gods way. Those ways go against every grain of our human nature. They are, essentially out of this world. Its a hard call to live up to. I can't do it without God. Does this make me a smug and better human being? Not at all. It means I try to take an open inventory of my heart every day and talk it over with God to see what is ever holding me back. Thats the evidence of God. A person like Jesus. I am always reminded of that scene in the Passion of Christ when he is bleeding grossly everywhere, people are spitting on him, and hissing and yelling at him. He is on the cross and in the MIDST of that he still Loved them. That is such a high order of love, that I want to attain to. I want to break the dark power of bitterness and anger against people in my life by having that love. Nothing else on this planet offers me that.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

I'll go back and look at this thread, but I don't think I've seen you really deal with the problem that God is omnipotent, omniscient and loving, yet evil exists.

 

You made the assertion that "it's our fault," as the reason God lets people die of starvation. If we all would just share our excess wealth with others, the problem would go away.

 

But that assertion is irrelevant. There are still people who have died of starvation and who continue to die of starvation. That's the important issue. God sits idly by. Is he ignorant of the problem? Unable to do anything about it? Or, does he just not give a darn?

 

The answer to that question is relevant whether or not you are a believer.

 

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.

 

Abiyoyo, don't you realize that many people have dealt with the classic theodicy question while still believers? You act as if only skeptics and atheists struggle with the question. It is a struggle because the words people say about their god mean something and have consequences. Thus, when you say God can do all things or God knows all things that means something with respect to starvation or any other kind of suffering. The relevance of these questions is not limited to whether or not you are a skeptic.

 

The only thing that makes this debate impossible is that you won't deal with the issue head on. You keep spinning off red herrings or claiming that you know what motivates skeptics, but you won't address the irrationality of saying there is an All-Knowing, All-Powerful, benevolent deity in a world where evil ravages the people whom your religion says He loves.

 

I'll retract what I say about you not dealing with these issues if a review of this thread shows that you did. But for now, I don't see our difference as a difference of opinion. I see it as a difference of avoidance: I don't avoid the issue. You do.

 

I say that God is all knowing, powerful even still and then you said He is monstrous. See? I say, yes, God is all knowing, powerful, seeing, AND, yes, these things happen, everyday. You say God doesn't exist because if He was all these things, then He 'would not sit idle'.

 

 

Like I said, my answers aren't good enough. God can't just be a powerful deity, He has to live up to the imagination of people, which fails.

 

THEN, I even went deeper into our conversation and gave examples of how (in my temporal mind) how I could see God helping those starving people get all mucked up, yet, you still say that this was not so, that He COULD do something because He is all everything.

 

My point is that even the bee-bopping church goer can grasp that God is not directly handling every situation on Earth, yet, some here claim scholarly level, and they are baffled by it??

 

Why? It's pretty obvious. So, what next? Well, faith that God has a darn legit reason for it I guess.

 

That is why I gave some examples from a human mind's perspective, and, ...I can't see 400 years from now.

[NotBlinded]

Like I said, my answers aren't good enough. God can't just be a powerful deity, He has to live up to the imagination of people, which fails.

Abi,

 

Can you see how what you stated applies to everyone and not just skeptics? This is what you may be saying, I'm not sure. Christians have described God to the last detail and every bit of it has come from people's imaginations.

 

You know, you go into a church with those beautiful stained glass windows portraying Jesus and the disciples. The problem is is that those images block out the light shinning through the window. They put images in people's minds about what God is and that is what is worshiped and held onto because it makes them feel safe to have something to cling to.

 

I tell you what...scrape off those images, which are mental idols, and let the pure light of God shine though. There is no way it can with all the imagery imbedded in the glass no matter how magnificent they are.

[Kathlene]

Like I said, my answers aren't good enough. God can't just be a powerful deity, He has to live up to the imagination of people, which fails.

Abi,

 

Can you see how what you stated applies to everyone and not just skeptics? This is what you may be saying, I'm not sure. Christians have described God to the last detail and every bit of it has come from people's imaginations.

 

You know, you go into a church with those beautiful stained glass windows portraying Jesus and the disciples. The problem is is that those images block out the light shinning through the window. They put images in people's minds about what God is and that is what is worshiped and held onto because it makes them feel safe to have something to cling to.

 

I tell you what...scrape off those images, which are mental idols, and let the pure light of God shine though. There is no way it can with all the imagery imbedded in the glass no matter how magnificent they are.

So it was from people's imagination that they came up with a form of love that is stronger and so out of this world and different to every agenda and nature of man's heart? I wonder who wanted to make that up? From my perception, when people have their own way, it is usually the facets of a sinful nature and way of living that override any illusion of love. Pure love is laying down our selves for others, and dying to that nature to God. I cant imagine for the life of me why humans would make that up themselves in their own imagination.

[florduh]

it is usually the facets of a sinful nature and way of living that override any illusion of love.

You scare me when you parrot that drivel. Try thinking for yourself again.

 

Sorry.

[chefranden]

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.

 

In fact Jesus said that persons that don't help when they can are bound for hell. So if God is personal he must be in hell, which explains why he doesn't do anything these days.

 

Yet in the same passage Jesus says that he is the poor one, the guy in jail that needs a drink, a meal, and some underwear. If this is the case and if Jesus is God then God is powerless. This would also explain why he does nothing.

 

Christian Y is poorer than the billionaires therefore feeding the poor is not his responsibility. God doesn't expect this of Christian Y because he is Christian Y's personal god. And of course one's personal god is on one's side by definition. It is those evil rich people's* fault that God, Christian Y's personal god, doesn't do good.

 

*people that have more money than Christian Y.

[chefranden]

It will act only as good as the people that run it.

 

And we blame God because that is who those people encompass there life around, which is the point, people see God through other people, and half the time, we let God down because we fail. Instead, I see God around people, near people, and upon people, but never in the representation of the people. Does that make sense?

 

When I go to church (which is rarely lately), I see God, all around me, and even through people, and by people, but never wholly of people.

 

No we don't blame God. God being not there can't do a god damn thing good or bad. No one is really commenting on God in this thread save you and Kath. What is being commented on is wishful thinking, passed off as logic.

 

It appears that if only people would act like you want them to then God would be real.

 

You mentioned Thomas above. IMHO, he was the only sane one in the story. Which reminds me when John sent a disciple to ask if Jesus was the one, the story says that Jesus sent a message back about the lame walking and the blind seeing. So demanding to see such a thing as evidence of God's existence must be legit. So why doesn't God heal amputees?*

 

Some doctors are working on regrowing missing parts. I suppose that if they succeed in healing amputees, you will say "See God did it!"

 

*The correct answer to this question is, because God isn't there.

[Deva]

 

As you can see Im no great debator, and definately not an apologist. Like Abi and End..I believe in something far greater than humans combined. There is no proof of it, I admit that, unless you take the Bible by faith and agree that nature cries out to the glory of God. That God is in control of the earth and the universe. He is the one that keeps all the physical laws going, like gravity etc..ok I hear you there is NO proof of that.

 

So at the end of the day what do we have? People asserting that God is real, and He lives in people's hearts. Where is the evidence of that I hear you say? The only evidence I have for that is by the healing and transformation I have gone through. The way I reject the worlds ways of doing things and instead strive to do things Gods way. Those ways go against every grain of our human nature. They are, essentially out of this world. Its a hard call to live up to. I can't do it without God. Does this make me a smug and better human being? Not at all. It means I try to take an open inventory of my heart every day and talk it over with God to see what is ever holding me back. Thats the evidence of God. A person like Jesus. I am always reminded of that scene in the Passion of Christ when he is bleeding grossly everywhere, people are spitting on him, and hissing and yelling at him. He is on the cross and in the MIDST of that he still Loved them. That is such a high order of love, that I want to attain to. I want to break the dark power of bitterness and anger against people in my life by having that love. Nothing else on this planet offers me that.

 

If it works for you Kathlene, fine. I would not want to, nor could I take that away from you.

 

I am having a bit of a problem though,with the above post, because it comes off like no one can have love for others like a Christian can. That's what vibe I am getting, despite your protest that it does not make you smug and a better human being. Don't you think there are worse fates than being beaten to death and hung on a cross - what, a few hours max of torture? I think that there are, and I think that there are a few others who are not Christians who have sacrificed their whole lives for the good of others at huge cost. I am just not impressed, and I wager not many others here are either.

 

You are beginning to sound preachy, Kathlene. Good thing this is the Colosseum.

[Shyone]

Ok...here is what I think I am hearing in this thread. You all want to know why an all-loving all encompassing God still allows starvation and suffering in the world. Let me just sort my thoughts out first.

 

So at the end of the day what do we have? People asserting that God is real, and He lives in people's hearts. Where is the evidence of that I hear you say? The only evidence I have for that is by the healing and transformation I have gone through. The way I reject the worlds ways of doing things and instead strive to do things Gods way. Those ways go against every grain of our human nature.

 

Your version of god is one that only you can experience, and you can't verify other's experiences. You can't invalidate my experience of nothing.

 

This one by one tranformation doesn't do much for many Christians, does it? Except they're not True Christians...

 

And I don't think your personal experience or your idea of god as a Motivator In Chief does anything for the starvation and suffering, does it?

 

Your god is weak. He only talks. Kind of like some Politicians. Just words - that you can't hear.

 

Yeah, I'd say that's "out of this world."

[agnosticator]

...The way I reject the worlds ways of doing things and instead strive to do things Gods way. Those ways go against every grain of our human nature...

 

Hi Kathlene,

 

I've been reading the thread, and purposely refrained from commenting since your plate is full...BUT...this view of human nature and the world is clearly not a reflection of life on earth. In nature, there is competition and COOPERATION. Animals love their own. The same goes for humans. There is hate and greed along with love and selflessness amongst the religious and non-religious. It is natural for humans to love as well as hate. It is unnatural and indeed rare, to be born with a one-sided nature. What you claim to reject, is a christian belief about human nature-not human nature as it is in reality. The "sinful nature" is a set up for guilt built upon a lie.

 

If you believe "God is Love", then you already partake of His nature; just not as completely as you wish to.

[Euthyphro's Thorn]

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.

2012? That's the 2nd time you've said that in this thread.

 

 

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?

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

What part of "give up all of your possessions" do you not understand? Do you have a full wardrobe, or just two of everything so you can wash one while you wear the other? You don't need a laptop to survive, and you don't need the internet to survive. But let me guess... You probably have cable, don't you?

[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 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...

 

 

Yes. There does have to be a better way, notblinded. I'll let you know when I've found it if you'll let me know if you find it!

[oddbird1963]

I say that God is all knowing, powerful even still and then you said He is monstrous. See? I say, yes, God is all knowing, powerful, seeing, AND, yes, these things happen, everyday. You say God doesn't exist because if He was all these things, then He 'would not sit idle'.

 

No, Abi. I don't believe god is monstrous because I don't believe god exists. I do say, however, that if the god of christian theology exists, then he is monstrous because when you consider what it means to have an all-knowing, all-loving, all-powerful god who does not keep the starving from suffering, no other conclusion is rational. This conclusion comes from the meanings of words and how coherent they are when you use them in sentences to communicate thought.

 

 

Like I said, my answers aren't good enough. God can't just be a powerful deity, He has to live up to the imagination of people, which fails.

 

THEN, I even went deeper into our conversation and gave examples of how (in my temporal mind) how I could see God helping those starving people get all mucked up, yet, you still say that this was not so, that He COULD do something because He is all everything.

 

No, I didn't say he is "all everything." I didn't say he is omnipotent. I didn't say he is omniscient. I didn't say he is benevolent. This is what just about every Christian I have ever run across says. I didn't make these words up. They have very long-established definitions. Now think about these meanings. Look at the hollow eyes of the dying. Look at them, too lethargic to cry or to wipe the flies off of their faces.

 

There is where the problem with your answers lie. That any being with omnipotence and full knowledge of the suffering of humanity would refuse to act and could allow the suffering to continue and still be called benevolent is why your answers aren't good enough. And, after a complete review or your posts in this thread, though you mentioned the "Big 3" words, you never really tried to reconcile them with the idea of the benevolence of God.

 

My point is that even the bee-bopping church goer can grasp that God is not directly handling every situation on Earth, yet, some here claim scholarly level, and they are baffled by it??

 

Why? It's pretty obvious. So, what next? Well, faith that God has a darn legit reason for it I guess.

 

That is why I gave some examples from a human mind's perspective, and, ...I can't see 400 years from now.

 

The 'bee-bopping' church goer is really a straw man argument. God is not handling anything - directly or indirectly. How do we know? Look at the starving, the oppressed, the diseased, etc. If people believe in the "Big 3" of the omniscience , omnipotence and benevolence of god and are not baffled by the massive suffering that has gone on for millennia and continues to plague humanity, then simple faith and profound spiritual wisdom are not the explanation for your acceptance of atrocity. More likely, self-absorption and lack of meaningful analysis of one's religion are responsible for the lack of bewilderment.

 

You seem to want to persist in a less that rational belief. I'll not try to stop you. But cute little strawberry parables about the personal nature of god seem trivial in the face of so many that god (if he existed) is turning a deaf ear to at this very moment.

[Vixentrox]

Like I said, my answers aren't good enough. God can't just be a powerful deity, He has to live up to the imagination of people, which fails.

Abi,

 

Can you see how what you stated applies to everyone and not just skeptics? This is what you may be saying, I'm not sure. Christians have described God to the last detail and every bit of it has come from people's imaginations.

 

You know, you go into a church with those beautiful stained glass windows portraying Jesus and the disciples. The problem is is that those images block out the light shinning through the window. They put images in people's minds about what God is and that is what is worshiped and held onto because it makes them feel safe to have something to cling to.

 

I tell you what...scrape off those images, which are mental idols, and let the pure light of God shine though. There is no way it can with all the imagery imbedded in the glass no matter how magnificent they are.

So it was from people's imagination that they came up with a form of love that is stronger and so out of this world and different to every agenda and nature of man's heart? I wonder who wanted to make that up? From my perception, when people have their own way, it is usually the facets of a sinful nature and way of living that override any illusion of love. Pure love is laying down our selves for others, and dying to that nature to God. I cant imagine for the life of me why humans would make that up themselves in their own imagination.

Kamikze's laid down their lives for their emperor god. Guess Hirohito really was a god because they couldn't possibly imagine such a thing themselves. So, gonna bow down to the Japanese Emperor?

[dagnarus]

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

 

Sorry, maybe you aren't deflecting, maybe your just dense. Okay, the point isn't that you morally should give away all your possessions, the point is that you believe in the Christian God, correct?

 

And you believe that Jesus came down from heaven, and either was this God, Was a third of this God, or was a prophet of this God (from memory you don't ascribe to orthodox christianity, so I'm not certain which one you subscribe to), correct?

 

Now in the gospels this Jesus said both "take all your possessions and sell them", correct? He also said

24No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

 

25Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

 

...

 

31Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

 

32(For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

 

33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

 

Or to paraphrase, "don't worry about your material needs, worry about following me, I'll take care of the rest." So then you believe that this is from your God. Therefore you should also be assured that whatever you have no need to worry about your material necessities. You should have the full assurance that if you lose your house, or your food, or your clothes, that God will take care of you. If you were to sell your possessions and give them to the poor God will take care of you, you are worth more than many sparrows. The fact of the matter is that you do not have that assurance, you might be willing to pass of some woman getting free strawberries as a sign of God's working, but you certainly aren't willing to put enough trust into this God to depend on him for your material needs.

 

Don't get me wrong, I don't think you should sell all your possessions and trust in God for all your needs. To do such a thing would be extremely risky as their is no God. In fact historically there have been many people who have actually sold all their possessions and given everything up to serve God, some of them even survived and became famous examples of Christian faith, many more however died and were never really talked about. I personally know of roughly seven who had enough faith to do this in the history of my own church, God saw fit to allow them and their families to die of starvation. Just like he allows his faithful followers in the third world to die of starvation every day, maybe he's still pissed over the Ham incident, oh well, at least a well off american lady got strawberries.

[dagnarus]

So it was from people's imagination that they came up with a form of love that is stronger and so out of this world and different to every agenda and nature of man's heart? I wonder who wanted to make that up? From my perception, when people have their own way, it is usually the facets of a sinful nature and way of living that override any illusion of love. Pure love is laying down our selves for others, and dying to that nature to God. I cant imagine for the life of me why humans would make that up themselves in their own imagination.

 

From my observation if you can convince the plebs to have this kind of devotion towards your church, that this is a great way to build up power and wealth for it, (I believe this is a likely reason why verses such as hate your mother, father, ... were put in the christian scripture, they wanted to make certain that this love which they were cultivating could always be redirected away from the rest of humanity as the church required, such teachings are common to many cults) sure you've got to risk the roman authorities killing you, but you've got to take those risks for all criminal activities.

[dagnarus]

Ok...here is what I think I am hearing in this thread. You all want to know why an all-loving all encompassing God still allows starvation and suffering in the world. Let me just sort my thoughts out first.

...

 

Ok again assuming your God exists. According to the bible has he not been willing, on many occasions, to directly slaughter various people in order to glorify himself, and directly inspire various people's to slaughter one another, whether it be inspiring the Jews to kill every last Midianite, Caananite, Amalekite, whateveranite, and so forth, or causing the Assyrians to come along and kill and rape all the Jews because they pissed him off. OK given that he's willing to interfere directly to get people to do all this really petty stuff, why isn't he willing to directly interfere in order to take care of the material needs (not wants, needs) of his faithful followers in the third world, like he promises in Matthew 6 and Luke 12. Just saying.

[Vixentrox]

Ok...here is what I think I am hearing in this thread. You all want to know why an all-loving all encompassing God still allows starvation and suffering in the world. Let me just sort my thoughts out first.

...

 

Ok again assuming your God exists. According to the bible has he not been willing, on many occasions, to directly slaughter various people in order to glorify himself, and directly inspire various people's to slaughter one another, whether it be inspiring the Jews to kill every last Midianite, Caananite, Amalekite, whateveranite, and so forth, or causing the Assyrians to come along and kill and rape all the Jews because they pissed him off. OK given that he's willing to interfere directly to get people to do all this really petty stuff, why isn't he willing to directly interfere in order to take care of the material needs (not wants, needs) of his faithful followers in the third world, like he promises in Matthew 6 and Luke 12. Just saying.

Kathlene doesn't care if her imaginary friend is a murdering, butchering, vengeful bastard. All she sees is "love" and excuses or ignores every other thing that doesn't fit her notion of what her imaginary friend should be. Reminds me of Eva Braun......but at least she loved a real person.

[chefranden]

So it was from people's imagination that they came up with a form of love that is stronger and so out of this world and different to every agenda and nature of man's heart? I wonder who wanted to make that up? From my perception, when people have their own way, it is usually the facets of a sinful nature and way of living that override any illusion of love. Pure love is laying down our selves for others, and dying to that nature to God. I cant imagine for the life of me why humans would make that up themselves in their own imagination.

 

I seriously think you can't imagine it, even if you can imagine a one-eyed, one-horned, flyin' purple people eater. Nevertheless, this does not negate the fact that anything imagined in human culture was imagined by humans.

 

People can imagine things that don't exist -- like a god for example. People imagine lots of gods doing lots of strange stuff. They can even imagine that their particular god is the only real god and that every other god is a figment of someone's imagination.

 

You can imagine a one sided coin, a coin that can't be flipped because there is no other side. That is the sort of thing you have done here. You've imagined a being with only one side, a good side. And you have imagined it so well that for you it actually exists to the point you feel that you have to explain away the evidence to the contrary. This imagined thing seems to be something like an obsessive compulsive disorder for you. That is you have to keep checking to see if it is real.

 

I don't know why else you would post here among people that can imagine what you can't imagine. That must be painful for you. You have convinced me that you need the fairy tale to be sane. You need a black panther living under your bed to protect you from the monsters in the closet else you would never get a wink of sleep. I'm not saying this to make fun of you, most people are like this though the animal under the bed varies.

 

God will bless you and keep you; God will make his countenance shine upon you and give you peace, but only if you don't check under the bed too often.

[Vigile]

Because the brick didn't change my entire being.

 

Sure it did. Just in this case the brick is named Jesus. 'You' changed your entire being whatever you label the cause.

[Shyone]

I started reflecting on the concept of a personal god, and several things strike me as weird or at least curious.

 

First, this personal god is not the god of the old testament. That god was hands on, mean, vindictive, jealous, cruel and manifested in a way that was obvious to "his people."

 

Second, this personal god is not the god of the new testament. That god made promises that would make his followers miracle workers - healing the sick, moving mountains, drinking poison, handling snakes (without dying), and all manner of supernatural capabilities.

 

No. A personal god doesn't do anything but inspire people to do better. Clearly, the winners in the Olympics have personal gods.

 

 

People who hear their gods are considered delusional if not insane. People who see their gods are hallucinating. People who neither hear nor see their gods are just confused. After all, everyone's god a god, right?

 

I keep mine on the end table.

 

It doesn't talk or move, it just sits there.