Why Call Him God?

[litassio]

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?

Then he is not omnipotent.

~Epicurus

The conclusion is wrong, perhaps God has other reasons not to intervene with the nature of things.

 

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

~Epicurus

That is a wrong conclusion if you believe that the law of karma states that bad actions give bad reactions and good actions give good reactions and that God does not want to intervene in the natural laws in which He has organized nature.

 

Is he both able, and willing?

Then whence cometh evil?

~Epicurus

It is the way nature has been organized, if there would be no pain or "evil" in this universe then nature/life could not function properly.

Without action and reaction nature would not be able to function logically.

 

Is he neither able nor willing?

Then why call him God.

~Epicurus

Because God is above or beyond the dimension in which He lets nature do its work. He can at any time intervene in the course of nature but will not do so most of the time. This does not however mean that God is not intimately connected with the nature of things, but it will be impossible to tell by just observing the way of nature. And that's where He had Epicures fooled.

[Antlerman]

I’ve found it very helpful to approach scripture as ancient Jewish literature, which is of course what it is. I think we need to understand the way the people who wrote it thought, etc. to understand the concepts they were communicating.

And have you ever thought to apply this approach to the New Testament as well, that it is laced with mythologies and the way those people thought for where they were at at that time as well? So in this sense of the word, notions of God as an overseeing Father who involves itself in the affairs of man, displaying very human-like attributes of jealousy and vengeance striking down those who challenge the word of an Apostle, or filling someone with disease for taking the glory from God, are in fact expressions of a people's mindset at that place and time in history, and not in fact the definitive word on the nature of God to be taken as some sort of "Owner's Manual"?

 

You see, the fact that in their efforts to speak of man's relationship with the Divine that they have God behaving in ways, such as caring enough to do something when it comes to defending his pride or his human institutions "he" supposedly established as 'the way', that when taken literally, in fact does create the very difficult problems that the Epicurean Paradox does in fact illustrate. A God defined as active in the affairs of man on that level; willful, mindful intentionality to very specific human affairs, then begs the question why be so selective in it's directed actions, leaving such other morally obvious problems left unchallenged, such as 6 million Jews killed under Hitler?

 

Christians adapted the older concepts of the Jews about God into their new mindset, why can't you adapt the older concepts of the Christians into your new concepts, one which doesn't create such an unanswerable paradox of logic such as Epicurius posed to the concepts of God of his day? Is it because you believe the Bible to be infallible, the Owner's Manual for God? If so, then is your faith in God, or in your beliefs?

[oddbird1963]

How can he be "god" in any sense of the word "good" or "powerful" when he allowed 50,000,000 human children throughout history to die prematurely, very often of horrible disease and pain?

 

If he was "able" and "willing" or "good" or "loving" at all, then why such waste on his part? Infants and children do not get a chance to exercise "free will" in any way that counts.

 

It's simply a case of depraved indifference if this god has any power at all.

Waste? There is more than this life. You have an earthly perspective. I’m not saying God doesn’t care about this life - but I am saying He has a different perspective. Eternity is forever. We humans can fight much disease - have we been indifferent?

 

I believe when everyone dies (including infants) they meet God and their hearts respond - they either love Him or they prefer to be separated from Him.

 

It's too bad this all-wise , omnipotent god finds himself an impotent communicator when it comes to communicating this "different perspective." You seem to be unsure. Does he care about the suffering of those children who died or not? Was the suffering significant or not? Why was he willing to let them die before they could exercise their free will and choose him? What could make it worth all that, if he "loves" them?

 

While modern medicine of the last 200 years has brought down the infant mortality rates to an impressive degree throughout the wealthier , technologically advanced societies, that is still a minor fraction of lives saved when compared to the almost 50 Billion children throughout human history who did not survive to be able to choose this god under consideration. Where was his power and his wisdom and his love and his knowledge for them? Was he just sitting around and waiting for theologians to invent excuses for his indifference?

 

I see no basis for your belief that infants who died early in life will get a choice. Perhaps I missed the reason for holding that belief. But currently, I find that to be a self-medicating rationalization to insulate one's self from the realization that this god has sat by for thousands of generations and observed the children of humanity suffer for no apparent reason. I'm not sure what perspective can suddenly make this god caring and loving.

 

NOTE: I just noticed I'm lacking a few zeroes from my original post. The number of children to have died before reaching maturity is 50,000,000,000 not 50,000,000 . That's 50 BILLION children who did not get to exercise free will and choose this god so the love would count for something that matters to him.

[MagickMonkey]

I personally would rather be a robot than burn in hell for eternity.

 

Yeah, no shit!!! +1 for this.

[MagickMonkey]

I don't believe in the "burn in hell" thing. <...> Scripture is Jewish literature so I believe it should be read with an understanding of Hebraic thought, perspective, literary style/characteristics, etc.

 

There's no hell in Jewish scripture, Walker. You won't find it in thought, perspective, literary style/characteristics or even etc. Sorry.

I'm not sure all that you're thinking here but I consider the whole Bible - scripture (first and second testament) to be literature written very predominantly by Hebrews/Jews. The second testament, though written in Greek, was written predominantly by Jewish authors who thought and perceived the world as Jews, etc. Though Jewish people today don't consider the second testament "scripture" it was still written mostly by Jewish people. The concept of the afterlife being with God or separation from God is in both testaments, but it is much more developed in the second testament.

 

There is a bit of a cultural disconnect between Roman Empire era Jews and Bronze Age Hebrew authors of the old testament. The differences between both testaments reflect this cultural disconnect.

[Rev R]

Is he able, but not willing?

Then he is malevolent.

~Epicurus

That is a wrong conclusion if you believe that the law of karma states that bad actions give bad reactions and good actions give good reactions and that God does not want to intervene in the natural laws in which He has organized nature.

 

Actually it is still a correct conclusion. In giving this god an excuse not to intervene you have demonstrated that it is not willing to end suffering and in fact wants people to suffer.

 

To bring in the karmic argument, why is it always assumed that the supposed lawmaker is above any law of its creation? Let's go with the traditional interpretation of karma where the divine beings are not immune to it. So we have a being that allows "bad" karma to bear fruit and through its inaction cultivates it's own "bad" karma. It is possible that on the scale we are dealing with the karma of humanity may balance out. However, this being is still responsible for the cultivation of its own karma. We have a being deliberately cultivating what it knows is "bad" karma, therefore it is malevolent.

[walker]

Okay...

 

Exodus 21:7-11 Sex slaves... Anyone?...

 

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 God tells them to go to the city and fight, but offer peace first. If they accept, make slaves of them. If they do not accept, kill all the men and boys and take the women and live stock as your own. I'm not sure about the cows, but I'm sure the women would not have like to be forced to sleep with their captors.

 

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (Again) God says when they capture women take them as your own, but do let them morn first. After they are happy with the loved-ones deaths, then you can marry and rape them.

 

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 A woman is raped, and she and her rapist are to be stoned. Him for the rape and her because she did not call out. Let's say the rapist held a knife to her throat as he raped her. If she cries out, she is dead. If she does not cry out she is dead.

 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - <sarcasm>This one is the nicest in the bible</sarcasm> I admit it's not god ordained, but lets look at it. A woman gets raped. Her rapist pays fifty pieces of silver to her father. She then has to marry him and be raped for free until she dies or he does.

 

I'll stop here...

 

Please study your bible more, we do.

There is a cultural context here. Women were given in marriage by their families. There had been no social requirement that a father take his daughter’s feelings into account, though a godly father would. Do you consider arranged marriages *rape* ?

 

Also, sex outside of marriage was not accepted. Typically the woman was blamed for “seducing” the man so she was more likely the one that bore social consequences. “Used” unmarried women were outcasts - unwanted. Unmarried women didn’t usually live alone - they lived with their family or with other unmarried women.

 

Ex. 21:7-11 I don’t see rape here. I do see protection of a woman’s rights within the cultural context. A wife must be provided for.

 

Deut. 20:10-14 I don’t see rape here either. Yes, it’s another example of men (not women) deciding who they will marry.

 

Deut. 21:10-14 Again, I don’t see rape. Verse 14 indicates that God was against men having sex with slaves - a sexual partner was a “wife” and was entitled to the rights of a wife.

 

Deut. 22:23-24 The thinking here is that if the woman didn’t scream for help then she wasn’t opposed to sleeping with the man. She is in a town - her family and community are all around her (it might have even been hard to find a private place). If she had wanted help she could have screamed and people would have heard her. Also, verse 25 clearly speaks of rape and different Hebrew words are used (one is a strong word meaning “to force“). Why wouldn’t the author have used the same words in verse 23 as in verse 25 if he was expressing the concept of rape both times? There is no concept of “force” in verse 23 (your “knife held to her throat“ theory).

 

Deut. 22:28-29 The majority of translations don’t use the English word “rape” in these verses. The Hebrew again is different from verse 25. These verses hold the man accountable for the woman - he can’t just have some fun and run, leaving the woman unwanted by other men. This is comparable to Ex. 22:16

[NoGods]

Okay...

 

Exodus 21:7-11 Sex slaves... Anyone?...

 

Deuteronomy 20:10-14 God tells them to go to the city and fight, but offer peace first. If they accept, make slaves of them. If they do not accept, kill all the men and boys and take the women and live stock as your own. I'm not sure about the cows, but I'm sure the women would not have like to be forced to sleep with their captors.

 

Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (Again) God says when they capture women take them as your own, but do let them morn first. After they are happy with the loved-ones deaths, then you can marry and rape them.

 

Deuteronomy 22:23-24 A woman is raped, and she and her rapist are to be stoned. Him for the rape and her because she did not call out. Let's say the rapist held a knife to her throat as he raped her. If she cries out, she is dead. If she does not cry out she is dead.

 

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - <sarcasm>This one is the nicest in the bible</sarcasm> I admit it's not god ordained, but lets look at it. A woman gets raped. Her rapist pays fifty pieces of silver to her father. She then has to marry him and be raped for free until she dies or he does.

 

I'll stop here...

 

Please study your bible more, we do.

There is a cultural context here. Women were given in marriage by their families. There had been no social requirement that a father take his daughter’s feelings into account, though a godly father would. Do you consider arranged marriages *rape* ?

 

Also, sex outside of marriage was not accepted. Typically the woman was blamed for “seducing” the man so she was more likely the one that bore social consequences. “Used” unmarried women were outcasts - unwanted. Unmarried women didn’t usually live alone - they lived with their family or with other unmarried women.

 

Ex. 21:7-11 I don’t see rape here. I do see protection of a woman’s rights within the cultural context. A wife must be provided for.

 

Deut. 20:10-14 I don’t see rape here either. Yes, it’s another example of men (not women) deciding who they will marry.

 

Deut. 21:10-14 Again, I don’t see rape. Verse 14 indicates that God was against men having sex with slaves - a sexual partner was a “wife” and was entitled to the rights of a wife.

 

Deut. 22:23-24 The thinking here is that if the woman didn’t scream for help then she wasn’t opposed to sleeping with the man. She is in a town - her family and community are all around her (it might have even been hard to find a private place). If she had wanted help she could have screamed and people would have heard her. Also, verse 25 clearly speaks of rape and different Hebrew words are used (one is a strong word meaning “to force“). Why wouldn’t the author have used the same words in verse 23 as in verse 25 if he was expressing the concept of rape both times? There is no concept of “force” in verse 23 (your “knife held to her throat“ theory).

 

Deut. 22:28-29 The majority of translations don’t use the English word “rape” in these verses. The Hebrew again is different from verse 25. These verses hold the man accountable for the woman - he can’t just have some fun and run, leaving the woman unwanted by other men. This is comparable to Ex. 22:16

 

Arranged marriages are ok by me as long as both members agree to it. I know many and I mean many that have had arranged marriages. I have met several folks who declined a partner, and it did not go over well sometimes. Would I approve of it in my family? NO.

 

Let me go ahead and say this. I have a huge problem with the one true god and slavery. Slavery was an accepted part of ancient society, including Jewish, Christian and Islamic society. If YHWH was the loving, caring, giving all knowing creator of the universe, he WOULD have seen slavery as wrong PERIOD. The bible supports it, god gives ordnances for it and nether he, Jesus or any scripture writer corrects this.

 

Ex. 21:7-11 Okay. A man is selling his flesh and blood to someone as a slave. She has to go or probably die for dishonor. She can accept her situation but still not like it. In our modern society this would not be the normal terms of an arranged marriage. She was a sold as a slave and could have anything done to her, like it or not. This is rape. This is slavery justified by a loving and caring god.

 

Deut. 20:10-14 Another fine example of YHWH's love. Ether give up and be our slaves or die and we get your women and property.

Say you are married or you have a daughter. Men come in and kill you and take your wife and or daughter. Would they just happly go and have sex with the men who killed their father and husband? You as well them would count it as rape. What about people like Elizabeth Smart? That was not rape?

 

Deut. 21:10-14 As a wife or not, it's rape. Jaycee Dugard liked living and having sex with her captor for 18 years?

 

Deut. 22:23-24 & Deut. 22:28-29 Sorry, I stand as is here.

 

Your beliefs and justifications do not make you a very moral person in my eyes.

[walker]

So an omniscient, omnipotent God didn't want evil to enter this world, yet it did anyway? Seems you are ignoring the definitions of your God... Down a few pages, you state that free will isn't the ultimate goal, it seems you don't really no what you are arguing for or against.

Right - evil wasn't what God wanted. He allowed it. Why can't an All-knowing God allow evil? (Yes, He knew evil entering the world would be a result of free choice.) Why can't an All-Powerful God allow evil for the sake of free choice? Free choice is necessary for freely-given love. It's also necessary for the development of character, integrity, maturity ... for us to become all that He created us to be. God's goal is not weak, spineless, immature, irresponsible beings He caters to so they'll have a happy clappy time on earth.

What natural disasters exactly are you referencing? So natural disasters are in fact brought on by original sin, which was a free will decision? So ultimately, natural disasters have their basis in free will? At the end of the day I don't believe evil is a "thing". So we have to wonder if an earthquake is "evil" or "caused by sin, brought on by a free will decision" or is it actually just what it is, a natural disaster? If it is evil, could it have been prevented by a loving God? If it could have been, why wasn't it? If it wasn't prevented, was it deserved? If it was deserved, who decided who deserved it? If it can be decided it was deserved, can we interpret natural disasters and decide it was deserved for ourselves? If we determine it was deserved, should we give aid to those who deserved it?

 

Yes - sin affects the natural world. Wouldn't greed cause a company to use the simpler, cheaper solution of getting rid of waste by dumping it into a nearby river? I wouldn't call an earthquake "evil" either - but it can bring about very unpleasant results. Sure, God could prevent anything - but He often doesn't. Going back to the company who pollutes the river - I might not have done anything to specifically deserve polluted water but in a general sense we all sin so we all live with the consequences. If your neighbor decides to set the neighborhood on fire his actions will have consequences for you. We're all responsible for a fallen world but yes, we still give aid to those caught in a natural disaster. We're to love and help others.

 

Of course I have, and I am sure you have as well. I am not arguing that we do not HAVE free will. I am arguing that the existence of your God does not bode well with us having free will and the amount of evil and violence seen in this world while trying to couple it with the idea of a loving God. Sin does not sufficiently explain these issues. I suggest you check out "God's Problem" by Bart D. Ehrman it's a pretty good book and delves into how each of the Bible's writers (anonymous and otherwise) deal with the level of violence surrounding them and how they each posit attempt to reconcile their respective views of God with it.

 

Yes, we all have hurt others - and we've all been irresponsible. But it seems that people who don't want evil in the world don't look at what they can do - they just point their finger at God. And most people don't really want to hurt others - yet they continue to. God is to blame because He doesn't stop us from hurting others?

 

You're ignoring the question with a pat answer. Who's free will wins out here? God choses when he intervenes or not? So if someone is raped it is God's will?

 

It is never God's Will for someone to be raped. Sometimes He intervenes and sometimes He doesn't - yes. That's really hard - I know. But if there is a God then he would have to be above us in every way, right? That would be part of the definition of a Superior Being. So sometimes we won't understand.

 

Omniscience by definition takes away free will because you are created with the foreknowledge of what your every decision will be. If God knows, than man is compelled to act as God knows, or God's knowledge is at fault. In order for you to have free will you must have a true choice. These two choices must be avoidable. Before these choices are made, there must be a certain amount of uncertainty. You cannot know the future of your actions because that would negate the free will of your choice.

 

God is persistent? I thought free will was important?

 

I'm created with the foreknowledge of what my every decision will be? I'm not omniscient. God knows what we will do - He knows the free choices we will make. He is out of time so He can see every moment at once. But I am in time - I make choices not knowing what my choices will always bring. If I'm reading a book about a childhood friend I know much that is going to happen, but the character (my friend) in the book is choosing freely.

 

Persistence doesn't negate free will.

[walker]

Question one. What is the biblical definition of free will?

 

Biblical definition of free will - Hebrews didn't write books of doctrine like the Greeks did. You won't find "The definition of free will is ..." Instead, concepts are woven throughout the text. A couple of passages you can look at are Deut. 30:15-20 and Josh. 24:15.

 

Question two. If you can't answer of above, what is your definition of free will.

 

My definition of free will - the freedom to choose God's Way or my way. The freedom to decide to walk in relationship with God or to walk apart from Him. The freedom to love Him or despise Him. The freedom to accept His definition of good and evil or to define good and evil for myself. etc.

 

If say free will, is just say the ability to choose, and not live by solely determinism, heavenly or otherwise. Then your argument is moot, because you still have free will if there is limit selection criteria.

 

Let me put it too you this way.

 

If your only selecting between different good things, do you still have free will? I would say yes. Where else in our supposedly christian universe do we think a world is going to be like that. Heaven for one.

 

Yes, we can freely choose one of two good things. But there is always the potential to choose a not-good thing - something off God's Path.

 

Makes you think, whats the point. It basically comes down to just wanting to screw with us.

 

And if your going to argue that evil is needed for free will, then how do we have free will in heaven.

 

And if you want to take the other route of saying we will be aware of evil in heaven and bad stuff, then why is earth still needed. What is different between evil as say Satan was aware of it, before he became Satan, and evil afterword after Satan is in hell, it still exists.

 

Of course if you say we don't have free will in heaven, the heaven part of this argument is moot, but the free will question still exists. Is it possible to have free will but only be able to choose good things, if it is, then evil isn't needed.

 

Just for the sake of it and we could talk about this in another thread, if there is no free will in heaven, whats the point, there isn't any.

 

Yes, I would say we will have free choice in heaven. But we will also always choose God's Way. I always want to choose God's Way now but I am not yet strong enough or healed enough to do so. In heaven I will be "perfect" (complete, mature, pure) so nothing will get in the way of my desire to exist in perfect relationship with Him.

[walker]

God sends no one to hell - He merely allows people to choose separation from Him.

 

What is the point in resurrecting your own child after he dies, only to send him to outer darkness forever? Loving vindictiveness? That's an oxymoron. Rubbing his face in his sin? My father used to rub my dog's nose in her own poop when she pooped in the house. I don't think she learned anything from the shitty experience, except to fear my father. This God truly hates the sinner-not just the sin. Otherwise, He would just let his child lie in his grave in peace.

 

We're eternal beings. But again, God doesn't send anyone to separation from Him. Wouldn't it be "hell" for someone to have to endure God's Presence if he didn't want to?

[walker]

Waste? There is more than this life. You have an earthly perspective. I’m not saying God doesn’t care about this life - but I am saying He has a different perspective. Eternity is forever. We humans can fight much disease - have we been indifferent?

 

I believe when everyone dies (including infants) they meet God and their hearts respond - they either love Him or they prefer to be separated from Him.

 

Of course people have an earthly perspective, if you're alive then it's natural to have that perspective. I am saying that if your god exists then he doesn't really give a shit about anyone on this planet.

 

Is everyone who has suffered in life through no fault of their own allowed to punish god when they meet him?

 

There would be billions and billions of people who would hate your god if they thought that he could have prevented their suffering.

 

Your belief is yours, of course, but don't try and defend your god with lame words, please.

Sure, it's natural to have an earthly perspective. But many of us have a sense, a hint of something more.

 

You're free to try to do what you'd like to when you meet God.

 

You also have caused others to suffer, correct? And, if you're like the rest of us, you probably haven't done everything you could to alleviate suffering in the world. Do you just want to live as you please and have God clean up after you? Is this what you want God to do for everyone?

 

Does anything good ever come from suffering?

[walker]

Waste? There is more than this life. You have an earthly perspective. I’m not saying God doesn’t care about this life - but I am saying He has a different perspective. Eternity is forever. We humans can fight much disease - have we been indifferent?

 

I believe when everyone dies (including infants) they meet God and their hearts respond - they either love Him or they prefer to be separated from Him.

This "god" is so powerful and amazing but it only really works after things die. And once dead that's when all our best decisions will be made about this "god."

 

This is all good stuff.

 

"Works"? So, if there is a God He must fit your "Superior Being" job description even though a Superior Being should be beyond your ability to know and reason and determine what is best, correct? That doesn't make sense to me.

 

I started a similar religion for the bacteria in my own body. I'm fairly indifferent to them now but, once they die, they choose to love me or choose to be separated from me forever. It makes me sad when they choose not to love me because I really want to have a personal relationship with each and every bacteria that has ever existed within myself. I consider them to be worthy of this because I'm obviously deficient in some way just like the "god" you believe thinks in this similar way as well.

 

God is indifferent because He doesn't do things the way you would? Does that make sense?

 

mwc

[NoGods]

Waste? There is more than this life. You have an earthly perspective. I’m not saying God doesn’t care about this life - but I am saying He has a different perspective. Eternity is forever. We humans can fight much disease - have we been indifferent?

 

I believe when everyone dies (including infants) they meet God and their hearts respond - they either love Him or they prefer to be separated from Him.

 

Of course people have an earthly perspective, if you're alive then it's natural to have that perspective. I am saying that if your god exists then he doesn't really give a shit about anyone on this planet.

 

Is everyone who has suffered in life through no fault of their own allowed to punish god when they meet him?

 

There would be billions and billions of people who would hate your god if they thought that he could have prevented their suffering.

 

Your belief is yours, of course, but don't try and defend your god with lame words, please.

Sure, it's natural to have an earthly perspective. But many of us have a sense, a hint of something more.

 

You're free to try to do what you'd like to when you meet God.

 

You also have caused others to suffer, correct? And, if you're like the rest of us, you probably haven't done everything you could to alleviate suffering in the world. Do you just want to live as you please and have God clean up after you? Is this what you want God to do for everyone?

 

Does anything good ever come from suffering?

 

Sorry, I'm a very black and white person and don't really do the fluffy stuff.

 

The scriptures listed contained rape, slavery and the ill treatment of women and you try to fluff it up. You do this just as other christians do to make your pretend god more palatable. I will not enable you anymore in your delusions and let you keep pretending on your own.

[litassio]

God sends no one to hell - He merely allows people to choose separation from Him.

I would say it is not so much a choice as more of a state of mind, where people cannot experience the fulness of God, the fulness of self realization because they keep their ego inflated. Once they fold in their ego umbrella they are automatically showered with His cosmic love.

Unlike christians I don't believe this is just a matter of faith.

 

 

 

[mwc]

Waste? There is more than this life. You have an earthly perspective. I’m not saying God doesn’t care about this life - but I am saying He has a different perspective. Eternity is forever. We humans can fight much disease - have we been indifferent?

 

I believe when everyone dies (including infants) they meet God and their hearts respond - they either love Him or they prefer to be separated from Him.

This "god" is so powerful and amazing but it only really works after things die. And once dead that's when all our best decisions will be made about this "god."

 

This is all good stuff.

"Works"? So, if there is a God He must fit your "Superior Being" job description even though a Superior Being should be beyond your ability to know and reason and determine what is best, correct? That doesn't make sense to me.

I'll just quote the whole mess so it doesn't get lost.

 

But a "Superior Being" isn't beyond YOUR "ability to know and reason" etc, etc. How convenient for YOU. Fortunately for me, for us, we have YOU here to explain it. YOU can speak for "god."

 

I guess we know which "job description" a "god" must satisfy in order for it to "make sense to [you]."

 

I started a similar religion for the bacteria in my own body. I'm fairly indifferent to them now but, once they die, they choose to love me or choose to be separated from me forever. It makes me sad when they choose not to love me because I really want to have a personal relationship with each and every bacteria that has ever existed within myself. I consider them to be worthy of this because I'm obviously deficient in some way just like the "god" you believe thinks in this similar way as well.

 

God is indifferent because He doesn't do things the way you would? Does that make sense?

Apparently your self-created, indifferent, "god" makes no sense to you.

 

I'm still waiting on all that "evidence" you said existed for "jesus" by the way...

 

mwc

[BrotherJosh]

Right - evil wasn't what God wanted. He allowed it. Why can't an All-knowing God allow evil? (Yes, He knew evil entering the world would be a result of free choice.) Why can't an All-Powerful God allow evil for the sake of free choice? Free choice is necessary for freely-given love. It's also necessary for the development of character, integrity, maturity ... for us to become all that He created us to be. God's goal is not weak, spineless, immature, irresponsible beings He caters to so they'll have a happy clappy time on earth.

Allowed - Wanted...hmmmm....who's ultimately responsible? The problem is, there's "evil" and then there is natural evil and gratuitous evil. On top of this, there is evil visited on the natural world as well in a gratuitous way. If free will is the ultimate goal of this being, why should we engage in trying to reduce suffering? We would be impeding the free will goal of God, and the maturation of people who experience suffering and then develop, apparently. Sure, I could lose my job and then I have to be frugal and make a strict budget. That develops my financial sense. But what I am talking about is gratuitous evil. You know, the stuff that will not lead to maturation or development of character, but rather is so amazingly gratuitous that words cannot describe it. Genocide, disease, natural disasters, rape etc...

Does God visit evil upon people? 2 Samuel 12:11-14

Yes - sin affects the natural world. Wouldn't greed cause a company to use the simpler, cheaper solution of getting rid of waste by dumping it into a nearby river? I wouldn't call an earthquake "evil" either - but it can bring about very unpleasant results. Sure, God could prevent anything - but He often doesn't. Going back to the company who pollutes the river - I might not have done anything to specifically deserve polluted water but in a general sense we all sin so we all live with the consequences. If your neighbor decides to set the neighborhood on fire his actions will have consequences for you. We're all responsible for a fallen world but yes, we still give aid to those caught in a natural disaster. We're to love and help others.

A company polluting a river isn't a natural disaster, that is a man-made disaster. So you are comparing the sin with polluting the river...Do you have an exact mechanism for how sin interacts with plate tectonics thereby causing the earthquake? This original sin argument again returns to the free will argument because if I ask why weren't we created with an inclination to not "sin" you would respond well because of free will and yet that comes with all the baggage of hanging on to an omniscient God, along with all of the other issues. Rowing with one paddle doesn't get you upstream.

Yes, we all have hurt others - and we've all been irresponsible. But it seems that people who don't want evil in the world don't look at what they can do - they just point their finger at God. And most people don't really want to hurt others - yet they continue to. God is to blame because He doesn't stop us from hurting others?

 

Of course! Your definition of a God would ultimately be responsible for the evil in this world, since he created everything in this physical and allegedly, spiritual universe. Was evil in the non-universe before God created everything? Everything means everything you know. Ehrman in his book shows how each of the writers at their respective times attempted to reconcile their idea of God with the world around them. So, many of the explanations put forth are, evil is a consequence of sin, evil is side effect of the cosmic power play, suffering is a test, evil is beyond our purview etc...

 

It is never God's Will for someone to be raped. Sometimes He intervenes and sometimes He doesn't - yes. That's really hard - I know. But if there is a God then he would have to be above us in every way, right? That would be part of the definition of a Superior Being. So sometimes we won't understand.

Yes, "God's ways are above our ways..." which is a non-answer. How can you claim to have knowledge about anything else about God if his ways are above our ways? Would you say you are agnostic about your god? No, I think God is okay with rape. Numbers 31:7-18, Duet 22:28-29 (among a few others...)

I'm created with the foreknowledge of what my every decision will be? I'm not omniscient. God knows what we will do - He knows the free choices we will make. He is out of time so He can see every moment at once. But I am in time - I make choices not knowing what my choices will always bring. If I'm reading a book about a childhood friend I know much that is going to happen, but the character (my friend) in the book is choosing freely.

 

Persistence doesn't negate free will.

 

No, God, by your definition is the omniscient one at this point. God, who has the foreknowledge of every human action creates humans, who then must fulfill that plan of their every action. Did God create Hitler knowing what exactly he would do? Omniscience and free-will do not sit together well, because that means this deity is specifically creating humans with the knowledge of our every deed, and the future of afterlife destination as well.

 

Say I was a mad scientist. I like building robots and one day I start building this robot, let's name him Gary. As I'm building Gary I start to realize he is going to walk out my door and he is going to start murdering people on the street. I know that someday Gary will even make the world I live in become a fallen world. But you know, I build Gary anyways. Who is ultimately responsible for Gary's actions? Sure, Gary has free will to chose what he wants, but I also have omniscience, I knew what Gary would do.

 

The problem is, is your friend is still in the book, the pages are already printed. Your friend has no way to chose freely in the book, because once you turn that page, he has no choice but to do what is on the other page.

 

Persistence does negate free will in this case if you think free will is the ultimate goal of God. Many characters in the Bible are visited with miraculous signs and visitations. Many of them are explicitly commanded to do something even, why couldn't God just wait to see what free will choice they would do? Was Saul going to continue persecuting Christians? Why did God intervene in his life, because if it was Saul's free will choice to continue doing so, isn't that his choice? So did God see that Saul would make a free will decision to continue doing what he was doing and God decided to intervene?

 

Keep in mind we were originally created with ignorance of good and evil in Genesis. Did we have free will at that point? Or did free will enter the equation when Adam and Eve ate of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. So is free will an aspect of a sinful nature? If we were created perfectly in God's image, why no free will? Adam and Eve didn't understand the full import of evil, how could they possibly make an informed free will decision?

 

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

My definition of free will - the freedom to choose God's Way or my way. The freedom to decide to walk in relationship with God or to walk apart from Him. The freedom to love Him or despise Him. The freedom to accept His definition of good and evil or to define good and evil for myself. etc.

Sure why not, makes sense from your perspective

 

Yes, we can freely choose one of two good things. But there is always the potential to choose a not-good thing - something off God's Path.

A good thing is a good thing, as long as it not counters what god whats, what isn't good about it.

 

Yes, I would say we will have free choice in heaven. But we will also always choose God's Way. I always want to choose God's Way now but I am not yet strong enough or healed enough to do so. In heaven I will be "perfect" (complete, mature, pure) so nothing will get in the way of my desire to exist in perfect relationship with Him.

There is no different really, between a universe designed like that heaven without the earth bible plot, and what the world is, if the bible is true.

 

Even if the whole point is to make one choice, why not just create people who would by there own disposition choose god. Things that haven't been created yet don't have anything to violate.

[walker]

I’ve found it very helpful to approach scripture as ancient Jewish literature, which is of course what it is. I think we need to understand the way the people who wrote it thought, etc. to understand the concepts they were communicating.

And have you ever thought to apply this approach to the New Testament as well, that it is laced with mythologies and the way those people thought for where they were at at that time as well? So in this sense of the word, notions of God as an overseeing Father who involves itself in the affairs of man, displaying very human-like attributes of jealousy and vengeance striking down those who challenge the word of an Apostle, or filling someone with disease for taking the glory from God, are in fact expressions of a people's mindset at that place and time in history, and not in fact the definitive word on the nature of God to be taken as some sort of "Owner's Manual"?

 

You see, the fact that in their efforts to speak of man's relationship with the Divine that they have God behaving in ways, such as caring enough to do something when it comes to defending his pride or his human institutions "he" supposedly established as 'the way', that when taken literally, in fact does create the very difficult problems that the Epicurean Paradox does in fact illustrate. A God defined as active in the affairs of man on that level; willful, mindful intentionality to very specific human affairs, then begs the question why be so selective in it's directed actions, leaving such other morally obvious problems left unchallenged, such as 6 million Jews killed under Hitler?

 

Christians adapted the older concepts of the Jews about God into their new mindset, why can't you adapt the older concepts of the Christians into your new concepts, one which doesn't create such an unanswerable paradox of logic such as Epicurius posed to the concepts of God of his day? Is it because you believe the Bible to be infallible, the Owner's Manual for God? If so, then is your faith in God, or in your beliefs?

Yes, I apply this approach to the second testament as well. Jewish literature did use anthropomorphism.

 

Why didn’t God stop Hitler? Why did so many join Hitler? Why did so many look the other way? It seems that God didn’t need to just stop Hitler but those who helped him achieve his goals, and those who didn’t agree but chose to not look or act, and those who wrote and printed the books which inspired Hitler to “aid” the evolution of a better society - and those in government who allowed such books to be legally published. How far should we go? Hitler didn’t act alone. We’re all connected.

 

Is the Bible infallible? I’m not sure exactly what you mean, but I believe manuscripts have variants. Also, Jewish writers often estimated, say, the number of men going to battle - but because they didn’t write that it was an estimate one unfamiliar with the literary style might consider that an inaccuracy.

[Guest Valk0010]

 

 

My definition of free will - the freedom to choose God's Way or my way. The freedom to decide to walk in relationship with God or to walk apart from Him. The freedom to love Him or despise Him. The freedom to accept His definition of good and evil or to define good and evil for myself. etc.

Sure why not, makes sense from your perspective

 

Yes, we can freely choose one of two good things. But there is always the potential to choose a not-good thing - something off God's Path.

A good thing is a good thing, as long as it not counters what god whats, what isn't good about it.

 

Yes, I would say we will have free choice in heaven. But we will also always choose God's Way. I always want to choose God's Way now but I am not yet strong enough or healed enough to do so. In heaven I will be "perfect" (complete, mature, pure) so nothing will get in the way of my desire to exist in perfect relationship with Him.

There is no different really, between a universe designed like that heaven without the earth bible plot, and what the world is, if the bible is true.

 

Even if the whole point is to make one choice, why not just create people who would by there own disposition choose god. Things that haven't been created yet don't have anything to violate.

A good thing is a good thing, that isn't a sin, I mean, darn took me forever to notice that typo.

[walker]

It's too bad this all-wise , omnipotent god finds himself an impotent communicator when it comes to communicating this "different perspective." You seem to be unsure. Does he care about the suffering of those children who died or not? Was the suffering significant or not? Why was he willing to let them die before they could exercise their free will and choose him? What could make it worth all that, if he "loves" them?

 

While modern medicine of the last 200 years has brought down the infant mortality rates to an impressive degree throughout the wealthier , technologically advanced societies, that is still a minor fraction of lives saved when compared to the almost 50 Billion children throughout human history who did not survive to be able to choose this god under consideration. Where was his power and his wisdom and his love and his knowledge for them? Was he just sitting around and waiting for theologians to invent excuses for his indifference?

 

I see no basis for your belief that infants who died early in life will get a choice. Perhaps I missed the reason for holding that belief. But currently, I find that to be a self-medicating rationalization to insulate one's self from the realization that this god has sat by for thousands of generations and observed the children of humanity suffer for no apparent reason. I'm not sure what perspective can suddenly make this god caring and loving.

 

NOTE: I just noticed I'm lacking a few zeroes from my original post. The number of children to have died before reaching maturity is 50,000,000,000 not 50,000,000 . That's 50 BILLION children who did not get to exercise free will and choose this god so the love would count for something that matters to him.

I wouldn’t say God has trouble communicating this “different perspective” - I would say we don’t really want to hear it. We want what we want - we like our view. And if God doesn’t do what we think He should, we … claim He doesn’t exist? Maybe. But this “different perspective” is written down and spoken to those who seek His Voice - it’s there for everyone who wants it.

 

I believe all have free choice because of God’s Nature and Character. God is Good, Loving, and Just. Jesus died for Everyone. God can bring purpose to our suffering. Of course, I understand this does nothing for you. But, hypothetically - if a Good, Loving, and Just God existed - infants wouldn’t die without an opportunity to choose, suffering would have great purpose, and God’s Way would be far better than our ways even if we can’t understand them. Would you agree with this hypothetical idea?

 

God is not indifferent. But people often are.

[walker]

There is a bit of a cultural disconnect between Roman Empire era Jews and Bronze Age Hebrew authors of the old testament. The differences between both testaments reflect this cultural disconnect.

Can you explain more fully what you mean? Thanks.

[pratt]

walker

 

your quote "I believe all have free choice because of God’s Nature and Character. God is Good, Loving, and Just. Jesus died for Everyone. God can bring purpose to our suffering. Of course, I understand this does nothing for you. But, hypothetically - if a Good, Loving, and Just God existed - infants wouldn’t die without an opportunity to choose, suffering would have great purpose, and God’s Way would be far better than our ways even if we can’t understand them. Would you agree with this hypothetical idea?"

 

Hypothetically, your ways are not my ways, and you work in mysterious ways, your ways are higher than the high ways and byways,,,,,,,,,,,

 

so you better stay mysterious and on your higher plan,,,,,,,,

 

Most exC have used this to justify our faith in God sometime or other, and it has become just an excuse to describe your "omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, OMNI-OMNI" god that we no longer accept,,,,,

 

since your God is such perfection, I, as a exC cannot accept even a single wrongful death that your God has committed in Act of commission or Act of Omission. There will be no excuse, no justification for A SINGLE wrongful death of an innocent child. Did you know any of his creation even when the victim was in his mother's womb who died in Africa today, Walker?

[MagickMonkey]

There is a bit of a cultural disconnect between Roman Empire era Jews and Bronze Age Hebrew authors of the old testament. The differences between both testaments reflect this cultural disconnect.

Can you explain more fully what you mean? Thanks.

 

Like others at that time and area, Roman Empire era jews lived in a Hellenistic world. Their world view was different, and their religion had evolved quite a bit since it's bronze age beginnings.

[NaturalMary63]

There is a bit of a cultural disconnect between Roman Empire era Jews and Bronze Age Hebrew authors of the old testament. The differences between both testaments reflect this cultural disconnect.

Can you explain more fully what you mean? Thanks.

 

Like others at that time and area, Roman Empire era jews lived in a Hellenistic world. Their world view was different, and their religion had evolved quite a bit since it's bronze age beginnings.

 

Absolutely. I just read about that era in _Doubt_ by Jennifer Michael Hecht. (Great book, btw - still in the middle, but I highly recommend it.) Quite a bit changed over that 500-1000 (+/-) years between the OT compilation and the writing of the NT. Influences from Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, then Greek, then Roman culture... so the Hebrews/Jews beliefs weren't the same at all.

 

For example - that whole image of hell and of the world being a battleground for good vs evil was heavily influences by the Babylonians and Persians. The idea of God as perfect and Omni-everything was later Greek influence.

 

What Xians espouse today is such a patchwork quilt of ideas from different cultures drawn in over thousands of years.