Is The Christian God A Personal God?

[Realist]

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

 

.... or how about just plain old bullshit??

[oddbird1963]

 

 

"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.

 

 

WOW! That is a GREAT illustration Franko47 of why God lacks moral goodness, if he is all-powerful and all-knowing!

 

From time to time , on the local news, we see stories of pets who have been neglected - starved and left to their own devices in their own urine and feces. Horses who, though normally magnificent animals, were starved down to skin and bone.

 

The owner is always charged with animal cruelty and made to answer to the law.

 

We expect that if one is going to hold a life in their hands, as with pets and livestock, there is a moral obligation to see to it that those animals do not starve.

 

How much more so with a god to whom is attributed unlimited power and complete knowledge of all things!

 

Once again. Your four cats illustration is such an appropriate point.

[chefranden]

1. 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.

 

2.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?

 

3. 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.

 

4. 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.

 

5. 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.

 

1. The world is the way it is because God made it this way. As creator he has the ultimate responsibility. The buck stops there. Sure he could use us for agents to turn the place silly, but it is his responsibility. It is his responsibility even if he was too incompetent to make good creatures. According to the story he set it all in motion and he knew how it was going to go.

 

2. Because God told them to go multiply and subdue the earth. They are just following orders.

 

3. Why do these things exist within mankind? Who put them there? Has to be our good buddy the creator. He tried to rub out these things with a flood according to the story. Didn't work. He should have killed Adam and Eve when they fucked up like he said he would and started over and over until he got a couple that worked, a couple that could produce good offspring. But instead he chose to make you a sinner. God did this not you. You didn't choose to be a sinner. You were born an sinner, like a dog is born with a tail. Your sinfulness was knit together in your moms womb along with the rest of you.

 

4. If God is the judge he should recuse himself for incompetence and because he made the rules along with our inability to keep the rules.

 

5. You are going to hell. This idea died in flames umpteen centuries ago. You may as well go be a Jew or surrender to Islam.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

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.

 

Why didn't people just stay in their mud huts from the beginning?

 

 

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?

 

This goes back to earlier, the statement you couldn't accept. I believe, God the Father, showed us omnibenevolence when He didn't wipe us completely away from existence.

 

But, to anwer your question. No, I do believe God the Father is omnibenevolent, just you and I view this differently in this debate. I see Christ as God's omnibenevolence to humanity, through Christ, giving humanity a place to eternally rest, only by the belief in the One that He ordained His Son, who lived righteously to God.

 

So, to clarify. I see God the Father NOT in the direct role of omnibenevoent, and Christ (in the present, and during His ordainment) as the omnibenevolence of God the Father. But, Christ has to get permission from the Father to act on His omnibenevolence. Make sense?

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

2. Because God told them to go multiply and subdue the earth. They are just following orders.

 

 

 

Bob has 10 wives, 10 sheep, 10 camels, a well, sex two times a day. Abrabob has 10 wives, 10 sheep, 10 camels, a well, sex two times a day. One day, (doing God's command as you stated), Bob went on a journey to find animals, extend his land, look for another spot for a well; and while looking and traveling runs into Abrabob.

 

So, by your logic chef, the conversation should have went like this. Hi, my name is Bob, give me your things as God has commanded me to subdue the Earth. Abrabob says, I can't do that, but you can give me your things because God has also commanded me to subdue the Earth. Bob says, I can't do that. Abrabob says, I can't do that. Battle!!!!

 

If that is why they sought and conquered, I think it would have been more like this. Bob says, Hi, my name is Bob, I am seeking new land, and animals because God has told me to subdue the Earth and rule over it and multiply. Abrabob, says, Hi, my name is Abrabob, I also am doing these things by the same God.

 

Both say, Great! Lets buil an altar and pray to our God for uniting our families.

 

Chef? Wouldn't the story of Cain and Abel deter any Hebrews from 'desiring' to conquer and kill others? God did say He heard Abel's blood from the ground.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

5. You are going to hell. This idea died in flames umpteen centuries ago. You may as well go be a Jew or surrender to Islam.

 

Chef? You feeling okay buddy? Why should I go to Hell? I love Jesus and want to do His works, which is spreading His Gospel.

[Shyone]

 

 

2. Because God told them to go multiply and subdue the earth. They are just following orders.

 

 

 

Bob has 10 wives, 10 sheep, 10 camels, a well, sex two times a day. Abrabob has 10 wives, 10 sheep, 10 camels, a well, sex two times a day. One day, (doing God's command as you stated), Bob went on a journey to find animals, extend his land, look for another spot for a well; and while looking and traveling runs into Abrabob.

It's a good thing they had the Bible to tell them not to have sex with their sheep, or they would never have subdued the earth.

[Abiyoyo]

 

It's a good thing they had the Bible to tell them not to have sex with their sheep, or they would never have subdued the earth.

[oddbird1963]

Why didn't people just stay in their mud huts from the beginning?

 

You'll have to expand on that question if you are really wanting a reply to it.

 

 

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?

 

This goes back to earlier, the statement you couldn't accept. I believe, God the Father, showed us omnibenevolence when He didn't wipe us completely away from existence.

 

A mercy he regretted later before he mythologically killed all but 8 inhabitants of the earth.

 

But, to anwer your question. No, I do believe God the Father is omnibenevolent, just you and I view this differently in this debate. I see Christ as God's omnibenevolence to humanity, through Christ, giving humanity a place to eternally rest, only by the belief in the One that He ordained His Son, who lived righteously to God.

 

So, there is a dysfunctional relationship. Jesus WANTS to help the starving, but his Father won't let him.

 

Let's be clear, I have only been pointing out what has been the standard Christian, trinitarian view of God with respect to the problem of suffering and evil. This view is well documented. Of COURSE I don't believe God is either omnipotent, omniscient or benevolent. I do not believe god exists.

 

So, to clarify. I see God the Father NOT in the direct role of omnibenevoent, and Christ (in the present, and during His ordainment) as the omnibenevolence of God the Father. But, Christ has to get permission from the Father to act on His omnibenevolence. Make sense?

 

Not really. But you're in rather unique territory. Somehow, in your expression of the godhead, the divine nature has been split up. Whereas Christian theology teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in nature / essence and three in persons, you are teaching three distinct persons with a partially divine nature.

 

The way the problem of evil and suffering would be solved is to say that one part of god is omnipotent but not omnibenevolent. The other part of god is omnibenevolent, but the omnipotent member of the god head won't let him act.

 

Essentially, it sounds like you have three separate persons who are part of a "Dynamic Trio." Three separate persons each with a different superpower, dominated, of course, by the omnipotent one.

 

It's easy to see how this kind of god would let millions starve.

 

Only one member of the team is morally perfect, but the powerful one suppresses and dominates him.

[Stephanie]

The Christian god is a pagan god. The god of the Old Testament is Yahweh. Jesus is supposed to be him reincarnated. Yahweh is a product of an evolutionary process consisting in the absorption of Canaanite gods Baal, El, & Asherah (all mentioned in the Old Testament). Yahweh is the warrior and storm god who won the kingship over earth from his father, El/Elyon (God Most High), the head of the council of Pagan Gods, by defeating the sea god (Yamm) and the dragon (Leviathan), both mentioned in the Old Testament. Every ancient culture in the Near East (and beyond) had similar myths where a god had to defeat a sea god and/or a dragon in order to obtain kingship to rule over a people. Yahweh was not the only or even the highest Israelite deity. Rather, he was one of 70 sons of El/Elyon, "Most High God", who created enough nations for each of his sons to have a people to rule:

Deuteronomy 32: 7-9:

 

"Remember the days of old,

consider the years of many generations;

ask your father, and he will show you,

your elders, and they will tell you.

When THE MOST HIGH gave to the nations their inheritance,

when he separated the sons of men,

he fixed the bounds of the peoples

according to the NUMBER OF THE SONS OF GOD.

For Yahweh's portion is his people,

Jacob his allotted heritage."

 

Where did Yahweh come from?:

 

Historians of the ancient near east offer viewpoints that describe worship of Yahweh as originating in pre-Israelite peoples of the Levant and evolving gradually from polytheism to monolatry to monotheism rather than the traditional view that worship of Yahweh was monotheistic from its beginning with the revelation to Moses at the burning bush.[122] Theophoric names, names of local gods similar to Yahweh, and archaeological evidence are used along with the Biblical source texts

to build theories regarding pre-Israel origins of Yahweh worship, the relationship of Yahweh with local gods, and the manner in which

polytheistic worship of Yahweh worship evolved into Jewish monotheism.[123] One hypothesis presented in 2008 on the PBS science show Nova suggests that a group of originally Canaanite slaves led by Moses out of Egypt probably acquired the deity Yahweh from the Shasu people of Midian. The documentary points out that the Bible itself mentions that Moses first encountered Yahweh as a burning bush in Midian.[124] An Egyptian inscription also makes reference to these people using the name Yahua/Yahweh.

 

Subsequently, in the wake of monotheistic preaching of Jeremiah and Second Isaiah, Jewish theologians fused El/Elyon and Yahweh to create the impression that there had always been a single Hebrew God. But there are several places in the bible where each god is mentioned separately then together. The rest of the gods, the sons of El/Elyon, were consigned to Sheol, the Hebrew netherworld, for mismanagement:

 

Pss. 82: 1-8:

 

God (Yahweh) has taken his place in the divine council;

in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

"How long will you judge unjustly

and show partiality to the wicket:

Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;

maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.

Rescue the weak and the needy;

deliver them from the hand of the wicked."

They have neither knowledge nor understanding,

they walk about in darkness;

all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

I say "You are gods,

sons of Elyon, all of you;

nevertheless, you shall die like men,

and fall like any price."

Arise, O God, judge the earth;

for to you belong all the nations!

 

Perhaps this is a vision of Yahweh's condemnation and overthrow of the subordinate gods in the future, as most of the Bible continues to picture God convening his council of heavenly beings (Job 1:6; 2:1; 1Kings 22:19-22; Pss. 89:5). These entities would eventually be designated as angels, beings heavenly but not quite divine. Even so, their original role as deputy gods ruling the nations survived in Daniel 10:13, where one of them is the prince behind the throne of Persia, just as Rimmon had been the god of Syria (2Kings 5:18). They survive into the New Testament too, as the Principalities and Powers, the twenty-four elders who surround the divine throne in Revelations 4:4.

 

The above scriptures are just a small sampling of the mythology found in the Old Testament. Now Jesus was supposed to be a Jew who believed in these myths. He preached using these myths. The Creation story, Flood story, Exodus story, etc. are all myths.

 

So basically, your "personal god" is a mythological god created by men long ago, just like the Greeks, Egyptians, Phoenicians, Assyrians, etc. created all their gods. The Bible is Hebrew mythology with stories based/taken from Canaanite/Phoenician/Assyrian religions. The following are lists of books you can read to educate yourself on the god you profess is real that is your personal god:

 

Book 1:

"The Faces of God: Canaanite Mythology as Hebrew Theology"

http://www.amazon.com/Faces-God-Canaanite-Mythology-Theology/dp/0882141171/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

 

Book 2:

"Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel"

http://www.amazon.com/Canaanite-Myth-Hebrew-Epic-Religion/dp/0674091760/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265905910&sr=1-1

 

Book 3:

Canaanite Myth and Legends" Academic Paperback

http://www.amazon.com/Canaanite-Myths-Legends-Academic-Paperback/dp/0567080897/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265905910&sr=1-3

 

Book 4:

Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (Oxford World's Classics)

http://www.amazon.com/Myths-Mesopotamia-Creation-Gilgamesh-Classics/dp/0199538360/ref=pd_bxgy_b_img_b

 

Book 5:

"Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia"

http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Demons-Symbols-Ancient-Mesopotamia/dp/0292707940/ref=pd_sim_b_1

 

Book 6:

"The Assembly of the Gods: The Divine Council in Canaanite and Early Hebrew Literature (Harvard Semitic Monographs #24)

http://www.amazon.com/Assembly-Gods-Canaanite-Literature-Monographs/dp/0891303804/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265905910&sr=1-4

 

Book 7:

"Canaanite Myths and Legends (Old Testament Studies No. 3)"

http://www.amazon.com/Canaanite-myths-legends-Testament-Studies/dp/B0007AFCSI/ref=sr_1_5?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265905910&sr=1-5

 

Book 8:

"Dances with the Gods: Canannite-Phoenician Myths & Legends Retold"

http://www.amazon.com/Dances-Gods-Canaanite-Phoenician-Legends-Retold/dp/9963610110/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265905910&sr=1-6

 

The above books were written for lay people like you and me. The following are some books to consider if you are looking for more of a scholarly read:

 

"Mesopotamian Elements in Manichaeism (King and Saviour II) Studies in Manichaen, Mandaean, and Syrian-Gnostic Religion" by Geo Widengren

 

"The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch. Studies in the Psalter, III, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament" Supplement Series 233, by Michael D. Goulder

 

"Creation and Chaos in the Primeval Era and the Eschaton", by K. William Whitney Jr. and Mary K. Wakeman

 

"God's Battle with the Monster: A Study in Biblical Imagery" by Leiden, Netherlands: E.J. Brill

 

"Mythology among the Hebrews and It's Historical Development" by Ignaz Goldziher

 

"Hebrew Myths: The Book of Genesis", by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai

 

"The Idea of the Holy: An Inquiry into the Non-rational Factor in the Idea of the Divine and Its Relation to the Rational" by Rudolf Otto

 

"Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis

 

"The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion" by Peter L. Berger

 

"Old Testament Theology Volume II: The Theology of Israel's Prophetic Traditions", by Gerhard von Rad

 

"Map Is Not Territory: Studies in the History of Religions", by Jonathan Z. Smith

 

"The Eucharistic Words of Jesus", by Joachim Jeremias

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

You'll have to expand on that question if you are really wanting a reply to it.

 

When people lived in mud huts, why didn't they just stay in their dwelling area and never try to conquer others areas?

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, there is a dysfunctional relationship. Jesus WANTS to help the starving, but his Father won't let him.

 

Let's be clear, I have only been pointing out what has been the standard Christian, trinitarian view of God with respect to the problem of suffering and evil. This view is well documented. Of COURSE I don't believe God is either omnipotent, omniscient or benevolent. I do not believe god exists.

 

I am trying to explain why I think God the Father is omnibenevolent and at the same time there are suffering people on Earth. I am connecting Christ to this as the Jewish God's omnibenevolence toward humanity through the teachings of Christ. I know there are other philosophies, but Christ's philosophy IMO goes a little deeper into humanity than most of the ones that I have studied. The concept of losing your life to do for others is powerful, and a concept among people everyday diggin through the rumble to uncover lost ones in these disasters that include suffering, groups that provide food for starving, etc. I'm not saying that Christians are the only contributors to these things, but I am saying that without the teachings of Christ available, there would be a certain portion lessened to the cause.

 

These people believe in God, even if they think Jesus is God, they believe that God has commanded these things. That is the omnibenevolent portion. Justification of means in humanity. Enlightenment. Whatever you want to call it. It's the movement and the credit to the God of Israel in this.

 

I truly see your point Oddbird, but, for me, the line runs a little deeper than just the 'poof' God should take it all away mentality.

 

If God had not erred as many put it, then WE would not be us. You would not be you, and I would not be me. We would be perfect. Your rationality would be moot, same with your education and observation. We would be aware of the obvious and humanity would never have existed.

 

We DID NOT conceive until we left the Garden. Humanity would have ceased to exist if God would have 'poofed' the problem away.

 

Make sense?

 

 

 

Not really. But you're in rather unique territory. Somehow, in your expression of the godhead, the divine nature has been split up. Whereas Christian theology teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in nature / essence and three in persons, you are teaching three distinct persons with a partially divine nature.

 

The way the problem of evil and suffering would be solved is to say that one part of god is omnipotent but not omnibenevolent. The other part of god is omnibenevolent, but the omnipotent member of the god head won't let him act.

 

Essentially, it sounds like you have three separate persons who are part of a "Dynamic Trio." Three separate persons each with a different superpower, dominated, of course, by the omnipotent one.

 

It's easy to see how this kind of god would let millions starve.

 

Only one member of the team is morally perfect, but the powerful one suppresses and dominates him.

 

Okay, let me clarify again

 

God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of One essence. Here is how that lays out for me. God is God, who is a spirit. The Holy Spirit is of God, and from God the Father. Christ was ordained by God as His Son who He was well pleased.

 

I do not believe that Christ was God in flesh, but I think that when Christ said 'the kingdom of God is upon you' it was because the Holy Spirit was upon Him, and in essence, God was upon them. Also, I think when Christ agreed He was the King of the Jews he said that knowing the Plan already, knowing His paradise to come from God the Father. But, at the present, Christ has died, and is sitting at the right hand of God the Father.

 

Currently, Jesus is apart of the Orthodox trinity because now Christ is One by God(through purity and righteousness)in that He has resurrected and has been given authority in Heaven.

 

So, Christ is not the Father, but, He is authoritative of His dominion that God the Father has given Him in Heaven, not Earth.

 

Does that make sense?

[Shyone]

So, Christ is not the Father, but, He is authoritative of His dominion that God the Father has given Him in Heaven, not Earth.

 

Does that make sense?

 

So Jesus is a subordinate god. That sounds rather Mesopotamian to me. Or Greek.

 

Face it, the trinity is nonsense.

[oddbird1963]

 

I truly see your point Oddbird, but, for me, the line runs a little deeper than just the 'poof' God should take it all away mentality.

 

 

That is a case of beating a straw man if I ever saw one. You keep doing this. Your imaginary journeys into scenarioland are somehow deep, and meaningful and realistic. But when I have said that an omnipotent, all-loving god both could and should have worked to stop starvation, it's suddenly a trivial "poof" God should take it away "mentality."

 

Do you actually think that your speculative monologues into a fantasy of scenarios actually comes close to reflecting the mind and intentions of this god you believe has higher and grander thoughts than you? The scenarios you imagine all amount to "God has better things to do than keep people from starving to death. You wouldn't expect him to change his plans would you? Oh my!"

 

Once again, I will point out, I shared a scenario that was more based in facts and reality than yours of how god could end starvation and tragedy not result. There is no reason to believe that my scenario doesn't run deep.

 

When your do a sounding to see how deep your thinking and scenarios actually run, your god comes out rather shallow, locked into and limited by a plan that is so rigid and inflexible that the poor must starve to death. The version of god you present is more akin to a bureaucrat or insurance company president.

 

In my thinking, a god who is omnibenevolent would be complete and perfect in his moral goodness (that is the definition of omnibeevolence). And his power to accomplish all things would be guided by his perfect moral goodness. Those are some pretty deep lines to fashion. And it's based on the sayings of the Bible and the teachings of Christian theology. Surely you think the words of the bible are deep? The problem is we have a world that is not in line with such an omnipotent, loving deity existing.

 

I recognize that we live in a world that would be thoroughly different and almost unrecognizable without death , violence and deprivation in it.

But this current world is irreconcilable with a God who has perfect moral goodness , possesses all power to accomplish his purposes yet allows evil, starvation and disease to ransack his creation.

 

Only because you are trying to force fit such a god into this universe do you go through your scenarios and bend over backwards to make it seem reasonable that an all-loving god would not do what perfect moral goodness demands by definition. Or, you redefine words like omnibeneivolent to mean single acts that demonstrate goodness, but ignore further realities that this god can ignore yet still be called omnibenveolent.

 

If I read your words on the nature of God correctly, you still believe in some kind of unity of God and you still believe in the big 3 attributes. So, in conclusion, the presence of evil in this world is inconsistent with a god who bears all three of the attributes: omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence.

[Abiyoyo]

 

 

 

That is a case of beating a straw man if I ever saw one.

 

You are correct in that statement.

 

I have proposed points, positions, examples, theology all around your question. Why God doesn't end suffering and starvation if He is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent.

 

What is it called when someone denies, overlooks, works around, distorts, the position of the debater?

 

Oddbird. I am not giving you a strawman argument.

 

If the US was in a debate with the president and asked him, If we are free, then why do we have to pay taxes? And they position themselves in such a way as to say that the US is communist rather than free.

 

To the debater, many things are explained and formed together to make what we call, a point, or position. The debater then says that it doesn't change things, we are still communist as long as we have to pay taxes. More points and positions are given, yet, the debater still says that unless action' is taken, they will consider the US to be a communist country.

 

See, here's what you don't get. You were not the original point of topic. The topic was, Is the Christian God a personal God? You stated that He is not a personal God because there are suffering and starving people in the world that die everyday.

 

THIS is the strawman. not, the people trying to show positions and points of relevance to refute what you have said.

 

You have not supplied any position within this whole debate other than dening the points given to refute your claim.

[Franko47]

How can God be your personal "God" if he lets you starve to death, after faith and prayer and all the rest of the "begging" ?

 

A personal god is nice if it's all working out. The comfortable folk in-the-west have their fluffy Jesus, the believers in the 3rd world have misery and trepidation.

 

IF God responded to the faithful and all believers with some kind of uniform "relief" that was evident (even remotely) then maybe we could talk.

 

Eventually, everything must be judged against the background of reality. You can't just isolate an argument from connective issues because it gets in the way.

 

But to answer your question, I think the traditional view has always been that "God eminent" is a personal god, and "God transcendent" is of a more ubiquitous nature. Most Christians I know see God as personal and encompassing of the group; even if there are subtle differences in theology and personal experience relative to either condition.

[oddbird1963]

That is a case of beating a straw man if I ever saw one.

 

You are correct in that statement.

Well, congratulations, Abiyoyo. It takes a mature person to admit when they have engaged in a logical fallacy. I am glad you now see that my argument does not amount to a "'poof' God should take it all away mentality," as you framed it.

 

That is what saying 'You are correct' to my statement amounts too. Unless of course, you are once again engaging in the practice of taking things out of context and changing the meanings of words to suit your position.

 

I have proposed points, positions, examples, theology all around your question. Why God doesn't end suffering and starvation if He is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent.

 

What is it called when someone denies, overlooks, works around, distorts, the position of the debater?

 

Oddbird. I am not giving you a strawman argument.

 

You will have to explain what you mean by "strawman argument." A straw man argument is when you misrepresent the position held by someone, present it in a weaker form, and then attack that weaker position. I and others like me who contend an omnipotent god can wipe away hunger do not necessarily believe in a 'poof' god should take it all way mentality. Therefore, you were attacking a straw man.

 

See, here's what you don't get. You were not the original point of topic. The topic was, Is the Christian God a personal God? You stated that He is not a personal God because there are suffering and starving people in the world that die everyday.

 

THIS is the strawman. not, the people trying to show positions and points of relevance to refute what you have said.

 

You see, this is where you seem to adopt your own meanings to things again. Your characterization is, "He is not a personal God because there are suffering and starving people in the world that die everyday. " How is this statement in any way s straw man argument? It is not presenting anybody else's view but my own. It is not representing anybody else's position in a weaker and more easily irrefutable form.

 

It's almost as if to you a straw man argument is an argument that you disagree with that a person won't concede to you.

 

You have not supplied any position within this whole debate other than denying the points given to refute your claim.

If you are trying to refute my claim then you are tacitly admitting that I indeed did have a position within this debate. How could you try to refute my claim if there was no position to refute?

 

Maybe you meant to say something different. I don't know based on your statement here. Are you saying that I never proposed an alternate scenario to your scenario outlining what a disaster it would be for your god to eliminate starvation? I did provide an alternative.

 

But I'm just guessing at what you mean.

 

I've shown you exactly why the points I have been making are relevant to the original post. See an early entry .

 

But even if you are correct and there is some position I haven't supplie, what of it? The points you are making either don't refute what I am saying or they try to distract what is the real point.

 

But really, that is all a Christian can do in the face of the problem of evil and suffering in a world supposedly ruled over by an all-powerful yet supposedly loving god. There is nothing else to do. Because Christianity cannot deal with evil and suffering yet continue to have a "Christian" god.

[NotBlinded]

I do not believe that Christ was God in flesh, but I think that when Christ said 'the kingdom of God is upon you' it was because the Holy Spirit was upon Him, and in essence, God was upon them. Also, I think when Christ agreed He was the King of the Jews he said that knowing the Plan already, knowing His paradise to come from God the Father. But, at the present, Christ has died, and is sitting at the right hand of God the Father.

Abi, I can understand why you would put Jesus forth as a go between. You have tried your best to reach a middle ground with your understandings, but what if Jesus wasn't the go between? What if what he meant when he said that "the Kingdom of God is upon you" he meant that it was there for all of them just as it was for him? He may have been telling them that no go between is needed and when they looked at Jesus, they saw in him what could be in them.

 

Having to have a go between between a person and God is not necessary. Sure, there are those that can show people how having "knowledge" of God can enhance their lives but people shouldn't worship the messenger. Although guru-worship is known to happen again and again, that isn't the point of what the teacher is trying to teach. If it is, then there's trouble in paradise, so to speak.

[Shyone]

Having to have a go between between a person and God is not necessary.

 

Dealing with the finer points of theology is like carefully decorating the headdress of the virgin about to go into the volcano, but I note that Jesus, in some of his calmer moments, said to pray directly to God. The Lord's Prayer does not say "In My name" or "If they believe in me."

 

All of that stuff that seems to direct traffic through Jesus was added later by people who wanted to make a new religion.

[NotBlinded]

Having to have a go between between a person and God is not necessary.

 

Dealing with the finer points of theology is like carefully decorating the headdress of the virgin about to go into the volcano, but I note that Jesus, in some of his calmer moments, said to pray directly to God. The Lord's Prayer does not say "In My name" or "If they believe in me."

 

All of that stuff that seems to direct traffic through Jesus was added later by people who wanted to make a new religion.

Amen Shy and that last sentence of yours is the trouble in paradise that I was speaking of.