Is The Christian God A Personal God?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Either he won't (or wouldn't end starvation), so he's not loving.

Or he can't, so he's not all-powerful.

Or doesn't know what's going on so he's not all-knowing.

 

 

For some reason, you response is still bothering me. Maybe it is because your have totally bypassed my ideas, accepting that God comes and heals starvation, and you never addressed that. I even gave scenarios.

 

So, I will make this simple, very simple.

 

1)God heals these peoples hunger, or feeds them in some type way.

a. Hunger- Either manna or real food from people on thr earth or earth itself.

b. Pains, inflictions- Either miraculous healing or Earthly medicines, vaccines, etc.

 

So, we have the layout of what God would have to do in real terms to end the suffering. BUT, in my previous posts, I added that He would have situations based around these examples of remedy.

 

Oddbird, this is where I believe you just, read past it.

 

What happens next?

 

1)These people would be on another level than ANYONE else on Earth because God is continuously healing them. They would be like aliens.

2) If God just taught them to grow food, and provided free food to grow. They would advance until they were taken over by another culture, generations passed by and some grew lazy, or they began to become things God commands people not to be, and lets their seeds not be free anymore.

 

 

Can you think of any other scenarios? This is what I could see God doing to end their suffering.

 

BUT, what you have failed to answer is, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

 

I believe someone responded and said that, why couldn't God come back then, or why would he have made us this way, to suffer.

 

So, really, it isn't God intervening in human suffering instead of strawberries for the topic.

 

It is, If God is God, then why did he make us to die, suffer, pain, etc?

 

See my point, there never was no topic because when the questions (relevant) came, it just got shifted.

 

So, oddbird, God comes and ends suffering, What happens next?

 

Will be waiting for your answer.

[Kathlene]

Abiyoyo,

 

The title of this thread is "Is the Christian God a Personal God?" In the OP, Kathlene raised the issue of the starving masses in anticipation of skeptics/atheists/freethinkers posting that objection. I have been steering the conversation repeatedly back to the Christian God's nature and the problem of suffering, particularly the suffering of the starving. Many of the other participants on this thread have done this as well to one degree or another.

 

So by steering the conversation back to 1) God is omnipotent 2) God is omniscient 3) God is Love yet 4) evil (particularly starvation) exists we are the ones staying on topic.

 

When you try to say 1) It is OUR fault people are starving or 2) there exists some vast eternal salvific plan, you are, in fact, getting off topic. How can god be a personal god when he presumably loves the people he is letting evaporate to leather, bone and sunken eye sockets?

 

If everything you say is true about prophecy the christian god still cannot exist. Because

 

Either he won't (or wouldn't end starvation), so he's not loving.

Or he can't, so he's not all-powerful.

Or doesn't know what's going on so he's not all-knowing.

 

None of your posts on why it is our fault or what God's saving plan is does anything to resolve this.

 

Only by dealing with the dead and the starving to death that has taken place and continues to take place right now, will you be staying on topic and not throwing red herrings about.

 

I have read your posts, Abiyoyo. I have told you why they are not adequate answers: they don't deal with those that God has let starve to death.

The dead and dying and God's alleged goodness, power and knowledge ARE the main issue. Your responses have not adequately dealt with them because they don't tackle how God can be all-knowing, all-powerful and loving yet overlook those with the swollen bellies and sunken eye sockets.

 

I can only ask, which points have you made which you don't feel are being adequately acknowledged? It so happens I don't agree with your assertion that some great prophecy has been fulfilled that Jesus supposedly made. But that's not pertinent to the subject.

 

Even if your assertions are true, how does that deal with those who God let die when he could have, in his omnipotence and omniscience, prevented it?

 

The fact that you read our points as blah blah blah is not surprising, though it is disappointing. I feel I have made efforts to understand your points quite well and that I am listening to you. Just because I say your responses to our position are red herrings in relation to the OP does not make our staying on point red herrings.

 

If there is a god, he is only a personal god to a select few with many many believers hanging on in faith hoping that he/she/it will be a personal god to them. The fact that he lets billions die who need his attention more than the potentially fictitious lady in the strawberry anecdote raises the issue of the big 3 + suffering/evil.

 

So who is off point, Abiyoyo? I have restated your position several times. Are you sure you are really coming to grips with what it means to believe in the Christian god?

 

Respectfully,

 

OB '63

A great post OB..gives me a lot to think about. Will chew on it for a while.

[oddbird1963]

 

Well, when I hear the same response reformed over and over again, like in this post, then, yes, it comes out like that. No pun intended, reread your posts, all the same.

And look at us now, we are finally talking about the big 3 + evil/suffering. My evil plan worked! Mwa-hahahaha

My point all in all is that you are not correct in anything you have said.

 

That's quite a sweeping statement! "not correct in anything . . .?" Shocking.

 

So. . . I am incorrect when I say that Christian theology teaches that God is omnipotent?

I am incorrect when I say that Christian theology teachers that God is omniscient?

I am incorrect when I say that Christian theology teaches that God is omnibenevolent or "Perfect in his Moral Goodness" or "Loving"?

 

 

Really? You mean Christian theology doesn't teach these concepts? There are not definitions about what these concepts mean? But what about the two millenia of theological works that define these concepts? Did I dream them up?

Am I also incorrect when I say that God loves those who are starving to death all over the planet?

 

No, Abi. These assertions are correct. These are things that Christian theologies teach in all but the most bizarre and outlandish sects. This is all the information you need to understand the deep problem with the god of Christianity. Each of these words is about the Christian god, what He is capable of doing and what his perfection would lead him to do in the face of the deep suffering that exists all around us.

 

I said earlier, IF, God was omniscient, then He knows exactly what needs to be done in each situation. As far as omnibenevolent, that is what is really being debated here, not the other two. God could be omnipotent, omniscient and not be omnibenevolent toward mankind.

 

 

So, instead of rehashing prior information and posts, lets summarize and slim this topic down to, Is God omnibenevolent?

 

That's not necessarily true. What is really being debated is "The Christian God" in a world where he is said to be personal, but so many people do not benefit from a personal encounter with god. You have to deal with all of the three attributes. We may have spent a lot of time on 'Love,' but prob. because instinctively that is the attribute most believers are unwilling to back off from.

 

But, for the sake of discussion, we can whittle it down to dealing with God's alleged benevolence.

 

 

First, wouldn't this be a perception, instead of a deity characterization?

 

Example. Man suffers, man says God doesn't love me, he is not all loving. Man suffers, man says God loves me, he is all loving?

 

Now, omnipotence. God could be omnipotent and not show us His potency, right?

God could be omniscient, and not show us all things, right?

 

These two relate to omnibenevolent in that it would make someoen 'feel' that God doesn't love them, which would make them feel he is neither omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent.

 

So is omnibenevolent as the others? Can God be omnibenevolent and not show His love in every human situation, as omnipotence, and omniscience?

 

I say it is possible because just as omnipotence, and omniscience, God doesn't show his power and knowledge in every human situation. And, if He is omniscient, then His omnibenevolence is already measured within, and we just don't understand it because we are not like God, we are not God, and we die.

 

I don't understand what you are trying to say here, Abi. "His omnibenevolence is already measured within?" The theological expression would be "His love is immeasurable. He is perfect in his goodness." So of course we don't understand it.

 

But God is still perfect in his mercy, isn't he?

 

And a perfectly merciful god who has no end to power and knowledge would let babies die horrible deaths because . . .?

 

You like to create scenarios. Create one. I can't think of any scenario that would resolve "God can . . ." with "God won't . . ." in the case of starvation.

 

Now, before you say that is a red herring, or typical apologetic, I will ask.

 

Odd, how else should one summarize it to be. We live, we die? God is immortal. There are things that happen in this world that we will never understand, but, that doesn't mean God doesnt understand, just us.

 

Here's how I would summarize it. "We live. We enjoy life. We do well by our fellow humans out of empathy an compassion. We die."

 

Here's how I would summarize Christian theology. "We live. We die. God is immortal, but for some reason, he doesn't really help the starving even though everyone says he could. I know what the words omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving mean, but I won't dare take this to its logical conclusion."

[oddbird1963]

 

A great post OB..gives me a lot to think about. Will chew on it for a while.

 

 

Thank you , Kathlene. Like I said before, I've enjoyed reading your posts over the last year or so.

 

And I appreciate your openness and willingness to dialog about your beliefs.

 

OB '63

[Abiyoyo]

----------------------

And look at us now, we are finally talking about the big 3 + evil/suffering. My evil plan worked! Mwa-hahahaha

 

-------------------------------

 

That's quite a sweeping statement! "not correct in anything . . .?" Shocking.

 

So. . . I am incorrect when I say that Christian theology teaches that God is omnipotent?

I am incorrect when I say that Christian theology teachers that God is omniscient?

I am incorrect when I say that Christian theology teaches that God is omnibenevolent or "Perfect in his Moral Goodness" or "Loving"?

 

 

Really? You mean Christian theology doesn't teach these concepts? There are not definitions about what these concepts mean? But what about the two millenia of theological works that define these concepts? Did I dream them up?

Am I also incorrect when I say that God loves those who are starving to death all over the planet?

 

No, Abi. These assertions are correct. These are things that Christian theologies teach in all but the most bizarre and outlandish sects. This is all the information you need to understand the deep problem with the god of Christianity. Each of these words is about the Christian god, what He is capable of doing and what his perfection would lead him to do in the face of the deep suffering that exists all around us.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

That's not necessarily true. What is really being debated is "The Christian God" in a world where he is said to be personal, but so many people do not benefit from a personal encounter with god. You have to deal with all of the three attributes. We may have spent a lot of time on 'Love,' but prob. because instinctively that is the attribute most believers are unwilling to back off from.

 

But, for the sake of discussion, we can whittle it down to dealing with God's alleged benevolence.

 

 

 

I don't understand what you are trying to say here, Abi.

"His omnibenevolence is already measured within?" The theological expression would be "His love is immeasurable. He is perfect in his goodness." So of course we don't understand it.

 

But God is still perfect in his mercy, isn't he?

 

And a perfectly merciful god who has no end to power and knowledge would let babies die horrible deaths because . . .?

 

You like to create scenarios. Create one. I can't think of any scenario that would resolve "God can . . ." with "God won't . . ." in the case of starvation.

Already diiiiid (soft voice)

 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Here's how I would summarize it. "We live. We enjoy life. We do well by our fellow humans out of empathy an compassion. We die."

 

Here's how I would summarize Christian theology. "We live. We die. God is immortal, but for some reason, he doesn't really help the starving even though everyone says he could. I know what the words omnipotent, omniscient and all-loving mean, but I won't dare take this to its logical conclusion."

 

Oddbird,

 

I said God will come and heal, feed all that you mentioned, but you never answered my question, ..which, ...is very logical

 

What happens next?

[oddbird1963]

 

 

For some reason, you response is still bothering me. Maybe it is because your have totally bypassed my ideas, accepting that God comes and heals starvation, and you never addressed that. I even gave scenarios.

 

Well, the scenarios are quite involved and I believe I told you they were irrelevant because it doesn't account for all the years up until now that God just let the starving die, even though he is completely merciful and all powerful.

 

So, I will make this simple, very simple.

 

1)God heals these peoples hunger, or feeds them in some type way.

a. Hunger- Either manna or real food from people on thr earth or earth itself.

b. Pains, inflictions- Either miraculous healing or Earthly medicines, vaccines, etc.

 

So, we have the layout of what God would have to do in real terms to end the suffering. BUT, in my previous posts, I added that He would have situations based around these examples of remedy.

 

Oddbird, this is where I believe you just, read past it.

So, are you imagining in your scenario some special class of humans that got healed, somehow being separate from the rest of humanity? Interesting. A gospel ghetto.

 

What happens next?

 

1)These people would be on another level than ANYONE else on Earth because God is continuously healing them. They would be like aliens.

2) If God just taught them to grow food, and provided free food to grow. They would advance until they were taken over by another culture, generations passed by and some grew lazy, or they began to become things God commands people not to be, and lets their seeds not be free anymore.

 

Can you think of any other scenarios? This is what I could see God doing to end their suffering.

 

BUT, what you have failed to answer is, WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?

 

#1 - You see, I don't get this. Why is this true of just these people? God couldn't multiply his effects times five and prosper everyone? Why not? And why does it have to be continuous healing? It's your scenario . Have it your way.

 

#2 - To have a nation of healthy people with their nutritional needs met would make for a stronger nation with better infrastructure. If they kept religion to a minimum, they would prosper even more. Statistics from Europe show that to be true.

 

But I would say that if disintegration of infrastructure is a problem, I sure an all-knowing , all-powerful god would be able to include a dampening effect in his all-knowing,all-powerful, all-loving plan.

 

The sooner he starts, the better. People are hurting and dying.

 

 

 

I believe someone responded and said that, why couldn't God come back then, or why would he have made us this way, to suffer.

 

So, really, it isn't God intervening in human suffering instead of strawberries for the topic.

 

It is, If God is God, then why did he make us to die, suffer, pain, etc?

 

See my point, there never was no topic because when the questions (relevant) came, it just got shifted.

 

So, oddbird, God comes and ends suffering, What happens next?

 

Will be waiting for your answer.

 

God ends suffering? What happens next?

1. People don't suffer.
   
2. They get their daily nutritional needs met.
   
3. The human race has an injection of healthy bright, human capital.
   
4. With scarcity of basic resources alleviated, people are more willing to cooperate and a synthesis of creative talent world-wide emerges. Overpopulation begins to ease up as a more economically well-to-do world begins to have fewer children.
   
5. An intellectual and cultural revolution ensues as less money is spent making war, investing in health care and propping up law enforcement.
   
6. God needs to interfere less and less because people are doing well.
   

 

Now, I did read your posts before and you reduced our differences to a matter of mere timing. There are still dead people stacked up to this point, and it's the Christian God's fault because he could have stopped the starvation, but didn't. He knew about it with all his all-knowingness. he had the means to stop it with his all-powefulness. And because he is Perfect in his goodness and mercy, he wouldn't have hesitated to do so.

 

At some point you will pull out the ol' "You're talking about the second coming. It WILL happen. You just want it to have already happened!"

 

Let's say that is true. Are YOU saying, God could have ended it all YEARS ago, but didn't?" If yes, then he's a monster for not doing so. If no, then he is not all powerful. Either way we end up with a god who is not a personal.

So, in this case, timing is everything. There is no evidence that god is powerful, knowledgeable or caring. Because there are bodies strewn everywhere dwindling away in despair because there is no food to be had anywhere. You have answered nothing, Abi. If the god you worship is real, he is not a Christian god, or you follow a very unusual sect of Christianity.

 

Abi, we know what the subject of the OP is. I don't understand the last few lines of your post. The subject is "Is the Christian God a Personal God?" To show you textual proof that this, in fact is the intended topic, here is what Kathlene said. She even invited thoughts and opinions.

 

Anyway, I believe God is and can be a personal God to all believers. . .

 

Anyway, here it goes. Read it and give your opinion or thoughts. . .

 

Would love to hear your thoughts and opinions. . .

 

 

When you read the OP, did you notice the number of times Kathlene mentioned the starving?

 

Notice the "can be a personal God to all believers. . ." Well, He missed his chance for millions. He could have done something about it, but they died of starvation! See, it IS about the attributes of god. The question, I guess , that is being dealt with is how do you reconcile the concept of a personal (i.e. loving) God with the fact that he obviously did not fulfill that role for millions who died of starvation and for millions who are currently dying of starvation.

 

Let's deal with the real issues before pulling out trite, self-indulgent, anecdotal stories from 1978.

[oddbird1963]

 

Oddbird,

 

I said God will come and heal, feed all that you mentioned, but you never answered my question, ..which, ...is very logical

 

What happens next?

 

Patience, abiyoyo. Patience. You are getting smug a little too soon. Don't jump the gun.

[chefranden]

...Now, omnipotence. God could be omnipotent and not show us His potency, right?

God could be omniscient, and not show us all things, right?

 

These two relate to omnibenevolent in that it would make someoen 'feel' that God doesn't love them, which would make them feel he is neither omnibenevolent, omniscient, omnipotent.

 

So is omnibenevolent as the others? Can God be omnibenevolent and not show His love in every human situation, as omnipotence, and omniscience?...

 

Oh I see what your problem is here. You are not familiar with the meaning of the prefix omni. Omni is Latin meaning all or every. To be omnibenevolent God has to show love to everyone. He can't just go about dropping tons of bricks on sleeping poor people. Why? Because just saying you are loving is not good enough:

 

8If you really keep the royal law found in Scripture, "Love your neighbor as yourself,"[a] you are doing right. 9But if you show favoritism, you sin and are convicted by the law as lawbreakers... 14What good is it, my brothers,

if a god claims to be omnibenevolent

but has no deeds? Can such love recommend him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If

God

says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, omnibenevolence by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead...

 

Now I suppose you are going to say that dropping tons of bricks on sleeping poor people causing thousands to die little by little via being buried alive and then starving the unburied survivors for food and water after saying quite explicitly in his word that only those that provide food and water when they can get to be in heaven is good for the Haitians.

 

Ok I get that the alleged God is immortal, and we aren't. So he can kill us when the time is ripe. I get that we have to die, but why do we have to die in agony? Isn't hell enough agony for this alleged prick omnibenevolent God?

 

To make it clear an alleged allloving/everyoneloving God cannot neglect the good of anyone by definition. This same alleged god that made it clear that withholding actual physical help is not being loving. If alleged God even neglected the good of just one person he wouldn't be omnibenevolent.

 

You ought to just admit it. Your alleged god just doesn't love everyone. Some he made into vessels of glory; I suppose to hold the heavenly flowers in the palace. Others he made into vessels of shame to be smashed or to hold the heavenly shit. As it is written: "I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments." This alleged god is pretty good at holding a grudge, but he ain't so hot at being omnibenevolent. A good day at the beach for this fellow is squashing a few hundred thousand Haitians and then watching them squirm.

[par4dcourse]

I say it is possible because just as omnipotence, and omniscience, God doesn't show his power and knowledge in every human situation. And, if He is omniscient, then His omnibenevolence is already measured within, and we just don't understand it because we are not like God, we are not God, and we die.

And again, in response to logical arguments and rock solid evidence, the apologetic resorts to the xian escape clause: God works in mysterious ways.

I'll bet starving Haitians wish he'd get off his mysterious ass and provide food and shelter. Oh, wait, we humans are doing that.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

 

When you read the OP, did you notice the number of times Kathlene mentioned the starving?

 

Notice the "can be a personal God to all believers. . ." Well, He missed his chance for millions. He could have done something about it, but they died of starvation! See, it IS about the attributes of god. The question, I guess , that is being dealt with is how do you reconcile the concept of a personal (i.e. loving) God with the fact that he obviously did not fulfill that role for millions who died of starvation and for millions who are currently dying of starvation.

 

Let's deal with the real issues before pulling out trite, self-indulgent, anecdotal stories from 1978.

 

Okay, the issue. God gives strawberries to the individual, but lets millions of starving die. Right?

 

Well, even the contention isn't correct. Stay with me here.

 

From day zero to now, I would say that millions would be trillions, and that one strawberry could be many more.

 

But still, the argument is the same. God loves one, lets others starve. Right?

 

Now again, God has become a monster.

 

Let's say that is true. Are YOU saying, God could have ended it all YEARS ago, but didn't?" If yes, then he's a monster for not doing so. If no, then he is not all powerful. Either way we end up with a god who is not a personal.

 

What if I said that I see God as omnibenevolent just because when Adam and Eve disobeyed originally, He didn't wipe us away from existence all together?

 

Wouldn't that change the context of this whole debate?

 

We have to consider ALL the other aspects around the God we are speaking about before we come to a conclusion.

 

One of those aspects is that He didn't wipe Adam and Eve's existence altogether, and now, we have the human race. You would also have to assume that God created us.

 

These things are what a logical and rational discussion would entail with the topic of a omnibenevolent God and how He is affecting the current world.

 

If you can't accept those things, then this discussion is meaningless, because it then becomes a discussion about our imaginations.

[par4dcourse]

If you can't accept those things, then this discussion is meaningless, because it then becomes a discussion about our imaginations.

I thought the discussion was about your imaginary friend and his imaginary powers.

Mine is a six foot rabbit named Harvey.

[Shyone]

What if I said that I see God as omnibenevolent just because when Adam and Eve disobeyed originally, He didn't wipe us away from existence all together?

 

Wouldn't that change the context of this whole debate?

You DO know that Adam and Eve are mythological, don't you?

 

So was the flood, but in the context of "wiping us away from existence altogether" I'd say that was the goal, and mythologically successful with the exception of 8 people.

[oddbird1963]

 

Okay, the issue. God gives strawberries to the individual, but lets millions of starving die. Right?

 

Well, even the contention isn't correct. Stay with me here.

 

From day zero to now, I would say that millions would be trillions, and that one strawberry could be many more.

 

But still, the argument is the same. God loves one, lets others starve. Right?

 

Ok. I'll stipulate. Millions would have been trillions. But was the Christian God ABLE to keep those millions from starving to death? Could he have done it? If yes, then he is a monster - not benevolent. If not, he is not all powerful. Either way, the Christian god does not exist. Some other god like a god of Deism might exist, but not the God of Christianity.

 

 

Now again, God has become a monster.

 

Let's say that is true. Are YOU saying, God could have ended it all YEARS ago, but didn't?" If yes, then he's a monster for not doing so. If no, then he is not all powerful. Either way we end up with a god who is not a personal.

 

What if I said that I see God as omnibenevolent just because when Adam and Eve disobeyed originally, He didn't wipe us away from existence all together?

 

Wouldn't that change the context of this whole debate?

 

We have to consider ALL the other aspects around the God we are speaking about before we come to a conclusion.

 

One of those aspects is that He didn't wipe Adam and Eve's existence altogether, and now, we have the human race. You would also have to assume that God created us.

 

These things are what a logical and rational discussion would entail with the topic of a omnibenevolent God and how He is affecting the current world.

 

If you can't accept those things, then this discussion is meaningless, because it then becomes a discussion about our imaginations.

 

First observation, you did not answer my question. What is your answer? Are YOU saying, God could have ended the starvation YEARS ago, but didn't?

 

Second observation, you are operating on your own peculiar definition of omnibenevolence. What you seem to be saying is that god behaved benevolently when he let Adam and Eve live. That might be an example of benevolence, I suppose, BUT, you still keep ignoring the actual starving who actually died and who are in the process of dying today. Aren't Christians supposed to remember the poor? Why doesn't an omnibenevolent God who can do anything remember them?

 

More specifically, omnibenevolence is the attribute assigned by Christians to the Perfect Goodness of their god. One expression of this perfect goodness might have been letting Adam and Eve live. But since he DID let them live, there were more opportunities where his Perfect Goodness could have come in to play, like when people began dying of starvation. Allowing millions to die of starvation when he could have stopped the dying disproves the notion of perfect goodness.

 

So no, your appeal to one supposed indication of benevolence for the human race in Adam and Eve does not make the case for omnibenevolence. Plus you don't get to redefine a long maintained definition of omnibenevolence in order to make a point on this thread.

 

So, I have considered this aspect of God's alleged benevolence. I even stipulated that your Adam and Eve point is a single case of benevolence. But you have not considered those who are suffering due to divine neglect. I am not the one taking flights of imagination to try to make a point. In fact I have resisted speculative scenario making while you have insisted upon it.

 

And really, Abiyoyo, did I imagine all the explanations of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence in my theology books and all over the Internet? These are Christian concepts with a lot of history behind them. These are the words used to describe God and the contradictions to these ideas in the face of evil in the world do not go away with the imaginary scenarios you have drawn.

[Abiyoyo]

If you can't accept those things, then this discussion is meaningless, because it then becomes a discussion about our imaginations.

I thought the discussion was about your imaginary friend and his imaginary powers.

Mine is a six foot rabbit named Harvey.

 

Exactly the point I am gonna make to Oddbrid. Imaginary. She feels that this imaginary being isn't what He claims to be, just we are discussing imaginary theology around an imaginary. AND, though it be imaginary, we are still discussing His imaginary Omni abilities.

 

I was pointing out that this imaginary being lives immortally, and we once did as well (that how the imaginary story goes).

 

 

Anyhow, I will be responding to Oddbird about this imaginary topic, but thanks for reminding me that it is all imaginary.

[Abiyoyo]

What if I said that I see God as omnibenevolent just because when Adam and Eve disobeyed originally, He didn't wipe us away from existence all together?

 

Wouldn't that change the context of this whole debate?

You DO know that Adam and Eve are mythological, don't you?

 

So was the flood, but in the context of "wiping us away from existence altogether" I'd say that was the goal, and mythologically successful with the exception of 8 people.

 

Yes, I forgot, but the God we are talking about (been pointed out, the Christian God) is mythological too.

 

Well, that's that folks. Conversation ruined. Shyone and Par made good points.

 

 

It's all mythological.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

And really, Abiyoyo, did I imagine all the explanations of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence in my theology books and all over the Internet? These are Christian concepts with a lot of history behind them. These are the words used to describe God and the contradictions to these ideas in the face of evil in the world do not go away with the imaginary scenarios you have drawn.

 

All those books and you STILL feel somehow that God is the intervention of mankind, when history and even Christian history shows that God left this world a long time ago. I seriously don't know what books you have read, but they must have been loaded with God, the loving, perfect, caring, omnibenevolent (in a earthly mindset.

 

Is is not obvious?

 

David, Paul, John, all these told of God's continual love for them, thus implying God's love. "For God so loved the world that ....." The point is that, yes, He so loved the world, ....but what did John really mean?

 

Did John mean He sent His Son to save the human race in general as being the redeemer of all mankinds sins, or did God love the world enough to send His Son, so that all may (have available upon accepting Jesus) have eternal life.

 

Which is it? You stating that Christian theology says this or that is meaningless to my views about it because it has been interpreted 1000 different times.

 

Now, If you are correct, and I should 'refrain from my divergence of the traditional meaning'; then YOU, as well, should accept Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord, ....well, ...becauser that IS Christian theologically correct.

 

But, you can't tell me that what I say 'doesn't line up with the norm' because yourself doesn't believe in the norm of Christianity.

 

Why can't God have showed omnibenevolence in the Garden, why does it have to be different?

 

Maybe we are just here because we disobeyed and have to live through this physical life until we die, then we all go back to what is real, .....

 

In this conversation, reality is that the God you condemn and criticize is not a physcial being as you or I, and, there is much to mention around the topic that is written by the people that DID follow this God, i.e. Adam and Eve.

 

So, I stand firm with what I said. God showed us omnibenevolence when He didn't say, "Poof" "Goodbye" and let us LIVE, though in this horrific element, we still LIVE and have the opportunity to LIVE after we leave this world.

 

"P oof"

[dagnarus]

What if I said that I see God as omnibenevolent just because when Adam and Eve disobeyed originally, He didn't wipe us away from existence all together?

 

Wouldn't that change the context of this whole debate?

 

OK God instead of destroying Adam and Eve for the momentous crime of learning the difference between good and evil, decided to instead damn the majority of their descendents to a fiery lake in which they burn in fiery torment forever. Where do we get Omni-benevolence?

[wt-hell?!]

 

 

Maybe we are just here because we disobeyed and have to live through this physical life until we die, then we all go back to what is real, .....

 

 

 

So, if we're made to have a personal relationship with god, because he is a personal god and all, then why did he send us to something that wasn't 'real' in the first place? We could have stayed wherever we were before we were born in eternal personal relation with god. What was the point of sending us to earth anyways?

 

If God is a personal god, is he omnipersonal, a personal god to all? If so, then he would be a personal god to those who are starving. To those people, he would personally be a provider. Maybe not for some strawberries but maybe for enough nutrients to keep them alive. If you were in a personal relationship with someone and knew that they needed help getting basic needs, wouldn't you do everything in your power to help them out because you love them? I don't think you would rely on someone else that doesn't know them to intervene and act on their behalf.

 

Check thisout.

 

God passed the torch on to people to fulfill the needs of those starving and dying. Why would he do such a thing when we are not omnipotent, we are poisoned by greed and we lack great love? Kinda seems like we are unqualified (according to christian theology and what has been stated) for the job.

[Abiyoyo]

What if I said that I see God as omnibenevolent just because when Adam and Eve disobeyed originally, He didn't wipe us away from existence all together?

 

Wouldn't that change the context of this whole debate?

 

OK God instead of destroying Adam and Eve for the momentous crime of learning the difference between good and evil, decided to instead damn the majority of their descendents to a fiery lake in which they burn in fiery torment forever. Where do we get Omni-benevolence?

 

Good answer.

 

It wasn't a momentous crime, we just disobeyed. We obviously weren't suppose to learn good from evil (and be as God), but we did, so the separation occurred. The fiery lake is where the disobedient immortal live, those that disobey; and we don't know exactly how fiery it really is, it may be just a little hot down there

 

He is still omnibenevolent because He could've just destroyed us altogether, or NOT made a simple way to go to place opposite of the fiery place.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

God passed the torch on to people to fulfill the needs of those starving and dying. Why would he do such a thing when we are not omnipotent, we are poisoned by greed and we lack great love? Kinda seems like we are unqualified (according to christian theology and what has been stated) for the job.

 

I see your point. But, then one has to wonder why Christ said not to worry about what you eat, drink, and also the verses about selling all you have and following Him, with, keeping only what you need.

 

You which is it? God is a banker and provider for those that preach the word of "God will provide, cup flows over" stuff, or are we suppose to give all we have to the poor, keep what we need only, and preach the gospel of Christ. ?

[par4dcourse]

 

You which is it? God is a banker and provider for those that preach the word of "God will provide, cup flows over" stuff, or are we suppose to give all we have to the poor, keep what we need only, and preach the gospel of Christ. ?

D: None of the above

[wt-hell?!]

 

 

God passed the torch on to people to fulfill the needs of those starving and dying. Why would he do such a thing when we are not omnipotent, we are poisoned by greed and we lack great love? Kinda seems like we are unqualified (according to christian theology and what has been stated) for the job.

 

I see your point. But, then one has to wonder why Christ said not to worry about what you eat, drink, and also the verses about selling all you have and following Him, with, keeping only what you need.

 

You which is it? God is a banker and provider for those that preach the word of "God will provide, cup flows over" stuff, or are we suppose to give all we have to the poor, keep what we need only, and preach the gospel of Christ. ?

For my abi, when I was xian, this was all part of what we were to do. By selling our possessions and giving to the poor, it was supposed to be a way of showing our commitment and devotion to Jesus and showing that we don't put our trust in earthly treasures but those in heaven. Indirectly we were helping the poor. By not worrying about our food, shelter, or clothing we were ultimately saying to god that we trust him for everything, even the essentials. Now, the way it seems that you're looking at it, is it's one or the other. It all comes from the same passage. What about those people who have no possessions? How is their devotion showed? Especially when they are starving and not seeing anything from god in the essentials department?

 

I don't know if you've ever been in a situation where you have actually 'suffered'. And I mean suffer by not knowing where your next meal was coming from or when it would be. I don't mean suffer as in you don't have money to pay your car payment (an unnecessary possession). I think until you've been in a place like that (or have visited third world lacking countries) it is difficult to wrap your mind around the fact that there are people daily worrying about from where they are getting food. People freezing because they don't have proper clothing or shelter to keep warm. And there aren't always people there that will help! Because they don't know about their suffering! People in your own backyard are starving and dying of malnutrition because you don't know about it they aren't getting help! You may not know about it because 1)you're not omniscient 2)they are ashamed of their situation 3)you can't hear from your imaginary god about what to do because you are too concerned your internet will be shut off cuz you can't afford the monthly bill. Do you think they want some personal god to give them some effing strawberries or do you think they want a caring person to come and help them off the ground?!

[wt-hell?!]

 

Good answer.

 

It wasn't a momentous crime, we just disobeyed. We obviously weren't suppose to learn good from evil (and be as God), but we did, so the separation occurred. The fiery lake is where the disobedient immortal live, those that disobey; and we don't know exactly how fiery it really is, it may be just a little hot down there

 

He is still omnibenevolent because He could've just destroyed us altogether, or NOT made a simple way to go to place opposite of the fiery place.

 

Oh wow, what great kindness shown towards his beloved children! Instead of completely destroying all of us for their sins he only tortures for eternity some of us. He is so kind and worthy of my praise, Amen!

 

And if it was SO obvious that we weren't supposed to learn good from evil, it seems that something more effective would've taken place then god saying 'now listen here kids, don't touch that tree, it's bad for you'. If I don't want my kids at my school to touch the electric sockets, I don't simply tell them it's bad. I then get some socket covers to plug them up! If they somehow figure how to take the socket plugs off, I remind them again the dangers, they are strictly warned and then sent off. I don't shoot them in the hand for touching it, I don't punish every kid in the class because one kid didn't listen. That would be an extreme response to a simple disobedient child. Now, the case with God, he used the most extreme form of 'punishment' as a response to his curious child and all generations following. That is not very benevolent to me. He hadn't even set up actual boundaries that enforced the 'don't touch this tree' rule. And I'm sure he must have known beforehand what the punishment would be since he's all knowing and stuff. I must say, I decided to emancipate myself from such a horrible parent.

[oddbird1963]

 

All those books and you STILL feel somehow that God is the intervention of mankind, when history and even Christian history shows that God left this world a long time ago. I seriously don't know what books you have read, but they must have been loaded with God, the loving, perfect, caring, omnibenevolent (in a earthly mindset.

 

Is is not obvious?

 

Correction: I don't feel God is anything. He does not exist. At least the best evidence points to that conclusion.

 

Another Correction: All those books and I know what christians have meant by the terms omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent. I don't agree with those terms, but I know what they mean by them. Because the words have a definition and usage. In the case of the third one, your usage of the word indicates you don't understand what you are talking about in that specific regard.

 

David, Paul, John, all these told of God's continual love for them, thus implying God's love. "For God so loved the world that ....." The point is that, yes, He so loved the world, ....but what did John really mean?

 

Did John mean He sent His Son to save the human race in general as being the redeemer of all mankinds sins, or did God love the world enough to send His Son, so that all may (have available upon accepting Jesus) have eternal life.

 

Which is it? You stating that Christian theology says this or that is meaningless to my views about it because it has been interpreted 1000 different times.

 

Now, If you are correct, and I should 'refrain from my divergence of the traditional meaning'; then YOU, as well, should accept Jesus Christ as your Savior and Lord, ....well, ...becauser that IS Christian theologically correct.

 

You don't know what the word omnibenevolent means, Abiyoyo. If you want to have your own private definition of the word, that is fine. Use it all you want. More power to you. But your use of the word is quite divergent from the usual usage of the word. So I don't know what you mean as you use it.

 

 

BY THE WAY, you never answered my question? COULD GOD have ended starvation, but didn't?

 

But, you can't tell me that what I say 'doesn't line up with the norm' because yourself doesn't believe in the norm of Christianity.

 

Why can't God have showed omnibenevolence in the Garden, why does it have to be different?

 

Maybe we are just here because we disobeyed and have to live through this physical life until we die, then we all go back to what is real, .....

 

In this conversation, reality is that the God you condemn and criticize is not a physcial being as you or I, and, there is much to mention around the topic that is written by the people that DID follow this God, i.e. Adam and Eve.

 

So, I stand firm with what I said. God showed us omnibenevolence when He didn't say, "Poof" "Goodbye" and let us LIVE, though in this horrific element, we still LIVE and have the opportunity to LIVE after we leave this world.

 

"P oof"

 

Of course I can tell you that the way you use a word doesn't line up with the typical usage of the word. We're talking about definitions and the way words are used in christian writings. We are not talking about what you or I actually believe. It's a matter of defining terms so communication can take place.

 

When you pose the question, "Why can't God have showed omnibenevolence in the Garden, why does it have to be different?" I have no idea what information you are asking. First, since you have your own private definition of omnibenevolent and you have not defined your usage of the term, there is no way I can answer that. Second, I don't know what the second half of that sentence means.

 

And I stand firm in saying that God let millions die horrific deaths. He did not show benevolence that accords with any notion of Perfect Love or Goodness by letting those humans die of starvation.

 

And yet you still REFUSE to answer my question. Could God have kept those millions upon millions of people from dying?

 

But then who knows what your answer would mean? Maybe you have your own special definition of omnipotence too.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

But then who knows what your answer would mean? Maybe you have your own special definition of omnipotence too.

 

I explained this earlier. Because He would be omniscient, He already knows what is going to happen (even after we die). You are trying to force this to come out as twisted. I am saying that God knows past death, the end of the road.

 

Example. We have lived 20 years. One goes through a 20 span of suffering, yet didn't die, but suffered everyday for this 20 years. This person got to where they didn't suffer anymore and had a decent life. Now, the person is 65 when someone asked him , How was life?

 

He says, long, but good. Bad at times, great at times. I suffered for many years, but then, I got it together and life is pretty good now.

 

See my point. God is the man at 65, now. He already knows what we will say and be when we are not suffering anymore in the afterlife.

 

God knows what will be relieved in the afterlife and knows we will be happy, feel loved.

 

I see that as how God is defined in omnibenevolent. I see Him in any other Earthly request as gracious, merciful, but, I see Him working these things in poverty areas of suffering through His people on Earth. Which, this in itself shows Gods love for mankind, that His church does contribute to the causes of starvation and poverty areas in the world, even if it is only a small sect that actually do it.