How far reaching are God's powers?

[MilesAbbott81]

I can't exactly blame anyone for being discouraged or disenfranchised from Christianity since there are so few genuine Christians. There is a lot of hypocrisy and ignorance going on. But anyone genuinely penitent will find God, or He is a liar. People don't find Him because they aren't genuinely penitent.

Says the zealot who believes only he and those who think like him have Truth.

I am in favor of everyone having their own "meaning-making myth".  Everyone needs to come to terms with mortality, and find happiness and purpose in life.

I'm not in favor of everyone having their own claims to "Truth".  There are so few genuine Christians?  You are just part of another Christian splinter group, every one declaring the others as heretics.  None can prove their claims, because there is no evidence of gods at all.

If you lived in India, you would probably be a Hindu zealot right now.

Well, do you think that the Truth is unobtainable? If so, then your accusation is rather meaningless, because no one can live up to your standard.

If you think the Truth exists and can be obtained, then what makes you so sure I am just some zealot?

And while you can say I'm part of a sect, well, is that in itself disqualifying? Why should it be? How do you know I'm not a part of the true Church, which is the Body of Christ and no sect at all?

I would add that most sects do not claim the others as heretics. Some do, but most sects are very tolerant of each other. You'll even find many Protestants who are fine with the Catholics, because according to them "All you need is Jesus." (Which is true, but not in the way they assert.)
It's much more in the nature of the nominal Christian to accept false doctrines of others even though it makes no sense to do so and is called for nowhere in the Scriptures, which strictly forbid ungodly mixtures.

Anyway, I digress.

[The Grand Nudger]

Facts of the matter of you convince people that you're a lying piece of shit with a hope that christ will save you from your innumerable sins

[Angrboda]

I have two questions for you Miles:

1) Has God ever caused suffering for someone who, not having free will, committed sin?

1) Of course.

So, in other words, you think it's moral to hurt someone for doing something that they couldn't have avoided doing?

2) If you were wrong in your thinking about God, how would you discover and determine that you were wrong?

2) Well, I've staked my life on being right about God, so if I'm wrong, then I will pay for it with my life.

That's admirable. But it doesn't answer the question. Entertain it as a hypothesis, let's assume that you're wrong for the moment -- what are you doing in your life that would eventually lead to you discovering that fact?

[HappySkeptic]

Since we cant get a decent convo out of this nutter, Imma run with you Skep.  I disagree about everyone having their own meaning-making myth.  We see that this nutballs meaning making myth includes the idea that people can be morally responsible for things they don't have any choice in, for things they don't control, even if they are moral incompetents.

We know how that played out in history and the present.  If having their own meaning making myths mean that, then it's a hard pass.

I'm a Unitarian Universalist, and we are not anti-religious.  We are just pro free thinking, and that includes the right to your own myth.  A myth is just a story that provides a sense of purpose and meaning.  Humans are meaning makers, and we have built up lots of myths through our lives.

But, it is important to realize its your own myth, and that it should change with life experience.  It has value to the individual, but does not necessarily have any meaning to others.  It is not some universal freak'n Truth.

I have my own story about what "I" am, how consciousness works, and what life and death means.  I base as much on science as possible, but I also have a lot of "I don't know" and "I imagine it something like this".  None of it would pass scientific peer review, and no theological seminaries would approve.  It doesn't include gods.  It is not the same today as yesterday.  I'll replace any part if I find a better piece.  My discussions here will have an effect.

I have told people that the reason I left my Christian church is not because I hated religion.  It was because religion was SO important to me that I could not profess to a belief that I no longer held, regardless of how much I liked the people or community.  Ultimate questions of life are a mystery I will always ponder.

[MilesAbbott81]

1) Of course.

So, in other words, you think it's moral to hurt someone for doing something that they couldn't have avoided doing?

No, not in other words. You're deliberately removing a crucial part of my argument.

It is moral to hold someone responsible for an evil act they have committed. The rest of what you wrote is just an excuse. Just because God made us evil doesn't mean we're blameless. We're evil. We can't change what we are, and that much isn't our fault, but just because we were made evil doesn't mean we shouldn't be held responsible for our evil acts. How else are we supposed to understand the gravity of sin?

And you'll say that doesn't make sense, and on its own I could somewhat agree with you, but you must take context into account. It isn't as simple as you would like to paint it. God is raising up children to be made in His image, that is, knowing good from evil. The only way to know good from evil is to experience evil for ourselves. That entails necessarily committing evil acts and suffering the consequences thereof.

If God had created us as evil, with there being no purpose to that evil except freedom to commit it, then that would've been evil of Him because the evil would've existed for its own sake, and not to accomplish good. God uses evil for good, therefore subjecting us to evil is a moral act, despite the suffering it entails.

2) Well, I've staked my life on being right about God, so if I'm wrong, then I will pay for it with my life.

That's admirable.  But it doesn't answer the question.  Entertain it as a hypothesis, let's assume that you're wrong for the moment -- what are you doing in your life that would eventually lead to you discovering that fact?

It's not admirable. I've done nothing worthy of praise whatsoever. God has had mercy on me because He chose to, not because I chose it or earned it. Nothing admirable about that at all, except on His part.

To answer the rest of this, the Lord would have to forsake me. He would have to abandon me in some way I couldn't possibly explain. Give me cancer, for instance, or put me through some terrible and debilitating accident. Short of taking my life or giving me over to sin, those are the only options (well, that may not be true. There can be terrible spiritual consequences as well that I won't get into here). So far, the Lord hasn't forsaken me in any way that I can make that conclusion with any certainty. I've suffered, but my suffering has been deserved and needed, and the damage not permanent, so far as I can tell anyway.

[HappySkeptic]

That's admirable.  But it doesn't answer the question.  Entertain it as a hypothesis, let's assume that you're wrong for the moment -- what are you doing in your life that would eventually lead to you discovering that fact?

...

To answer the rest of this, the Lord would have to forsake me. He would have to abandon me in some way I couldn't possibly explain. Give me cancer, for instance, or put me through some terrible and debilitating accident. Short of taking my life or giving me over to sin, those are the only options (well, that may not be true. There can be terrible spiritual consequences as well that I won't get into here). So far, the Lord hasn't forsaken me in any way that I can make that conclusion with any certainty. I've suffered, but my suffering has been deserved and needed, and the damage not permanent, so far as I can tell anyway.

The idea that God deals out bad things for sins, either as punishment or for instruction, is depressingly common, but theologically and scientifically unsound.

I can guarantee that you will die, and it is more likely to be a prolonged illness than dying instantly in your sleep.  You may get cancer, or dementia, or a series of strokes.  Your personhood may get slowly stripped from you.

I can also guarantee that some bad things will happen to you and those you love.

When you can show that those with your particular belief are protected from these things, you will have evidence that can show the world you are right!  Too bad no sects of any religion have been able to show that.  It is almost like God doesn't want evidence of his actions to be found out, by not actually doing them in a way that can be statistically measured.  So, if he does good for some people, he must do bad in equal number to others to average it out.

I had a nephew die of cancer.  I was a universalist Christian, though not exactly like you.  I truly believed.  I prayed.  I would've given my life for that boy.  He was 5 when he got stage 4 cancer, and was special needs.  He didn't have a sin in the freak'n world.  He had a genetic error that when it causes cancer, causes death 100% of the time.  Not a single child has survived.  He survived a year with aggressive treatment, which was a world record.

Rather than blame God, I came to realize that the universe simply plays out according to rules.  If a DNA sequence says "cancer", then cancer will happen.  It is a biochemical certainty.  It would take a miracle to not create the cancer.  It doesn't take an act of God to create it.

So I say again -- your hypothesis about how God works is testable.  It requires a God diddling with quantum mechanics, chemistry, physics, or whatever.  It requires measurable differences in outcomes for believers in your sect vs. those who believe in Vishnu or are atheists.

I'm hope tragedies don't happen to you or those you love, but whether they do or don't, it proves nothing.

[The Grand Nudger]

I get it, the possibility of firmly rejecting the contents of a persons beliefs as both false and bad - but strongly denouncing any attempt to prevent them from holding such beliefs.

I see it's value, I believe in it's necessity as a right, I'm concerned that it's naive and more aspirational goal than statement of fact with respects to facts about human beliefs and compulsion to and by genuinely held belief - but being such a happy and non miserable guy...hopeful, lol - I agree with all of that.

I still can't help but say that when we're dealing with things that are both false, and bad...we're dealing with things that people shouldn't do, or shouldn't believe. That's why I, personally, can't say I'm all in favor of everyone having their own meaning making myths. I see the contents, and I see that people shouldn't believe these false things.

[HappySkeptic]

I still can't help but say that when we're dealing with things that are both false, and bad...we're dealing with things that people shouldn't do, or shouldn't believe.  That's why I, personally, can't say I'm all in favor of everyone having their own meaning making myths.  I see the contents, and I see that people shouldn't believe these false things.

That's why I think people should test their beliefs. 

Does adherence to a belief result in consequences that contradict their professed values?  i.e. don't do evil in the name of religion.  Plus, doubt is a good thing -- it prevents the worst of abuses.

Are the beliefs testable?  If so, how would you test them, and have they already been refuted by existing evidence?  If not, what value do they serve (they might have personal value, but one must realize that they are a personal myth)?

So, a test by consequence and a test by evidence are essential, in my view. And I agree that almost all religious belief is wrong (including my own).

[The Grand Nudger]

It's probably not the case that all religious beliefs are both false and bad. That's a narrow field of focus, but whatever portion of religious beliefs fall into that camp - a minority or a majority - those are the beliefs I have in mind.

[MilesAbbott81]

The idea that God deals out bad things for sins, either as punishment or for instruction, is depressingly common, but theologically and scientifically unsound.

I can guarantee that you will die, and it is more likely to be a prolonged illness than dying instantly in your sleep.  You may get cancer, or dementia, or a series of strokes.  Your personhood may get slowly stripped from you.

I can also guarantee that some bad things will happen to you and those you love.

So you say it's theologically unsound, but you don't offer an explanation as to why. And I will add that the vast majority of Christianity believes in free will and does not believe that God punishes for instruction. They mostly don't think that God has anything to do with the evil in this world, that it's all Satan's fault, and that punishment of the wicked occurs in the afterlife. THAT is depressingly common.

When you can show that those with your particular belief are protected from these things, you will have evidence that can show the world you are right!  Too bad no sects of any religion have been able to show that.  It is almost like God doesn't want evidence of his actions to be found out, by not actually doing them in a way that can be statistically measured.  So, if he does good for some people, he must do bad in equal number to others to average it out.

You're operating under the assumption that God has a responsibility to prove something to you. That's called sign seeking, which I would never recommend to anyone. You're likely to experience something demonic instead. The Bible specifically says that we're to walk by faith and not by sight (2 Corinthians 5:7), so why assume God wants you to have evidence?

That's not to say evidence will never be provided, but it will almost never be in a way you expect or would even necessarily want, and it probably won't ever come when you really want it.

Also, God blesses the wicked, for many reasons I imagine, but one being so that people can't point to their blessings as evidence of God's favor. That's not how it works.

I had a nephew die of cancer.  I was a universalist Christian, though not exactly like you.  I truly believed.  I prayed.  I would've given my life for that boy.  He was 5 when he got stage 4 cancer, and was special needs.  He didn't have a sin in the freak'n world.  He had a genetic error that when it causes cancer, causes death 100% of the time.  Not a single child has survived.  He survived a year with aggressive treatment, which was a world record.

I'm guessing your 100% guarantee of death is your proof of scientific unsoundness? That means nothing. God determines all events before they ever happen. If He gave the child an incurable disease, then there was never any hope that that child would survive without a miracle from God...and such miracles are exceptionally rare.

I never said the child needed to be guilty of sin to suffer the consequences of sin. That's on the child's forebears.

You say you truly believed. That may be true, though I doubt it. Many think they truly believe, but are deluded because they've never repented. And unless you received from the Lord somehow that it was your place to pray for the child, who is to say He had an obligation to hear your prayer? The deaths of children may be a terrible and tragic thing, but they're necessary, and if it needed to happen then you had no right to intervene. Stopping death or sickness isn't your responsibility. That doesn't mean you'll never be given to do so, but presuming that you have the right to do so just because you want it is not a good reason.

Rather than blame God, I came to realize that the universe simply plays out according to rules.  If a DNA sequence says "cancer", then cancer will happen.  It is a biochemical certainty.  It would take a miracle to not create the cancer.  It doesn't take an act of God to create it.

So I say again -- your hypothesis about how God works is testable.  It requires a God diddling with quantum mechanics, chemistry, physics, or whatever.  It requires measurable differences in outcomes for believers in your sect vs. those who believe in Vishnu or are atheists.

I'm hope tragedies don't happen to you or those you love, but whether they do or don't, it proves nothing.

You're correct that the universe does play out according to rules, but incorrect if you say God doesn't make those rules, and incorrect to say He can't violate His own laws supernaturally. Clearly, the Bible makes its claims that Jesus and others performed many miracles.

They're rare today, but they do happen. Just because you haven't personally witnessed one means nothing.