A mortal God?

[stovebolts]

My cousin had a baby with it's skin turned inside out, they didn't end it's life. Everythingit touched, even air, hurt the baby. It cried, screamed, and it died two weeks later. It tormented my cousin and her husband. You tell me how it was better off alive.

And yes, they knew of the condition before it was born. They had the choice to let there child suffer, or end it's life. They chose what they thought was best. Now, they had to live with hearing the shrieks of there firstborn, crying because EVERYTHING it touched was harmful. Do you know the damage it could have caused them? The mental damage it could have caused them, not able to help THEIR CHILD.

I am very sorry to hear about that. Suffering is never easy and to watch another which one loves so much is very painful. Like your cousin, I too lost a child. My child was 4 months old. No parent should ever have to bury their child.

We can learn much through suffering if we don't become bitter. Suffering changes our very being in a good way if we let it. It causes us to feel things that we would otherwise not feel and it has the ability to get us to look out and have sympathy for others that suffer when we ourselves would otherwise not think twice about.

I would have to say that your cousins learned a very valuable lesson. We can't control everything in our lives no matter how terrible they are. It is an awful place to be when you see something, or someone suffer and your helpless. But it affords us compassion that we would try to comfort another, not for our own gratification, but for theirs. Well too often we are self centered and think primarily of ourselves. But when you see someone you love suffer, and out of love you try to comfort, it is an experience that will radically change the way you view the world if one doesn't become bitter. I said once before that to love, is to suffer. The two cannot be separated.

 

[Atothetheist]

If you are doing these things, then keep doing them and urge others to do them. It is never about "I have" but rather, it's about "I'm doing".


Me thinks you don't understand much about the Bible... But you think you do.




Leviticus 23:22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corners of thy field, neither shalt thou gather the gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them for the poor, and for the sojourner: I am Jehovah your God.

We are tasked with helping others, but often we get the attitude that what we work for is ours to be spent on our enjoyment. That millions die in agony and thousands starve is a testiment toward how stingy and selfish we people are. Again, we spend more money each year in America than it would cost to end world hunger for that year. Why can't we, as American's put an end to world hunger when we have the means? Really, it's chump change. God has blessed us, yet we squander it as we lavish it upon oursleves. Why then do you demand out of God what you yourself won't do? It's like saying, "God, I don't like what I see. I demand you to change it". When change is well within your grasp. What all that suffering etc does is affirm how selfish we really are in such a fallen world.



God created humanity and he gave us a task. We aint doing a very good job at it are we?

You sound like a little child. "Mom and Dad (God) have lots of money and I want" or "Why can't I have".

The story of the Bible is that God has enabled us.. yet we squander because we think we know better than our Father in heaven. Welcome to the entry point of the Bible.

Nah, I'm not a little child. I see it like this, " A police man( or rich man, depending on the situation), who is armed and ready, is watching a criminal raping, or toturing, or molesting, or starving an innocent, teen, mother, father, husband, wife, child. He HAS the power to stop them, yet he ain't doing anything to. He is just watching them suffer, burn, starve, killed, maimed. All of this, is done with him watching."

Now, I believe that the police man( God) who cares about us, and can stop the crime, is partly responsible. He is sitting there, watching the crime happen. He could stop it, but he doesn't. Instead, he uses his gun, to shoot bullseyes, while watching this going on.

If there was no God, then the responsibility IS ours. It is completely ours, and we should do our best, and the world seems to indicate that this is our current situation.

 

[AlexBC]

People cherry pick so many different things from the Bible that they each create their own morality code. You might as well not follow anything it has to say on what is right or wrong.

3000 denominations of Christianity (again, a reason why I am questioning if im wasting my time believing these things) and they all have different ideas about good and evil.

If non-believers who know nothing of the Bible are able to act morally, create social contracts and generally get along then why aren't I just joining them and sleeping in on Sunday.

 

[Atothetheist]

I am very sorry to hear about that. Suffering is never easy and to watch another which one loves so much is very painful. Like your cousin, I too lost a child. My child was 4 months old. No parent should ever have to bury their child.

We can learn much through suffering if we don't become bitter. Suffering changes our very being in a good way if we let it. It causes us to feel things that we would otherwise not feel and it has the ability to get us to look out and have sympathy for others that suffer when we ourselves would otherwise not think twice about.

I would have to say that your cousins learned a very valuable lesson. We can't control everything in our lives no matter how terrible they are. It is an awful place to be when you see something, or someone suffer and your helpless. But it affords us compassion that we would try to comfort another, not for our own gratification, but for theirs. Well too often we are self centered and think primarily of ourselves. But when you see someone you love suffer, and out of love you try to comfort, it is an experience that will radically change the way you view the world if one doesn't become bitter. I said once before that to love, is to suffer. The two cannot be separated.

That is small thinking Compared to God being ALL POWERFUL, and I am sorry about your child.

The lesson COULD be learned, without my cousin's baby, and yours needing to die. God didn't need it, he allowed it.

 

[Atothetheist]

People cherry pick so many different things from the Bible that they each create their own morality code. You might as well not follow anything it has to say on what is right or wrong.

3000 denominations of Christianity (again, a reason why I am questioning if im wasting my time believing these things) and they all have different ideas about good and evil.

If non-believers who know nothing of the Bible are able to act morally, create social contracts and generally get along then why aren't I just joining them and sleeping in on Sunday.

Well it all hinges on God's existence. You can be moral without God.

But being a nonbeliever just because of that is a horrible Idea. Study, learn both sides of the argument, assess the points, then form your own conclusion.

 

[AlexBC]

Well it all hinges on God's existence. You can be moral without God.

But being a nonbeliever just because of that is a horrible Idea. Study, learn both sides of the argument, assess the points, then form your own conclusion.

Sorry, I think I missed something. Being a nonbeliever because of what is a horrible idea?

 

[Atothetheist]

Sorry, I think I missed something. Being a nonbeliever because of what is a horrible idea?

Being nonbeliever just because nonbelievers, who have never heard of the Bible are Moral.

It's a horrible idea, and if you do that, and not realize what the arguments, evidence is at, you might just come back. It is better just to make the leap if you are confident enough to make it.

 

[Grazer]

You can be moral without believing in God I agree.

 

[AlexBC]

Being nonbeliever just because nonbelievers, who have never heard of the Bible are Moral.

It's a horrible idea, and if you do that, and not realize what the arguments, evidence is at, you might just come back. It is better just to make the leap if you are confident enough to make it.

I see. But I don't think you can choose what you believe and im pretty sure im already on the side of the agnostic atheist. I have no passion for the faith anymore.

 

[Grazer]

I see. But I don't think you can choose what you believe and im pretty sure im already on the side of the agnostic atheist. I have no passion for the faith anymore.

Can I ask you mean by "choose what you believe"

 

[Atothetheist]

I see. But I don't think you can choose what you believe and im pretty sure im already on the side of the agnostic atheist. I have no passion for the faith anymore.

Good, your with me on the opinion of belief. I am on the side that in order to believe you need to be convinced of it. You can't just choose belief.

 

[Grazer]

I am on the side that in order to believe you need to be convinced of it. You can't just choose belief.

Absolutely agree with this statement

 

[AlexBC]

Can I ask you mean by "choose what you believe"

Atothetheist pretty much sums it up.

 

[Drew]

Why is he keeping such a low profile if he still lives?

Some thoughts:

1. Although this is routinely not recognized, the Bible presents us with an evolving narrative. The Bible is not a set of "timeless truths", it is an unfolding story of God at work in the world. As such, there are "phases" of the story and it is at least conceivable that we are living in a phase where, indeed, God is not in the business of doing a lot of public miracles.

2. Further to point 1: I have recently been exposed to the interesting and uncomfortable idea that God is "silent" in the present precisely because we, the church, are not playing our proper role in implementing the Kingdom of God. For example, in these very forums many, if not most, actually believe that the kingdom of God is not even here yet. As readers who are familar with my position on this will know, I believe this is a major error.

 

[Atothetheist]

Some thoughts:

1. Although this is routinely not recognized, the Bible presents us with an evolving narrative. The Bible is not a set of "timeless truths", it is an unfolding story of God at work in the world. As such, there are "phases" of the story and it is at least conceivable that we are living in a phase where, indeed, God is not in the business of doing a lot of public miracles.

2. Further to point 1: I have recently been exposed to the interesting and uncomfortable idea that God is "silent" in the present precisely because we, the church, are not playing our proper role in implementing the Kingdom of God. For example, in these very forums many, if not most, actually believe that the kingdom of God is not even here yet. As readers who are familar with my position on this will know, I believe this is a major error.

So... It's our fault God won't come to the rescue? What kind of thinking is that. Sounds like slave talk to me.

What authority do you have to present us with the first thought? Sure there could be verses, that "support" your assumption, but this is just squaring the circle when it comes to terms with reality. Sounds like mere grasping of the straws.

 

[AlexBC]

So... It's our fault God won't come to the rescue? What kind of thinking is that. Sounds like slave talk to me.

What authority do you have to present us with the first thought? Sure there could be verses, that "support" your assumption, but this is just squaring the circle when it comes to terms with reality. Sounds like mere grasping of the straws.

And if the Bible IS an evolving narrative then who is writing this down?

 

[Drew]

The world looks, and acts as if there was nothing watching over it, making sure justice is in order. Nine million children( under five) die a year. Thousands die of illnesses, not enough food, etc.

I suggest that things are not that simple, and that one must carefully examine the pre-suppositions that underly such a view. By contrast, let me outline very briefly a "case" for position that God is indeed acting the world, moving it towards a more just state. You may not agree with a number of the presumptions, but I suggest it is a self-consistent "theory" that is consistent both with the "data" of the world, as well as with the content of the Bible:

1. God creates the world and decides to "delegate" some responsibility for it to human beings;

2. Human beings, endowed with free will, make bad decisions with the result that the world is damaged.

3. God cannot magically fix this - He has already committed to let man "run the show" and He (God) cannot go back on His commitments.

4. So God has a challenge - in order to remain true to His commitment that the world must be "run" by humans, He (God) needs to fix the problem through human agency, not "by magic".

5. God needs to "fix" mankind, and the key event to achieve this is the cross. Again, because God has to work within the constraints of His earlier commitment to use mankind to fix the world, a long, gradual process lead to the cross.

6. At the cross, humanity is "renewed" - and the long process of actually fixing this world through the agency of renewed humanity begins.

The basic point: The fact that God has to work under certain constraints translates into the unavoidable reality that "setting the world to rights" - achieving justice if you will - is necessarily a gradual process. And, although I expect you will disagree, the "data" suggest that the world is indeed getting better over time. So there is no evidence that suggests that this model is incorrect.

An important point of method: I agree that a model with no God can also explain why the world is getting better. But, as I hope you understand, this does not mean the "God" model is incorrect - it merely means that multiple theories are consistent with the data.

One always need to fight against the misunderstanding that there cannot be multiple theories that "explain the data".

My outline "theory" is, by necessity, not fully elaborated. So you may well have questions about it.

 

[Drew]

So... It's our fault God won't come to the rescue? What kind of thinking is that. Sounds like slave talk to me.

I do not understand your objection. I see nothing problematic with God deciding to create man "in His own image", thereby pouring some of His own power into this created being, and thereby taking the risk that man might screw it up.

So yes, it's "our fault", but how is that problematic? What, precisely, is wrong with such an idea?

What authority do you have to present us with the first thought? Sure there could be verses, that "support" your assumption, but this is just squaring the circle when it comes to terms with reality. Sounds like mere grasping of the straws.

Hardly. The case that the scriptures is an evolving narrative is easy to make in principle. With all respect, anyone who is actually well read in the Bible cannot help but discern that it is a narrative with a plot. And, no, I cannot point you to a "verse" that proves the point. But neither can I point you to a single sentence in "A Tale of Two Cities" that proves that it, too, is a narrative (although a fictional one).

The basis narrative is this:

1. God creates the world;
2. Man falls, profoundly damaging creation;
3. God appoints Israel to "solve" the problem;
4. The history of Israel reaches its fulfillment at the cross, as Jesus completes their task and launches the kingdom of God, wherein the process of fixing the damage begins;
5. We are living in that portion of history in which God is working through human agency to "undo" the damage that was done at the fall (see point 2);
6. At some time in future, creation will be fully restored and the narrative reaches its basic conclusion (although there is no reason to believe that there will not be a "sequel".

That the Bible is an evolving narrative is, I politely suggest, basically beyond dispute. It is no small problem, however, that many in the church do not understand this.

 

[Atothetheist]

I suggest that things are not that simple, and that one must carefully examine the pre-suppositions that underly such a view. By contrast, let me outline very briefly a "case" for position that God is indeed acting the world, moving it towards a more just state. You may not agree with a number of the presumptions, but I suggest it is a self-consistent "theory" that is consistent both with the "data" of the world, as well as with the content of the Bible:

1. God creates the world and decides to "delegate" some responsibility for it to human beings;

2. Human beings, endowed with free will, make bad decisions with the result that the world is damaged.

3. God cannot magically fix this - He has already committed to let man "run the show" and He (God) cannot go back on His commitments.

4. So God has a challenge - in order to remain true to His commitment that the world must be "run" by humans, He (God) needs to fix the problem through human agency, not "by magic".

5. God needs to "fix" mankind, and the key event to achieve this is the cross. Again, because God has to work within the constraints of His earlier commitment to use mankind to fix the world, a long, gradual process lead to the cross.

6. At the cross, humanity is "renewed" - and the long process of actually fixing this world through the agency of renewed humanity begins.

The basic point: The fact that God has to work under certain constraints translates into the unavoidable reality that "setting the world to rights" - achieving justice if you will - is necessarily a gradual process. And, although I expect you will disagree, the "data" suggest that the world is indeed getting better over time. So there is no evidence that suggests that this model is incorrect.

An important point of method: I agree that a model with no God can also explain why the world is getting better. But, as I hope you understand, this does not mean the "God" model is incorrect - it merely means that multiple theories are consistent with the data.

One always need to fight against the misunderstanding that there cannot be multiple theories that "explain the data".

My outline "theory" is, by necessity, not fully elaborated. So you may well have questions about it.

Let me respond, with gusto

Number correspond with your

1. For a being that is ALL knowing, God has made a stupid decision.

2.An ALL powerful God could have made free will possible without evil

3. God is ALL powerful, so by definition, he can break his own commitments.

4. Again, All Powerful.

6. A baseless assumption based on your interpretation of the scriptures.

It seems you don't believe in an ALL POWERFUL, all knowing, God?

 

[Drew]

And if the Bible IS an evolving narrative then who is writing this down?

Who is writing what down? Men wrote the Bible. It has all the defining properties of a narrative - a story. Now to be clear: when I use the words "narrative" and "story", I am not intending to imply that the Bible is fiction.

Real life often manifests narrative structure - one can talk about, for example, the "story" of how the US became a nation.