Why Call Him God?

[oddbird1963]

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.

Since you haven't bothered to communicate this "different perspective" on why god allowed 50 Billion infants, toddlers and pre-adolescents to die of disease, malnutrition and many other causes, I would say god hasn't troubled himself to communicate it to you either. You don't know why he let the equivalent of 8 times the world's current population suffer and die before they were able to ever have knowledge of god. It just doesn't seem to fit into your belief system. But in case I miss something that you have said, I will ask again. Why? What extenuating circumstances would allow such carnage and still allow a god to still hold the description of "loving" and "all-powerful?"

 

"we don’t really want to hear it"

 

You may be speaking for yourself here. You may be so self-absorbed, narcissistic and defensive that this is how you react to God's communication to you. But you cannot say that about me. You don't know me. So if you think what you say is universally true, you hold that belief purely dogmatically. There is no objective backing for what you say about "we don't really want to hear it." When I say, "I want to hear it", you either have to believe me or dismiss what I say for purely fantasy-based reasons. Of course, that's what religion and faith do. They dehumanize other people, accusing them of being deficient and dishonest, in order to prop up an unfounded and fantastical belief system.

 

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.

 

You miss the point. What purpose is there to the suffering of young humans who never reached an age where they could choose to believe? When you say "I believe all have free choice," surely you aren't referring to babies who die shortly after being born? What about a six month old, or an 18 month old child? Do they have free will to choose as well? A fuller explanation of exactly what you mean by "free choice" is in order if this is the case. I suspect if this is the case, you have a unique view of free choice shared by a total community of one person.

 

You say, "I understand this does nothing for you." That is a true statement. But why do you think that is? I mean in the context of the issue I raise, why do you think this "does nothing" for me? Could it be that your evangelistic effort there is irrelevant to this discussion? I'm trying to come to an understanding of the meaning of a good, powerful, all-knowing god in a world that has seen the deaths of billions of children. You respond with

"God loves you and has a plan for your life (a paraphrase)." Could we deal with the current issue please without you appealing to your perception of the "real issue?"

 

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?

 

Did you mean to leave out "All-Powerful?" Because that is important to the discussion. If a god existed that were good, but not all-powerful, one would only have to say that it's intentions are good. If a loving god without the power to prevent or alleviate suffering existed, then all that would be necessary to say is that this god hasn't "lost that loving feeling." He'd merely join the 50 billion other humans throughout history who have no choice but to shake their heads and helplessly utter 'Umm umm umm" in the face of the suffering and death of innocents. If god is just, but doesn't have sufficient power to prevent injustice and correct inequities in the world, then you're just restating that god is good. He is all intention with limited ability to bring his intentions into reality.

 

If the notion of "omnipotence" is not part of your hypothetical assumption, then the world of the last 10,000 years or so and the world as we see it today is not surprising. Assuming the notion of "all powerful" is part of your premise, then I would say I agree with part of the conclusions you state, but not all of them because not all of your conclusions follow from the premise of an all-knowing, loving, good omnipotent being.

 

God is not indifferent. But people often are.

That comment would certainly fit on a bumper sticker, but in this case it is irrelevant. The indifference of people had nothing to do with the majority of infant deaths throughout human history. Most of the diseases and conditions which caused the majority of deaths in the young were beyond human ability and knowledge to prevent. An all powerful, all knowing god of love could have dealt with it. But he didn't. What higher "way" or reason is worth all that carnage?

[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?

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

I don't think you followed very well what I mean by them seeing God anthropomorphically. I don't mean they "used" anthropomorphic language, such as the eye of God, or the hand of God, etc. I mean they completely understood God in anthropomorphic ways; involving itself in the destiny of a nation, their own people, raising kings, and priests up, etc. This is a God like a great big, super-powerful man, complete with human jealousy, rage, vengeance, etc. They understood the Divine as human-like, mythological being. That is what I mean by anthropomorphic, as I said.

 

Why didn’t God stop Hitler?

I would never ask that question, unless I understood God anthropomorphically like you do. That was my point about the Epicurean Paradox. You have to come up with rationalizations such as what you yourself are attempting to answer it. You underscore that you see God as an all powerful being with attributes just like ours, involving itself in the daily affairs of man. You do see how this is projection of ourselves, a mythological way of thinking, right?

 

Why did so many join Hitler? Why did so many look the other way?

Those are understood and explained much, much easier once you take your superman-God out of the equation. With that still in there, then it becomes a muddled mess that leaves your mind and spirit drained, trying to figure out why something that powerful that functions as you imagine didn't do something YOU would have if you could.

 

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.

The only thing I can agree with here is your last sentence, "We're all connected".

 

Is the Bible infallible? I’m not sure exactly what you mean, but I believe manuscripts have variants.

I mean, assume you had the one and only original manuscripts, no edits, no changes, no insertions, etc. I mean if you that the "perfect" version of the Bible: would it be absolutely authoritative in all matters of history, science, belief, faith, spirituality, society, God, etc? That's what I mean by infallible: you can't have any thought of your own in these areas that differ because it is THE BOOK.

 

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.

Hypothetical question for you, what if you learned that the Bible is a creation of humans in their particular societies, with their particular cultures, with their particular stage of spiritual development, all created stories and myths to talk about how they saw the world; and that those ways of seeing the world were also done in all other cultures, and the theirs was just one of many ways of talking about things, as were all others; and that now today we too our doing the same things as they were, etc. What would happen to your beliefs, your faith? Would you chuck it, or evolve it to something that can in fact support a higher understanding; much in the way your Christians did in their taking the OT God and "updating" it? Or are you pretty much married to your groups way of thinking? In other words, are you religious or spiritual?

[hereticzero]

What if there is a god and it's the victim of bad publicity brought on by con-men posing as its believers?

A god is a victim of religion.

All it wanted was for us to have a good time in life.

[walker]

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.

NoGods - the first testament culture and society is pretty distasteful to you and me. Scripture records laws designed to improve upon the existing culture/society. However, we’d like to see not just an improvement, but laws which move the society immediately to equality, freedom, justice, etc. Correct? We don’t want a law that requires slave-owners to treat their slaves well - we want slavery illegal and abolished.

 

God did things differently. Though the civil laws aren’t where we’d like to see them, the moral laws are. God went after the quality of a person - their character - first, before social institutions. And really, isn’t individual character the beginning of social freedom, equality, and justice? Slavery for a limited time, in order to pay off a debt - working for a fair, kind, generous master could be a better situation than many Americans have right now. Wouldn’t you agree that we have “slave-owners” and “slaves” today - though they are not so bluntly named? Corrupt judges and social institutions don’t bring equality and justice. Civil law can’t do much if people themselves aren’t good. There is always a way around a law.

 

God moved slowly - step by step with civil law, not because He is slow but because we are. But while He was doing that He pointed the people to loving their neighbors (Lev. 19:18) and to walking in relationship with Him. Changed hearts bring equality, freedom, justice, and mercy. Society will follow.

[walker]

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.

I think we kind of share some concepts ...

[walker]

"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.

... 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]."

A Superior Being is beyond my ability to “know and reason and determine what is best, etc.” I can only know anything because God reveals it. What we know is through revelation.

 

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

 

What type of evidence would convince you? Please excuse me if I’ve asked you this before, but honestly - if you’re not open to the possibility of the supernatural you won’t see any evidence … you’ll only hunt for other explanations. Even if you never really find an explanation, you’ll keep looking. If the supernatural isn’t an option for you, it isn’t. Is the supernatural an option for you?

[NoGods]

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.

NoGods - the first testament culture and society is pretty distasteful to you and me. Scripture records laws designed to improve upon the existing culture/society. However, we’d like to see not just an improvement, but laws which move the society immediately to equality, freedom, justice, etc. Correct? We don’t want a law that requires slave-owners to treat their slaves well - we want slavery illegal and abolished.

 

God did things differently. Though the civil laws aren’t where we’d like to see them, the moral laws are. God went after the quality of a person - their character - first, before social institutions. And really, isn’t individual character the beginning of social freedom, equality, and justice? Slavery for a limited time, in order to pay off a debt - working for a fair, kind, generous master could be a better situation than many Americans have right now. Wouldn’t you agree that we have “slave-owners” and “slaves” today - though they are not so bluntly named? Corrupt judges and social institutions don’t bring equality and justice. Civil law can’t do much if people themselves aren’t good. There is always a way around a law.

 

God moved slowly - step by step with civil law, not because He is slow but because we are. But while He was doing that He pointed the people to loving their neighbors (Lev. 19:18) and to walking in relationship with Him. Changed hearts bring equality, freedom, justice, and mercy. Society will follow.

 

This will be my last time posting to you Walker on this subject.

 

I said before I did not like the fluffy spin you place on the bible. In fact when I was a christian, I never believed in the god you speak of or believe in. To me, it's almost like you are mixing Gnostic beliefs with Hindu avatars. No matter how you try to re-roll the bible, it's still is what it is. You do this because you find the god of the old testament unpalatable, and thats because he was. You look at the bible like it's full of truths and that it can unravel the great mysteries of life. That is true to a small extent as you can get some good from it just as with most any religious text , YHWH related or not.

 

I believed in the vengeful god who created the universe by just saying a word. I believed that he sent his only son to die for our sins. I believed he traveled to hell and beat satan for the keys of hell and death. I believed god's power could be manifested though us via the holy spirit. After some time, I found that I could not believe in that god anymore nor can I ever or any other god.

 

BTW: I WOULD HAVE believed you were going to hell for your beliefs. I was a fundamentalist. Do I believe that now? Of course not, I know when we die, thats it and I can accept that.

 

Ending.... I can't ever believe in that god nor any god anymore. Remember that the bible was written by people who thought the earth was flat, and the the was the center of the universe. They never knew anything of microbial life, could not tell a bat from a bird and though the mustard seed was the smallest seed on the face of the planet. Please try to read the bible critically. Play an atheist for a day or two.

[mwc]

What type of evidence would convince you? Please excuse me if I’ve asked you this before, but honestly - if you’re not open to the possibility of the supernatural you won’t see any evidence … you’ll only hunt for other explanations. Even if you never really find an explanation, you’ll keep looking. If the supernatural isn’t an option for you, it isn’t. Is the supernatural an option for you?

Either you have evidence or you do not. Do not ask me "What type of evidence would convince you?" but present what evidence you have, if you have any, and see if it can stand up to scrutiny. If you can only present an argument that will convince those that are already convinced then you apparently do not have much of an argument.

 

mwc

[Ouroboros]

"A Superior Being is beyond my ability to “know and reason and determine what is best, etc.” I can only know anything because God reveals it. What we know is through revelation."

 

"What type of evidence would convince you?"

 

God didn't reveal it to you?

[walker]

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

How can “evil” be a concept without a God, Brother Josh? “Evil” has no place in atheism. Things just happen. You prefer some things - you dislike others. Someone else may prefer what you dislike. It’s all just personal preference and benefit, but there wouldn’t be any “evil” or “good”. Your argument that there is “evil” in the world seems to presuppose a God and a general standard of “goodness“. A world without a God has no such standard. So instead, your question seems to be “How can a good God allow evil to exist?” I think that’s what we’re actually discussing.God is ultimately responsible for giving us choice - we can follow His Ways or reject them. There is God’s Way/good, and there is choice … and evil is a result of not choosing good. Ultimately, God will deal with evil. But presently it is allowed.

 

You can freely choose to alleviate suffering - that‘s part of developing your character. God’s ultimate goal is not free will - His goal is deep, meaningful relationship with us. Free will is necessary for this goal. And deep relationship with God will bring us to becoming all He created us to be.

 

When we reject God’s Way, those choices bring evil consequences - to you and to others, and even to the natural world. We are all responsible for evil in this world and we will all be affected by its consequences. You could be driving home one night and be a little more tired than usual because you had been working really hard. Your friend offers you a ride but you think you’re fine. You fall asleep and kill the parents of four young children. Did those children deserve such “unearned” evil? Was it God’s fault you fell asleep? Should God have put a safety bubble around your car so you couldn‘t hurt anyone? If a year later you’re hit by a drunk driver and you end up a quadriplegic - did you deserve that?

 

2 Sam. 12:11 - in Hebrew, active verbs can express permission and not direct action. So in this case God gives permission for evil to be “visited” on David’s family. David’s actions had natural consequences - God allowed the consequences to come into David’s life.

 

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.

No exact mechanisms but many non-Christians believe our actions affect the environment (Native American cultures, New Age views, environmentalists, etc.). Our irresponsible actions change our world - do you not believe this? The Jews say we have an inclination to sin and an inclination to do good - we are constantly choosing which inclination to go with.

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...

I’d have to know more about the explanations for evil you listed, but it’s possible they’re all a part of the Truth. If I give a kid a toy fire truck, I can either force him to play with it by rolling it around - or I can let him decide how to play with it. Letting him choose what to do with it isn’t the same as wanting him to hit another kid over the head with it. When God gave choice, evil became an option.

 

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...)

We have knowledge about God only because He reveals Himself to us. You can know and be in a relationship with another person, but this doesn’t mean you know or understand everything about them. If this person is much more knowledgeable than you in an area you may trust them to make decisions in that area. You don’t understand everything - you trust because you know the person, and you know they are intelligent, caring, considerate, etc. You may even say to someone “So-and-so made the decision for us in that area. I don’t get that stuff, but so-and-so is good with it and I trust them.” Right?God is not O-K with evil - rape … I’ve addressed this topic in a different post.

 

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.

God knew what Hitler would choose to do, but Hitler still made his own choices. Being out of time and seeing a future we can’t see isn’t the same as controlling. Knowing the future isn’t the same as controlling the future. Every day Hitler woke up and made choices. God simply can see all the choices Hitler will make every day.

 

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.

Why did you give Gary free will? And do you offer to walk with Gary as he walks out your door? Do you offer to accompany him and be his teacher, friend, guide? Did you tell Gary what will happen if he refuses to walk with you and heed your advice? And did you tell everyone that one day you will put everything right?

 

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.

When I turn the page I find out what my friend has chosen to do. I can skip around and look on any page and find out what my friend chose to do. My friend writes his own life - I just read it and observe what he chooses to do.

 

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?

Free will is not the ultimate goal of God - deep, meaningful relationship is. When God commands then the person can choose whether or not to obey the command. God doesn’t leave us to flail around or shoot in the dark - He offers guidance and relationship. He reveals Himself to us - we choose to walk with Him or to walk apart from Him. Saul could have said no to God - but he chose to listen.

 

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?

Adam and Eve had relationship with God - they weren’t ignorant of His Ways. They could always freely choose, and after a period of time they freely chose to disobey God and eat from the tree. Adam understood what he was doing - he was choosing to decide for himself what was good and what was evil.

[Ouroboros]

Adam and Eve had relationship with God - they weren’t ignorant of His Ways. They could always freely choose, and after a period of time they freely chose to disobey God and eat from the tree. Adam understood what he was doing - he was choosing to decide for himself what was good and what was evil.

So what exactly does the phrase "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" mean to you?

 

What did they get when they ate the fruit, besides punishment for eating it? What kind of magic thing did the fruit give them?

 

The literal meaning is "wisdom," is it not?

 

So did Adam and Eve have wisdom to make the right choice, between good and evil, before they ate the fruit that would give them wisdom? The snake is continuously eating its own tail...

[walker]

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.

Free choice is the option to choose God's Way (what will bring good - "good" as defined by God) or to choose our way (what we want or what we think will bring good). There is always an option to not follow God. There could be 20 godly options but there will always be at least a 21st option apart from His good options.

 

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.

I don't understand your first sentence. But it isn't really just one choice - it's a long series of choices. We're all moving in this lifetime - moving either closer to God or farther apart from Him.

[walker]

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?

Pratt - I think a key concept here is relationship. I wrote about this a little in post 60 - commenting on Brother Josh’s 4th quote. We can be in a very close relationship with another person and yet not understand everything they do. If we trust them to be loyal and good, and intelligent, we can often say “I don’t get it, but I trust them.” Think of a child with a great and wise dad - he doesn’t need to understand everything his dad does to trust his dad. Those who seriously walk with God for a long time develop a deep, close relationship with Him. They learn through experience that He can be trusted to be good, loyal, wise. But I understand that what I know through experience doesn’t help you much. And you have no reason to trust me. I know. I will say, though, that much of what is taught by churches in America is off. And when people reject that, it’s a good thing. There is something else though - for those who want to seek it out.

 

My daughter worked in an African orphanage for a time. She watched AIDs babies die. She saw the orphanage leaders take from the food funds, ignore the children who weren’t “cute”, and refuse to care for AIDs babies. I think I know a little about suffering, injustice, and evil. But you know - this doesn’t have to be. WE can do more than throw money at needy children who never get it because their caretakers take it - or the guys at the post office take it. WE have to go. God gave us the ability and the resources … but what are we doing??

[Guest Valk0010]

I defining good as not sin. Also what I mean about the second sentence is imagine, the christian god exists, he creates us without the bible plot, but directly in heaven with the choice to worship him.

[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.

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.

You’re right that 1^st century Jews had been influenced by Greek thought. They’d gone through the Babylonian Captivity and lost their nation. The leaders decided that never again would Israel so disobey Torah, so they “fenced in” Torah commandments to attempt to prevent anyone from being able to disobey. They also defined everything to make sure each law was clear. This was “Oral Law” - detailed and black-and-white, legalistic and Greek-influenced. But even with the Oral Law, there was still much about the Jews which was distinctly Hebraic. Jesus said He didn’t come to abolish scripture (the first testament) - He came to correctly interpret it and to bring more clarity to it. Many Jews had gotten off - Jesus came to show them the Path again. He didn’t reject Judaism - He rejected the parts Jews added to what God had given.

[Guest Valk0010]

Correctly interpreted it, no wonder a majority of people when he jesus lived, thought he was batshit.

[mwc]

You’re right that 1^st century Jews had been influenced by Greek thought. They’d gone through the Babylonian Captivity and lost their nation. The leaders decided that never again would Israel so disobey Torah, so they “fenced in” Torah commandments to attempt to prevent anyone from being able to disobey. They also defined everything to make sure each law was clear. This was “Oral Law” - detailed and black-and-white, legalistic and Greek-influenced. But even with the Oral Law, there was still much about the Jews which was distinctly Hebraic. Jesus said He didn’t come to abolish scripture (the first testament) - He came to correctly interpret it and to bring more clarity to it. Many Jews had gotten off - Jesus came to show them the Path again. He didn’t reject Judaism - He rejected the parts Jews added to what God had given.

How big is your ass that you can just keep pulling this stuff out of it?

 

mwc

[walker]

Since you haven't bothered to communicate this "different perspective" on why god allowed 50 Billion infants, toddlers and pre-adolescents to die of disease, malnutrition and many other causes, I would say god hasn't troubled himself to communicate it to you either. You don't know why he let the equivalent of 8 times the world's current population suffer and die before they were able to ever have knowledge of god. It just doesn't seem to fit into your belief system. But in case I miss something that you have said, I will ask again. Why? What extenuating circumstances would allow such carnage and still allow a god to still hold the description of "loving" and "all-powerful?"

 

"we don’t really want to hear it"

 

You may be speaking for yourself here. You may be so self-absorbed, narcissistic and defensive that this is how you react to God's communication to you. But you cannot say that about me. You don't know me. So if you think what you say is universally true, you hold that belief purely dogmatically. There is no objective backing for what you say about "we don't really want to hear it." When I say, "I want to hear it", you either have to believe me or dismiss what I say for purely fantasy-based reasons. Of course, that's what religion and faith do. They dehumanize other people, accusing them of being deficient and dishonest, in order to prop up an unfounded and fantastical belief system.

I’m sorry, odd bird, but I feel like I’ve given this “different perspective” several times. God allows evil because He gives free choice. Free choice is that important. God reveals Himself to everyone. No human being is without choice - no one goes to heaven or hell without choosing. This earthly life includes suffering and pain, and it ends in death. Which is really worse - 90 years of life, including suffering and pain - or 1 week of life? Might it sometimes be God’s Mercy and Grace that allows an infant to die? Do you think many years of life is always the best thing, no matter what the circumstances?

 

I don’t know you - you’re absolutely right. But I also don’t know a single human being who always wants to hear what God has to say. Plus, even apart from God, most people sometimes need some time to accept something they don’t want to hear … like their loved one has cancer. Most go through shock, denial, anger, etc. But you may be different. O-K. I accept that.

 

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.

 

You miss the point. What purpose is there to the suffering of young humans who never reached an age where they could choose to believe? When you say "I believe all have free choice," surely you aren't referring to babies who die shortly after being born? What about a six month old, or an 18 month old child? Do they have free will to choose as well? A fuller explanation of exactly what you mean by "free choice" is in order if this is the case. I suspect if this is the case, you have a unique view of free choice shared by a total community of one person.

 

You say, "I understand this does nothing for you." That is a true statement. But why do you think that is? I mean in the context of the issue I raise, why do you think this "does nothing" for me? Could it be that your evangelistic effort there is irrelevant to this discussion? I'm trying to come to an understanding of the meaning of a good, powerful, all-knowing god in a world that has seen the deaths of billions of children. You respond with

"God loves you and has a plan for your life (a paraphrase)." Could we deal with the current issue please without you appealing to your perception of the "real issue?"

Sometimes human suffering can have purpose for those who care for the suffering. Sometimes the caretakers suffer more than the one who is sick. Yes, I believe all have free choice, including babies who die shortly after being born. No, I’m not alone in this belief. Free choice, boiled down to its simplest meaning, is either falling in love with God or rejecting Him. When we die we meet God, and we respond to Him one way or the other. A possible illustration of this idea is thinking of meeting someone for the first time - often people just “click” and immediately like each other and feel like they’ve known each other for years. But sometimes there is just something about someone that feels wrong - the chemistry isn’t there and the two just don’t see things similarly.

 

Oddbird, I don’t know how long you were a Christian, whether you knew a lot of things about God, or if you knew Him in a deep relationship. I don’t know. I know about God and I’ve experienced relationship with Him, so my knowledge is intellectual and experiential. I understand that what I know from relationship with Him won’t do much for anyone unless they know me well. So yes, we’ll have to stick with non-experiential knowledge. But when someone asks me why I believe something, I have to answer honestly and say my belief is based on both types of knowledge.

 

Do you have a testimony I can read?

 

Did you mean to leave out "All-Powerful?" Because that is important to the discussion. If a god existed that were good, but not all-powerful, one would only have to say that it's intentions are good. If a loving god without the power to prevent or alleviate suffering existed, then all that would be necessary to say is that this god hasn't "lost that loving feeling." He'd merely join the 50 billion other humans throughout history who have no choice but to shake their heads and helplessly utter 'Umm umm umm" in the face of the suffering and death of innocents. If god is just, but doesn't have sufficient power to prevent injustice and correct inequities in the world, then you're just restating that god is good. He is all intention with limited ability to bring his intentions into reality.

 

If the notion of "omnipotence" is not part of your hypothetical assumption, then the world of the last 10,000 years or so and the world as we see it today is not surprising. Assuming the notion of "all powerful" is part of your premise, then I would say I agree with part of the conclusions you state, but not all of them because not all of your conclusions follow from the premise of an all-knowing, loving, good omnipotent being.

Yes, God is All-Powerful. But He doesn’t presently use His Power to prevent all evil, all suffering. How could there be free choice if we’re not free to choose different paths than God’s Way?

[Guest I Love Dog]

 

 

Yes, I believe all have free choice, including babies who die shortly after being born. No, I’m not alone in this belief.

 

How does that work, forgive me for asking? How does a newborn baby choose? Do you mean there are others who believe that questionable statement, too?

[pratt]

Walker,

 

you are absolutely right on cue on that

 

If we trust them to be loyal and good, and intelligent, we can often say “I don’t get it, but I trust them.” Think of a child with a great and wise dad - he doesn’t need to understand everything his dad does to trust his dad.

 

How about think of a child with a egotistical and abusive dad, probably saying exactly the same thing. A great wise dad would have explained the situation and leave the understandings to the kid,.

 

You claimed your god to be a god of perfection, a perfectly good, mericiful, loving etc etc that cannot be any sort of imperfection. By allowing evil when he can prevent it, the Acts of Omission would have enough to blemish the imperfection.

 

I am in a manufacturing line, and I do pure white product sometimes. A little speckle of dirt could render the piece as 2nd grade, no explanations, no reasons necessarily when it is not a pure white product. I can tell my consumers "You don't understand the manufacturing process, the unexpected power outage or short of materials whatever" it is STILL not a perfectly pure white.

 

your daughter can do all good and help all orphanages in the world and save a billion kids, but a single wrongful death of an innocent child would blemish the perfect record of god. THAT IS PERFECTION

[BrotherJosh]

How can “evil” be a concept without a God, Brother Josh? “Evil” has no place in atheism. Things just happen. You prefer some things - you dislike others. Someone else may prefer what you dislike. It’s all just personal preference and benefit, but there wouldn’t be any “evil” or “good”. Your argument that there is “evil” in the world seems to presuppose a God and a general standard of “goodness“. A world without a God has no such standard. So instead, your question seems to be “How can a good God allow evil to exist?” I think that’s what we’re actually discussing.God is ultimately responsible for giving us choice - we can follow His Ways or reject them. There is God’s Way/good, and there is choice … and evil is a result of not choosing good. Ultimately, God will deal with evil. But presently it is allowed.

So basically you are saying that Good and Evil as a concept is not possible unless their is a God by which to judge our actions? A Perfect set of standards as it were? I am not arguing that evil is a non-concept, rather that Evil as seen in this world needs to be reconciled with your definition of a God. Which you fail to do. God is good, but he'll deal with evil later...right. The concept of right and wrong, good and evil is brought on by evolutionary processes and the need for humans to co-exist in larger and larger "tribal" communities. Setting up frameworks of morality based on well-being is how we achieve larger civilizations - through compromise and looking out for the overall well being of the "tribe". The problem is, is that your God (ie. religion) sets up a separate framework of morality that is not based on the well being of humans. Gays are evil, witches should be burned, slaves are okay, murder is okay if it's a non-believer etc...None of these edicts as passed down by your definition of a God are based on well being. Instead it is a structure derived and compiled over the centuries based on the whims of anonymous authors, speakers, writers, bishops, popes and emperors. Why would I presuppose a God, when I don't define evil as a "thing"? You are presupposing that God is necessary in order for us to have a standard of "goodness". Accurately describe what "evil" is or rather what "sin" is. I believe there is right and wrong, but they are not derived from a supernatural deity. Our morals over time evolve and shift given the progress of mankind and civilization. Why, now days do we not burn witches? It would seem our morals are changing...

 

You can freely choose to alleviate suffering - that‘s part of developing your character. God’s ultimate goal is not free will - His goal is deep, meaningful relationship with us. Free will is necessary for this goal. And deep relationship with God will bring us to becoming all He created us to be.

 

When we reject God’s Way, those choices bring evil consequences - to you and to others, and even to the natural world. We are all responsible for evil in this world and we will all be affected by its consequences. You could be driving home one night and be a little more tired than usual because you had been working really hard. Your friend offers you a ride but you think you’re fine. You fall asleep and kill the parents of four young children. Did those children deserve such “unearned” evil? Was it God’s fault you fell asleep? Should God have put a safety bubble around your car so you couldn‘t hurt anyone? If a year later you’re hit by a drunk driver and you end up a quadriplegic - did you deserve that?

 

2 Sam. 12:11 - in Hebrew, active verbs can express permission and not direct action. So in this case God gives permission for evil to be “visited” on David’s family. David’s actions had natural consequences - God allowed the consequences to come into David’s life.

You are ignoring evil as I have defined it. Your definition of "evil" is a shallow and vain one based on our current civilization. I am speaking of gratuitous evil. Answer that, and then we can move on. In regards to the verse, as it is properly read, you ignore the death of the small child. The natural consequences of adultery is the death of a child that is allowed by God? Who is ultimately responsible for something? The mechanism or the person who allows it? That's the equivalent of saying guns kill people.

No exact mechanisms but many non-Christians believe our actions affect the environment (Native American cultures, New Age views, environmentalists, etc.). Our irresponsible actions change our world - do you not believe this? The Jews say we have an inclination to sin and an inclination to do good - we are constantly choosing which inclination to go with.

Well, until you can accurately describe how free will decisions effect natural processes I suppose I will have to move on. Why would I believe the decisions I make create a natural disaster? Natural disasters lead to the suffering and deaths of millions all around the world, you have to reconcile this with a loving god, because there is no free will intent behind the natural processes. If there is an intent behind the natural processes, was the intent a judgement? If not, do these natural disasters offer "life lessons"?

I’d have to know more about the explanations for evil you listed, but it’s possible they’re all a part of the Truth. If I give a kid a toy fire truck, I can either force him to play with it by rolling it around - or I can let him decide how to play with it. Letting him choose what to do with it isn’t the same as wanting him to hit another kid over the head with it. When God gave choice, evil became an option.

 

Well, thank you for the allegory it was very...illuminating. Hmmm...you know maybe we should add some really sharp edges to the fire truck. Also, it's a choking hazard. Also, it is covered in razors...and venom. And there's a hurricane caused by the fire truck every time the kid uses the fire truck in a wrong way.

We have knowledge about God only because He reveals Himself to us. You can know and be in a relationship with another person, but this doesn’t mean you know or understand everything about them. If this person is much more knowledgeable than you in an area you may trust them to make decisions in that area. You don’t understand everything - you trust because you know the person, and you know they are intelligent, caring, considerate, etc. You may even say to someone “So-and-so made the decision for us in that area. I don’t get that stuff, but so-and-so is good with it and I trust them.” Right?God is not O-K with evil - rape … I’ve addressed this topic in a different post.

 

Right...another allegory? Which interpretation of the Christian God should I trust in? He revealed himself to us is not a good answer, because these revelations have been interpreted in so many wildly different ways, in which version of the Christian God should I believe in?

 

God knew what Hitler would choose to do, but Hitler still made his own choices. Being out of time and seeing a future we can’t see isn’t the same as controlling. Knowing the future isn’t the same as controlling the future. Every day Hitler woke up and made choices. God simply can see all the choices Hitler will make every day.

 

No, knowing the future is controlling the future because the future has already been "created". Hitler was created with the foreknowledge of each of his choices, yet he was still created. Seems a rather poor excuse for the life of Hitler and every other despot in the history of our species, if we are still trying to reconcile your God.

 

Why did you give Gary free will? And do you offer to walk with Gary as he walks out your door? Do you offer to accompany him and be his teacher, friend, guide? Did you tell Gary what will happen if he refuses to walk with you and heed your advice? And did you tell everyone that one day you will put everything right?

 

Way to miss the point! Let's return to the original premise. I am omniscient. Knowing full well that the creature I will create is going to instigate gratuitous evil in the world I still create this being. I give this being free will, you know so it can chose to love me. But still, I know what choices this being will chose. It will choose to hurt and kill people. Am I ultimately responsible for the creation of this being? Your feel good God is our friend and watches me all the time does not adequately answer this.

 

When I turn the page I find out what my friend has chosen to do. I can skip around and look on any page and find out what my friend chose to do. My friend writes his own life - I just read it and observe what he chooses to do.

 

Nope, God has already printed the pages, your friend is merely fulfilling what has been printed.

 

Free will is not the ultimate goal of God - deep, meaningful relationship is. When God commands then the person can choose whether or not to obey the command. God doesn’t leave us to flail around or shoot in the dark - He offers guidance and relationship. He reveals Himself to us - we choose to walk with Him or to walk apart from Him. Saul could have said no to God - but he chose to listen.

 

Well if a deep relationship is the ultimate goal of God, and the way by which we have this relationship is free will, what is the ultimate goal? Again, which revelation and interpretation do I believe is the true revelation of God? The huge amount of interpretations and version of the Christian God are evidence of the ways people project their needs on a supernatural deity. You haven't answered my question about Saul, aside from the usual platitudes.

 

Adam and Eve had relationship with God - they weren’t ignorant of His Ways. They could always freely choose, and after a period of time they freely chose to disobey God and eat from the tree. Adam understood what he was doing - he was choosing to decide for himself what was good and what was evil.

 

Really, than what is your definition of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? God said, he (man) has become like one of us. So basically, Adam and Eve were ignorant of Good and Evil before the Fall, and were not given a true definition of free will at the start. He was choosing for himself? Really? It seems to me that the magical fruit gifted Adam with knowledge of Good and Evil.

 

So, we return to the fact that you still need to reconcile the gratuitous evil in the world. Gratuitous - uncalled for, without reason, unjustified, unearned etc...On top of this, explain or rather reconcile natural disasters with a loving God. You have failed to so. On top of this, explain how God is necessary as "Good"?

 

Your definition of God, to me, seems to be a feel good, Oprah definition. You know, turn suffering into a life lesson! Each person, projects their own feelings and needs onto "God". You want to have a loving God who reveals himself and is actively involved in pursuing people. If he is, he is doing a shit job of it. 4 Billion people in the world aren't believing in your God...

 

Let's set aside platitudes and feel good definitions next time.

[mwc]

"A Superior Being is beyond my ability to “know and reason and determine what is best, etc.” I can only know anything because God reveals it. What we know is through revelation."

 

"What type of evidence would convince you?"

 

God didn't reveal it to you?

Heh.

 

mwc

[oddbird1963]

I’m sorry, odd bird, but I feel like I’ve given this “different perspective” several times. God allows evil because He gives free choice. Free choice is that important. God reveals Himself to everyone. No human being is without choice - no one goes to heaven or hell without choosing. This earthly life includes suffering and pain, and it ends in death. Which is really worse - 90 years of life, including suffering and pain - or 1 week of life? Might it sometimes be God’s Mercy and Grace that allows an infant to die? Do you think many years of life is always the best thing, no matter what the circumstances?

At least you are stating it directly now. I appreciate that. Most believers avoid these issues like the plague and just talk around it.

 

Free choice is more important than suffering, which is really a minor thing in your system of thought. I think the perpetrators of the Inquisition probably had the same mindset. What's a little suffering inflicted on wayward souls if it gets them to recant their wayward life and embrace the love of god? I know you really don't share in that extreme point of view, but I see nothing in what you have written that would really prevent that. You don't believe that the suffering of infants, young children and even pre-adolescents is significant. And god's "big plan" to maintain free will makes it worth all that.

 

It's ghastly to me because of the waste. And I see no reason why, if there is an all powerful, omnipotent and loving god, he would allow such suffering in order for people to freely choose him. It's that word "all-powerful." You can always fudge on it, but if he was "all that" then 50 billion young-uns being born only to die of disease and hunger , as well as murder is quite a pile of carnage just so OTHER people could have free will. Maybe he should only give people 3/4 free will and the number would have been 20 Billion. 10 billion. Maybe none? You consider "None" impossible for an "All Powerful" god who loves people? Please. Listen to the words you say.

 

I don’t know you - you’re absolutely right. But I also don’t know a single human being who always wants to hear what God has to say. Plus, even apart from God, most people sometimes need some time to accept something they don’t want to hear … like their loved one has cancer. Most go through shock, denial, anger, etc. But you may be different. O-K. I accept that.

I'm just wanting a reasonable explanation about why Free will would be so important yet god isn't smart enough or powerful enough to figure out how to avoid the meaningless deaths of 50 billion young humans over the course of history. I certainly do go through the processes of human grieving. But that is really irrelevant here. It's a red herring that tries to get the dialog off the topic. Why is our free will worth the holocaust of young humans?

 

Sometimes human suffering can have purpose for those who care for the suffering. Sometimes the caretakers suffer more than the one who is sick. Yes, I believe all have free choice, including babies who die shortly after being born. No, I’m not alone in this belief. Free choice, boiled down to its simplest meaning, is either falling in love with God or rejecting Him.

I think there can be positive adaptive and character-building side effects to experiencing or witnessing suffering. But that doesn't justify such suffering. It just means that humans adapt and that their minds expand in terms of resourcefulness, empathy, problem solving and relational negotiation to minimize future suffering and contribute to the human experience. But to say the suffering is there for a didactic purpose has no basis. It's just the kind of thing theologically biased people say to support pet beliefs that are irrational, incoherent and bereft of human compassion.

 

The underlined statement above is astounding to me. It's perplexing. I believe there are many strains of response to theodicy that do actually maintain that babies and preadolescences have some capability and culpability in choices of eternal consequence. But such people are engaging in magical, speculative and ad hoc thinking to , once again, justify an unsupportable belief.

 

Oddbird, I don’t know how long you were a Christian, whether you knew a lot of things about God, or if you knew Him in a deep relationship. I don’t know. I know about God and I’ve experienced relationship with Him, so my knowledge is intellectual and experiential. I understand that what I know from relationship with Him won’t do much for anyone unless they know me well. So yes, we’ll have to stick with non-experiential knowledge. But when someone asks me why I believe something, I have to answer honestly and say my belief is based on both types of knowledge.

There is no way anybody, even your closest friends, could have access to your "experiential" relationship with god. All they have is your interpretation of your own subjective feelings about what you think might be an encounter with a god. It may be that I have similar experiences quite often but I interpret them differently. I can relate my subjective experiences to you and provide my interpretation to you, but to say "no. that's not right, you are experiencing god" would be a form of either soft or hard coercion, depending on your attitude or approach. If you were my friend, I might be open to reinterpreting my experiences in light of your framework. But they will only ever be interpretations of personal beliefs about subjective experiences.

 

I don't think that can be called "knowledge of god" in any useful way.

 

Do you have a testimony I can read?

Seek and you shall find.

 

Yes, God is All-Powerful. But He doesn’t presently use His Power to prevent all evil, all suffering. How could there be free choice if we’re not free to choose different paths than God’s Way?

Despite what you say to tie up the loose end of the meaningless suffering of the innocent young over the course of human history, over half the humans ever born never had a chance to make that choice. They were incapable of such a choice due to lack of developmental ability and/or lack of access to the theological tenets necessary to make such a choice.

 

Just because you have warm subjective feelings that they get a choice in the afterlife does not make your position plausible or believable.

 

If you want to continue to put forth such an assertion, what is your basis in fact for holding such a belief?

[walker]

Antlerman: Jewish writers used literary devices such as anthropomorphism and anthropopathism. They used concrete thought to express abstract concepts throughout their writing - not just when speaking about God. If you believe they literally thought the God that couldn’t be seen had a human body, then He must have had wings as well.

 

We’re made in God’s “image“, not God in ours. I don’t think people would make up myths and gods if they weren’t sensing on some level the Reality behind the shadows of this world (which is what did happen). I didn’t ask you questions I don’t have answers to - I asked to know what your answers would be. And I’m not mentally or spiritually drained … I’m sorry we miscommunicated.

 

On the question of infallibility - the Bible is made up of different books written by different writers. It records how God revealed Himself and interacted with people (relationship) throughout about 1500 years. It’s not a science textbook. And though it contains history, it wasn’t written to be a history book. Generally-speaking, it’s not God dictating to someone who wrote down His words. However, God did inspire the writers - and He spoke through their individual personalities and situations. The revelation is accurate - the second testament sometimes brings more clarity to revelation in the first. Can there be individual interpretation - individual thinking? Yes and no. There are foundational Truths that reveal who God is (His Nature and Character), who we are (nature and character) and how we can have relationship with God. There is also revelation that can speak individually and personally. And, there can be many layers of understanding. It’s a relationship, and relationships should be alive.

 

To address your hypothetical question, if no god or supernatural existed I don’t think people would create stories or myths to try to make sense of their world. The world would just be what it is. Evil - good - injustice would have no meaning outside of personal preference or benefit … they’d just be fluid concepts. Why would anyone wonder why suffering exists? It just does - someone wanted something someone else had and they killed him to get it.

 

Am I religious or spiritual? That’s hard to answer because I don’t know your definitions for these two words. By my definitions I’m spiritual, not religious - and I don’t fit well into any group. There are many Christian boxes (denominations/churches/theological approaches). I’ve had too many different influences to fit nicely in a box.

[walker]

This will be my last time posting to you Walker on this subject.

 

I said before I did not like the fluffy spin you place on the bible. In fact when I was a christian, I never believed in the god you speak of or believe in. To me, it's almost like you are mixing Gnostic beliefs with Hindu avatars. No matter how you try to re-roll the bible, it's still is what it is. You do this because you find the god of the old testament unpalatable, and thats because he was. You look at the bible like it's full of truths and that it can unravel the great mysteries of life. That is true to a small extent as you can get some good from it just as with most any religious text , YHWH related or not.

 

I believed in the vengeful god who created the universe by just saying a word. I believed that he sent his only son to die for our sins. I believed he traveled to hell and beat satan for the keys of hell and death. I believed god's power could be manifested though us via the holy spirit. After some time, I found that I could not believe in that god anymore nor can I ever or any other god.

 

BTW: I WOULD HAVE believed you were going to hell for your beliefs. I was a fundamentalist. Do I believe that now? Of course not, I know when we die, thats it and I can accept that.

 

Ending.... I can't ever believe in that god nor any god anymore. Remember that the bible was written by people who thought the earth was flat, and the the was the center of the universe. They never knew anything of microbial life, could not tell a bat from a bird and though the mustard seed was the smallest seed on the face of the planet. Please try to read the bible critically. Play an atheist for a day or two.

What I see, NoGods, is that you’ve rejected what fundamentalism teaches. I reject a lot of it too. You concluded there is no God - I concluded fundamentalism doesn’t correctly reveal God or correctly represent Biblical revelation. Fundamentalism is pretty heavy on Laws and Judgment, but there is Grace and Mercy woven all throughout the Bible as well. I think the fundamentalist approach would have had the adulteress stoned, and I doubt they would have had much use for the guy drawing in the sand. And Jesus longs to gather Jerusalem’s children together as a hen gathers her chicks? That’s not very strong and masculine … it’s kind of wimpy-sounding.

 

Thanks for your thoughts, and I sincerely wish you good.