Is The Christian God A Personal God?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

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

 

 

 

Yes, because He is omnipotent. But, as I explained earlier, there is more to that. And I will add that if God is all knowing, and I am not, but can see the different things that possibly go wrong within humanity from His divine intervention with these suffering people (as I mentioned earlier); then, how much more can he see?

 

Because He is omniscient, He knows exactly why He doesn't divinely come down and help them, yet, we don't understand. All I can say is that His people, though it may be few, act on Earth, and feed the starving and help them as best that they can.

 

Again, God holds all things if He is omniscient, so this puts what we think God's omnibenevolence should be in a mute position .

 

My opinion. But, for the record Oddbird. I wish all in the world that He would come down and end the suffering, and even in Revelations it says the Saints contend with God and ask if the time is near yet.

[dagnarus]

My opinion. But, for the record Oddbird. I wish all in the world that He would come down and end the suffering, and even in Revelations it says the Saints contend with God and ask if the time is near yet.

 

That's nice of them to contend with God, for the sake of the poor and downtrodden. Oh no, wait, there just contending with him to come down and kill everybody, (I suppose that is the Christian thing to do) , my bad.

Rev 6:9And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

 

10And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

 

Something which both the bible and Pat Robertson both contend god is willing to do on many an occasion, Who am I to suppose an omni-benevolent God would spend more of his time actually helping the unfortunate rather than smiting them.

 

Irregardless what was Jesus supposed to have meant exactly in Matthew 6 and Luke 12?

[oddbird1963]

 

 

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.

 

Since you are the one redefining words to suit your needs, I don't see how you can maintain that I am the one forcing "this to come out as twisted." And of course, since he doesn't demonstrate perfect goodness through the rescue of those dying from starvation, your contention that he is omniscient is pretty unfounded as well. But then, I still don't know what you mean by omniscient. I know what it means in the various Christian theologies. But I don't know what you mean by the term.

 

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.

 

What exactly is he working when he let's people die, Abiyoyo? He could end their hunger, but doesn't? What omniscient plan is worth all that?

 

If he is going to make them happy later, if he is capable of that, then he could end their suffering now and make them happy now. In what way is God so limited that he cannot work his will that way? Is the suffering of the starving real, Abiyoyo? If God doesn't understand the depth of their suffering in the moment of their suffering, then he is not omniscient. If he understands the depth of their suffering, but doesn't act on it, then his love is suspect.

 

Your definition of omnibeneovolent is pretty limited compared to the typical definitions of the word. Once again, in his omniscience he knew who would be missed or ignored by the church. These people died and are dying. He could stop their suffering. But he doesn't. Monstrous!

[oddbird1963]

 

 

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

 

 

 

Yes, because He is omnipotent. But, as I explained earlier, there is more to that. And I will add that if God is all knowing, and I am not, but can see the different things that possibly go wrong within humanity from His divine intervention with these suffering people (as I mentioned earlier); then, how much more can he see?

 

I took care of the 'possibly go wrong' in my speculative scenario that I offered. So you see, if I could offer the way things can go right with ending suffering, then how much more can a god of infinite wisdom , love and power make things go right by ending the plight of the starving now? It works both ways. My speculative scenario, unlike your speculative scenario, is actually based on at least some statistically demonstrated facts.

 

And since god is so knowledgeable and loving and poweful, surely he can overcome all the negative scenarios that you see in your limited, human mind.

 

And why is it that my saying that god can work it all out in his "omni" attributes is fantastical wishful thinking, but your "realistic" negative scenarios are not fantasy?

 

Because He is omniscient, He knows exactly why He doesn't divinely come down and help them, yet, we don't understand. All I can say is that His people, though it may be few, act on Earth, and feed the starving and help them as best that they can.

 

Again, God holds all things if He is omniscient, so this puts what we think God's omnibenevolence should be in a mute position .

 

My opinion. But, for the record Oddbird. I wish all in the world that He would come down and end the suffering, and even in Revelations it says the Saints contend with God and ask if the time is near yet.

 

Okay, Abiyoyo, God know why he doesn't end the suffering of the starving. Does he know that he is not all-powerful? Does he now that he doesn't care about these people? Or is he just clueless about their suffering?

 

The time that the saints want to be near in Revelation is God's vengeance on those who persecuted the saints. That is not about ending the suffering of the starving, it is about killing those "damned" pagans who persecuted them.

 

 

"What we think God's omnibenevolence should be is a mute position." So, it sounds as if you don't really believe in God's Perfect Moral Goodness that would see suffering and have mercy through meaningful and effective action.

 

That's usually what happens. One of the omni's has to give. In your case, without really admitting it, omnibenevolence has been abandoned.

[Shyone]

Your definition of omnibeneovolent is pretty limited compared to the typical definitions of the word. Once again, in his omniscience he knew who would be missed or ignored by the church. These people died and are dying. He could stop their suffering. But he doesn't. Monstrous!

The problem is with the word "good" (or benevolent). Humans have standards by which we measure goodness, and clearly God (as described either in the bible or by his "properties") does not qualify as good. Far from it.

 

The Christian has essentially said that God is "good" by a different standard. "Mysterious ways" and all that. In order to call god good though would require a different definiton which may as well be a new word: godgood.

 

Godgood would then mean anything done by God is a special kind of good that we may see as bad, but it's godgood.

 

Only by Rightthink can the Christian say god is godgood.

 

For the rest of us, he's a monster. But he's a Christian monster!

[Legion]

I think gods of all sorts, including the Christian god, are very personal. In fact, I think they are suspiciously human.

[par4dcourse]

Because He is omniscient, He knows exactly why He doesn't divinely come down and help them, yet, we don't understand. All I can say is that His people, though it may be few, act on Earth, and feed the starving and help them as best that they can.

Again with the "gawd works in mysterious ways" bullshit. Don't xians have one fucking original idea between them? Maybe a bunch of flea bitten camel-fuckers believed that bullshit, but it's getting trite.

[Legion]

I'm not a mod, thank causality. I have no power to enforce, and don't want it. But this is the Coliseum. Many of us have an expectation that a higher level of discourse will occur here.

[par4dcourse]

I'm not a mod, thank causality. I have no power to enforce, and don't want it. But this is the Coliseum. Many of us have an expectation that a higher level of discourse will occur here.

I don't see that I've broken the rules (I read them) and I'm sorry if I'm not polite enough for expectations. I express myself succinctly and non-Websters words sometimes work best.

Lesson learned: friends are fickle.

[Legion]

Lesson learned: friends are fickle.

Oh Par, for my part I remain your friend.

[Deva]

I think gods of all sorts, including the Christian god, are very personal. In fact, I think they are suspiciously human.

 

Otherwise, they are no darn good, are they? I think they are symbols or personifications of natural forces.

[par4dcourse]

Because He is omniscient, He knows exactly why He doesn't divinely come down and help them, yet, we don't understand. All I can say is that His people, though it may be few, act on Earth, and feed the starving and help them as best that they can.

This seems to be a re-curring theme among christians. It's use again prompts me to believe that the author can't find an original idea to express his views, and has resorted to a familar cliche. That may have satisfied the early native inhabitants of the mid-east, but is overused and unappreciated today.

 

Better, oh those of sensitive ears?

[chefranden]

 

 

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.

 

Given all this, how do you explain Matthew 25:31-46 or James 2 or Ezekiel 18?

 

You say that human suffering is unimportant from God's perspective because everything will be hunky dory later and we just don't understand that. A little girl being raped several times a day in a Thai brothel is of no account because in a billion years or so she will have forgotten it? I can see what you are saying. "God's love is meaningless to a human." I think that I can go with that. It appears mostly meaningless to me, so meaningless in fact that there is no meaning to the existence of God.

 

Of course this kind of of God can't be personal. I can't have a personal relationship with someone/thing I can't grok. I wonder why this being wants a relationship with me, when it seems like me having a relationship with a virus. Maybe God enjoys pets.

 

At one time I could fool myself in to thinking this meaningless relationship was personal, but I've caught on to the trick. When I had a dog I used to enjoy fake tossing a Frisbee with him. He'd take off all happy happy joy joy and run hell bent for leather for 25 or 30 yards, and then he'd stop get that funny confused look. And I'd be all After awhile, he caught on to the trick and he wouldn't go until the Frisbee was in the air. You my friend haven't caught on yet. You are still chasing the non-existent Frisbee. You are sure that this time God will really throw it. And God is all

[oddbird1963]

The problem is with the word "good" (or benevolent). Humans have standards by which we measure goodness, and clearly God (as described either in the bible or by his "properties") does not qualify as good. Far from it.

 

The Christian has essentially said that God is "good" by a different standard. "Mysterious ways" and all that. In order to call god good though would require a different definiton which may as well be a new word: godgood.

 

Godgood would then mean anything done by God is a special kind of good that we may see as bad, but it's godgood.

 

Only by Rightthink can the Christian say god is godgood.

 

For the rest of us, he's a monster. But he's a Christian monster!

 

And don't forget about god's greatness! His all-powerfulness. He COULD stop starvation but he couldn't stop oh so many horrible things from going wrong if he did. It's not worth it to have all those healthy, living people saved from the brink of death and starvation because of the chaos that would ensue. He might get tired having to intervene as people used their health and vigor for sinful purposes.

 

I think that deserves yet another term: godgreat. It's a special kind of all-powerfulness that means he can do anything he sets out to do, but is limited by the circumstances of others. He can do anything, but not really. Godgreat.

 

In fact , there is a prayer the starving should pray very similar to the prayer many were taught as children:

God is

Godgood!

God is

Godgreat!

 

Thank you for the food we can't get!

[NotBlinded]

 

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.

No, no, no...he didn't let them live out of goodness, he let them live only to punish and blame them. Hence, starvation and suffering. It would have been Perfect Goodness to kill them and not continue the suffering for generations to come like some cosmic sadist.

[Guest end3]

Because He is omniscient, He knows exactly why He doesn't divinely come down and help them, yet, we don't understand. All I can say is that His people, though it may be few, act on Earth, and feed the starving and help them as best that they can.

This seems to be a re-curring theme among christians. It's use again prompts me to believe that the author can't find an original idea to express his views, and has resorted to a familar cliche. That may have satisfied the early native inhabitants of the mid-east, but is overused and unappreciated today.

 

Better, oh those of sensitive ears?

 

Oh gheeze Par, He doesn't fix stuff right now because He wants you to make those choices, His choices, that will allow you to see and believe. If He intervened again, there would just be more "grumbling". If you knew the intensity in which He wants you to understand, you would change your mind. Now behave.

[florduh]

"It's a relationship, not a religion."

 

Now, what was that question again?

[par4dcourse]

you would change your mind. Now behave.

Yes, dear.

Mind?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

Irregardless what was Jesus supposed to have meant exactly in Matthew 6 and Luke 12?

 

I don't really understand your point but will comment of the scripture you posted. I think Christ was addressing those that would be/will be future disciples of Christ, in that time. I saw it as they were worried about food, money, things; and Christ was basically trying to relay the concept that, they are currently under God's ultimate will and protection, don't worry about what you eat or drink. But, I see your point and is one needed thought is required.

 

Jesus says this in chapter 24 in reagrd to the end days.(keep in mind that was 2000 years ago)

 

Mt 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

 

This is toward the end, these things are mentioned as a 'specific' thing happening. There has always been suffering and starvation since the beginning, but at the end, Christ here makes a specific notion that there will be famine.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

What exactly is he working when he let's people die, Abiyoyo? He could end their hunger, but doesn't? What omniscient plan is worth all that?

 

 

 

It's not about worth, or His plan. We all die Oddbird, that is a fact of life. He didn't make the world, He made us, and we have made this world the way it is because there is opposition in the world.

 

Why didn't people just live peacefully from the beginning and stay in there mud huts? Why do people, leaders, nations, war against others and take land, food, property?

 

Because things exist within mankind. Greed, covetousness, power. We not only have the ability to desire these things, but execute on a level in our own comparison. Example. A dog sees a bone given to another dog, and the dog comes over snarls at the other dog, fights it, and takes it's bone. We do the same thing except we are not animals.

 

We do it with money, oil, food, authority and more; and things follow, like poverty, bad health, starvation, suffering, death.

 

Honestly Oddbird, this topic is very new to me as I have never put to much thought into God's omnibenevolence. I always have seen God as the balance of scales, the Judge.

 

Now, I see Jesus as omnibenevolent, yet, Jesus was/is not God, and according to the Bible, needs God's permission for things. Maybe when Jesus confesses us to the Father as it says in Revelations, He is showing omnibenevolence toward us to the Judge.

 

God, the Father IMO is the Judge, and Jesus is the omnibenevolent One who God ordained on Earth, and now has given Him authority over us, kind of like the high priest of us.

 

I don't really know what else to say about it. I see God and Jesus as separate things, which is probably confusing many in my statements. Rereading my statements, I could see where there may have been some confusion. Sorry.

[Ouroboros]

 

Jesus says this in chapter 24 in reagrd to the end days.(keep in mind that was 2000 years ago)

 

Mt 24:7 For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places.

 

This is toward the end, these things are mentioned as a 'specific' thing happening. There has always been suffering and starvation since the beginning, but at the end, Christ here makes a specific notion that there will be famine.

You bring up something here that I realized I'd like to ask you. I will do it in a separate thread to avoid disrupting this one.

 

The question is: Why did Jesus come 2,000 years ago instead of 5,000 years ago or today?

 

Link: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?/topic/36058-why-did-jesus-come-2000-years-ago-in-regards-to-time/page__view__findpost__p__530631

[chefranden]

Some More Misunderstood Love

In a story about security for women in Haiti from the CBC there was a bit about a 12 year old girl pulled from the rubble and then raped. I suppose that the girl was a sort of strawberry for her rapist. Am I starting to get it?

[oddbird1963]

 

What exactly is he working when he let's people die, Abiyoyo? He could end their hunger, but doesn't? What omniscient plan is worth all that?

 

It's not about worth, or His plan. We all die Oddbird, that is a fact of life. He didn't make the world, He made us, and we have made this world the way it is because there is opposition in the world.

 

Why didn't people just live peacefully from the beginning and stay in there mud huts? Why do people, leaders, nations, war against others and take land, food, property?

 

It's not about worth? Haven't you been contending that God has some plan he is working and that because of that he is willing to let people die of starvation? Even if not, he has choices, especially if he is truly God. There are the choices of 1) ending starvation and 2) sticking to some plan. The fact that he makes one choice over the other indicates that to God the "plan" is worth more than saving the starving from hunger.

 

It seems you are blaming the starving for their own deaths. Are you sure you want to go down that road? It kind of works against developing Christian compassion, don't you think? And even if everything you say is true about greed and selfishness, there is still the fact that God, if omnipotent, lets starving people die.

 

Honestly Oddbird, this topic is very new to me as I have never put to much thought into God's omnibenevolence. I always have seen God as the balance of scales, the Judge.

 

Now, I see Jesus as omnibenevolent, yet, Jesus was/is not God, and according to the Bible, needs God's permission for things. Maybe when Jesus confesses us to the Father as it says in Revelations, He is showing omnibenevolence toward us to the Judge.

 

God, the Father IMO is the Judge, and Jesus is the omnibenevolent One who God ordained on Earth, and now has given Him authority over us, kind of like the high priest of us.

 

 

I don't really know what else to say about it. I see God and Jesus as separate things, which is probably confusing many in my statements. Rereading my statements, I could see where there may have been some confusion. Sorry.

 

If you're denying the deity of Christ, Abiyoyo, then you certainly aren't a traditional Christian. At least not the classic kind of trinitarian Christian.

 

So are you thinking that God the Father is the Holy Omnipotent One? So is Jesus Omnipotent, or just Omnibenevolent? Does this mean you believe that God the Father is NOT omnibenevolent?

[Shyone]

It seems you are blaming the starving for their own deaths. Are you sure you want to go down that road? It kind of works against developing Christian compassion, don't you think?

 

At some point, I have seen Christians say over and over that Justice, mercy, compassion etc. are all things that, even though they are not here on Earth, will become evident after we die.

 

Unless we fry.

 

But assuming we (or should I say "they"?) don't wind up in Hell's Kitchen, the "it all balances out after death" line renders life essentially worthless, and death is the greatest benefit to life.

 

That's why the Beatitudes are not humanistic. The only way to get food from God is to die.

[Franko47]

 

 

It's not about worth, or His plan. We all die Oddbird, that is a fact of life. He didn't make the world, He made us, and we have made this world the way it is because there is opposition in the world.

 

Why didn't people just live peacefully from the beginning and stay in there mud huts? Why do people, leaders, nations, war against others and take land, food, property?

 

Because things exist within mankind. Greed, covetousness, power. We not only have the ability to desire these things, but execute on a level in our own comparison. Example. A dog sees a bone given to another dog, and the dog comes over snarls at the other dog, fights it, and takes it's bone. We do the same thing except we are not animals.

 

We do it with money, oil, food, authority and more; and things follow, like poverty, bad health, starvation, suffering, death.

 

 

 

Why is this always a "sin" issue and not just one of knowledge and intelligence ? God made the conditions up in which humanity must live; needless to say the field is tilted against us. Limited resources, powerful instincts for survival purposes, and so on. In fact, without these drives, humanity wouldn't have made it out of the cradle and would already be extinct.

 

The very structure of our survival mechanisms (including reproduction) are now our own curse ? Yeah, that sounds fair.

 

And God is the one with all the "powers". No us. Not me. But it's easy to see what a wretched experiment this is; it's like taking five really nice people and throwing them into a demanding survival situation, and then blaming them when they get a little selfish about things.

 

Darn rights humans deserve forgiveness and redemption. At the very least. All these conditions are way beyond the majority of humans, intellectually, emotionally and psychologically, except for those born into power and wealth; although even they have ended up on the wrong side of a sword merely because they have power.

 

Again, the level of conflict and evil in the world is not merely because of man's "nature". It is an outgrowth of the setting, plot, and theme of your fluffy "God"'s little experiment.

 

"He" is as guilty as "We". In a cosmic court of law this would be an easy case to make. If I have four cats, I just don't provide enough food for two. We all know where that goes. But this is precisely what your God has done with humanity.

 

Sadistic. There's only one way to describe it.