Avoiding questions

[Cyberman]

Love is a choice? Is that a pearl? If it is, I think I'll hold out for the genuine article, rather than your imitation ones.

[Darkstar]

Love is a choice. Love can be selective. God shows boundless love to those who seek it. For those who do not, will know God's wrath.

So it's either love or hate, no apathy?

---

---

[thesummerqueen]

My avatar is the shiznit.

[Drich]

[quote='Kirbmarc' pid='367141' dateline='1354122903']
[quote] it is because You have based your question on an incorrect belief about God.[/quote]

[quote]Incorrect according to your personal interpretation, Drich . Every Christian has his (or her) own interpretation of what or who God is, and almost all of them clash with each other.[/quote]According to my personal interpertation they are wrong. We all are to one degree or another. Your arguement presupposes than one interpertation is completely right. All any of us can do is scrutinize what we believe and say yes this is consistant with the bible or no it is not. This is all the more important when someone asks a question about the revealed nature of God. We must start by establishing the base line the bible has recorded, and build from that point. It is ok to be wrong as long as you are willing to yield your beliefs to the authority of scripture. Which is what I am pointing out some of you are not willing to do in favor of your current understandings.

[quote]You don't have more evidence for your hypothesis than people who claim that the god of the Bible is the sum of everything good.[/quote] actually I have the bible which tells us that God allows bad things to happen to 'good people.' And if you want we can go through it line by line.

[Napoléon]

Some (read as an indirect you) seem to thing that the theist here are avoiding questions. I can not speak for everyone, but i know I don't unless the question is an attempt to derail the topic or is just beligerantly disrespectful or blasphmous. Basically The whole "Don't throw your pearls of wisdom before swine." Command Christ issued.

That said I also do understand where many of you who think this, come from. In that You have a set view of Christianity, and let say for instance you believe in the omni benevolance of God. You believe this to be an intrinsic value of God, which allows you to ask a question like: "If God is all loving then why/how does he send the ones He love to Hell?"

This question can not be answered as stated. Not because we just can't answer because you have found some unanswerable paradox. it is because You have based your question on an incorrect belief about God. I do acknoweledge and understand that a major portion of Christianity may very well agree with you because a old man in a tall white hat said so. But truth be known (biblically speaking) There is nothing in the bible that says God has the quality you have formed a question around. Therefore the question is not valid and can not be answered as stated. The best any of (should be a you here...) can do is try and redefine your understanding of God to match what the bible actually says. But it seems some of you (see first annotation) have built arguements around hating God in a very specific way, and seem afraid to address God as the bible describes Him. so you hang on to what amounts to a Sunday school understanding of God. Then complain that 'we' are afraid to answer your questions Which is not the case at all.

In truth some of you (read as all) seem incapiable of asking revelant questions. You build these straw men and demand that we account for the god you or your favorite 'hate God website' has created, and when confronted with your incorrect understanding of God. some of you (again read as all...) say, it is the one who is trying to give you a more accurate understanding of God who is avoiding the question.

Just thought I'd highlight how much I didn't know about myself.

Thanks for telling me Dick- er I mean Drich.

*Edited* Missed a few you's.

[Cato]

actually I have the bible which tells us that God allows bad things to happen to 'good people.' And if you want we can go through it line by line.

Please don't. If you must get it out of your system cut and paste Job in its entirety and get it over with.

[The Grand Nudger]

Honest question Drich....have you ever felt that I'm offering criticism of someone else's god when I speak to you?....if so..in what way have a failed to stress that I'm criticizing your god? I'd like to know, so I can make my criticisms more explicit.

[Drich]

You also have a set view of Christianity. Just because you believe it does not automatically make your interpretation better.

Actually no, my 'view' changes with what I learn in study and in answering your questions. I have changed my 'views' several times on several key doctrines just to make sure my views did not contradict something the bible says.

So wait...most Christians disagree with you, but you are still right?

Just by sheer numbers the roman catholic church has the largest volume of 'christian' believers. These believers Look to the pope for answers and not the bible. Because according to the pope he is embodyment of the role the Apstole Peter had as the 'Holy father of the Church' and all rights, privliages, and power Peter had as an apstole. Which mean he has the power and authority to change what the bible says. So if the bible and the pope were ever to contradict the pope's 'new revelation' would superceed the bible.

So, long story short Yes I am right and 'Most' of christianity is wrong about repersenting biblical Christianity in this matter. Why? Again because most of christianity submits to the pope understanding of christianity, and Christians who use the bible (like myself) do not.

So I'm guessing that this is invalid too, then? [quote=wikipedia]The acknowledgement of God's omnibenevolence is an essential foundation in traditional Christianity; this can be seen in Scriptures such as Psalms 18:30: "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the Lord is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him," and Ps.19:7: "The law of the Lord is good, converting the soul: the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." This understanding is evident in the following statement by the First Vatican Council[original research?]:


The Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Church believes and acknowledges that there is one true and living God, Creator and Lord of Heaven and earth, almighty, eternal, immeasurable, incomprehensible, infinite in will, understanding and every perfection. Since He is one, singular, completely simple and unchangeable spiritual substance, He must be declared to be in reality and in essence, distinct from the world, supremely happy in Himself and from Himself, and inexpressibly loftier than anything besides Himself which either exists or can be imagined.[3]

The philosophical justification stems from God's aseity: the non-contingent, independent and self-sustained mode of existence that theologians ascribe to God. For if He was not morally perfect, that is, if God was merely a great being but nevertheless of finite benevolence, then his existence would involve an element of contingency, because one could always conceive of a being of greater benevolence.[4]

Theologians in the Wesleyan Christian tradition (see Thomas Jay Oord) argue that omnibenevolence is God's primary attribute. As such, God's other attributes should be understood in light of omnibenevolence.

Yuup wrong. One more time the reason why is because this whole mess is predicated on the power and authority the man running the R/C Church supposedly has to change doctrine.

To be honest, I agree with you that god is not omni-benevolent. But I do not think that this is for the same reason you do. Even if the bible had explicitly called god omni-benevolent, that would be contrary to all other evidence.

That is what i based my assertion off of. It plainly list or calls out the men God hated. Essau, Pharroh, Judas I think their are acouple more beside all of those He wiped out in sodom and Gorrmorah and in the Great flood. But even if their was one name on that List, God is shown to not be Omni-benevolent. End of arguement unless one believes the pope can change the bible to match a current R/C doctrine.

Hmmm, no. Avoiding the question is avoiding the question. Responding to the original question with "god is not omni-benevolent, and nowhere does it say he was" is not really dodging anything. Sometimes, you may be accused of dodging a question when, although you technically respond to it, you miss the whole point.

The reason for 'missing the point' is to show that you have built your rational on a false or fault premise. If I show you where we should be in this conversation then everything else can be dismissed as logical fallacy.

Here is an example:

Agreed, now before you glance over and dismiss everything i am going to say here honestly look at what I am saying. It is not to write you off, but to correct your theology to reflect what the bible says:

God sends people to infinite torture for finite crimes.

Here is a prime example. How do you know the crimes/sins are finite? Is it because it only took a moment to commit them? Do you not count consenquence as being apart of sin? Appreantly not. Sin seperates one from God as a consenquence. as your body will be immortal your consenquence must also echo for an eternity.
So Here sins are shown Not to be Finite. If you take a biblical view of them that includes the ever present consenquence of sin.

Therefore god is unjust.

Unjust by who's standard? The man who want to keep his sin, And benfit from heaven as well? If this is your measure then I will gladly agree. God for that man is 'unjust.' But so what? who is he to complain. This man had the same oppertunity and judgement I had.

[The Grand Nudger]

Fuck...it's almost like my questions are being avoided........lol.

[Drich]

I did, that's why I asked how you can think of God as good when he is a monster worse than every human monster ever conceived. Your response was an appeal to might, which shows me that my understanding of God is correct.

My 'answer' was to show you that God is the standard in which 'Right' is established. Meaning if your understanding of 'right' varies from what God has established then it is not God who is the monster. It is you, but as you said all you could see was an appeal to might because that what you already understood god to be.

Absolutely no arguement here.

The reason why the Sunday School idea of Buddy Christ is the popular interpretation is obvious: it's easy to justify believing in a loving, caring personal God when it is all but entirely certain that God does not exist. That is something you can wish for, the perfect heavenly parent, the comfort to all your worldly sorrows. I bet, even the hardest of us atheists at one point or another wish they had some kind of magical helping hand to set bad things right. Wishful thinking is powerful and gripping, which is why the belief persists.

Do you think the world stupid, and you some sort of exception to the rule? The reason belief persists is because people through christ interact with God everyday. I will grant you that there are those who pretend and say one thing and do another, but all in all. Christianity would have died out like every other religion if God was not apart of it.

Of course, that is not what God is. God is hateful, spiteful, jealous, cruel, and as of the New Testament, emotionally manipulative. God made men with flaws, then made rules he knew they could not hold to, and spent centuries directly slaughtering them in response to behavior he knew was coming. He is a kid who set up a sandcastle just so he could enjoy knocking it down and hearing the screams of the dying. Then, at some point, he decides to 'forgive' us for being made flawed, and demands that we thank him for that.

Another example of flawed reasoning.
In short form; God gave us choice, but the very act of choosing disqualified us from being with God. Then he provided attonement so all that is left is the choice we made in this life.

No sane person would willingly worship a God like that, this is why the bulk of his followers have redefined him so that he has the best of human qualities.

I disagree, God has been redefined so people who have their own Ideas of what God is supposed to be do not have to give up everything they think they know inorder to serve God.

The God which really exists in the Bible would have been relegated to obscurity long ago because you can only worship that kind of being out of fear, and that fear can no longer hold because we know that natural disasters are not God's wrath.

Not true. I've been to the gates of Hell and seen what can be done and know the pain we are slated for. I do not worship god because i fear Him I worship God because He showed me the boundless Love He offers all of us.

Fear is only the beginning of wisdom/knoweledge of God. It is NOT the reason we love and worship Him. Meaning we may start out in fear, but God will take our hands and show us their is nothing to be afraid of.

We know now that plagues are not his punishment.

They can be.

We know this because there is no pattern, no correlation.

Pharroh/Moses would proably disagree.

Worship of the true form of God is now reserved for hateful bigots, racists, misogynists and apocalyptic lunatics like you.

Ryan said to the mixed breed man..