CHISTIANS PLEASE EXPLAIN

[truthBtold]

Hi Lek.

If I may. I'm coming at this from a (broadly) Christian perspective and I still have a problem with it. Perhaps you can help me.

1. An offense against God is more serious than one against people is a concept I understand. However I see little consistency. Many of God's prophets were abused and attacked (as you said) but only occasionally is retribution forthcoming. Why was a bit of mockery of the prophets baldness deserving of such punishment. Bear in in mind that if they'd just seen him walking up the road then they had no way to know that he even was a prophet.

2. The God I know, from the NT is as you say a merciful God. Do you have any trouble reconciling the God who deals so fairly with the woman at the well and who asks God to forgive the soldiers who nailed the son of God himself to a cross, with the one who kills 42 youths for making a crack about somebody being bald. Does it seem consistent to you?

I'll try to answer your questions the best I can as to my understanding and it's hard to do in a few words. I'll acknowledge that at first read it appears that God is inconsistent. First of all I feel the best way for people today to understand the entire bible is to begin in the new testament and then study the old testament. The reason I say this is that salvation comes from faith in Christ and the new testament contains the story of his life, death and resurection as well the testimonies of those who walked with him, listened to him and witnessed the events which were written about. If you believe that Jesus is the incaration of God, then you will believe his testimony concerning his father. Concerning the God of the old testament, if you read the first and second chpters of the book of Romans, Paul shows at great length why everybody who ever lived is worthy of God's wrath, the same as Adam, because we also sinned against God. God told Adam in the garden that if he ate of the tree of good and evil he would surely die. God was rougher in the old testament which was before Jesus' atoning death on the cross. His justice was being carried and it was fierce, but it was all to unravel his plan to make the ultimate sacrifice for us to avoid the final act of justice which was eternal death, culminating in Jesus taking upon himself athe wrath of God. He saved us from the punishment we were facing. The bible ends with the final victory over evil and the creation of the new earth which will be inhabited by those who accept his gift. It's like "paradise lost and paradise restored." Why God acted the way he did I don't understand, but according to his son who paid the penalty for us I believe that is he loving and just. We can't totally understand God, but we can know Jesus and believe him.
[/quote]

In ur bible it says god doesnt change.. how could u say that he was rougher in the old testament before jesus? U ever hear of preordained?? Jesus was one the waitng list, waiting for his calling..

[Lek]

What I do want to do though, is to correct what I see as misinterpretations of the bible and give explanations according to my opinion and christian scholars as to the meaning. We obviously disagree, but this a forum for discussion. Isn't that what we're here for? I'm going to respond shortly to the second part of your post.

When you say 'misinterpretations', what do you actually mean? Since we have know way of knowing what the real meaning is, you can only dispute another's interpretation based on your own interpretation.

Your interpretation has no greater claim to correctness than mine.

I'd have to go with the interpretation after careful study down through the centuries. But you're right, except that we believe, and this is what scripture says, that we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting it. I and I also acknowledge that you will reject that notion.

---

[quote='Lek' pid='581773' dateline='1389567967']

In ur bible it says god doesnt change.. how could u say that he was rougher in the old testament before jesus? U ever hear of preordained?? Jesus was one the waitng list, waiting for his calling..

If we act differently on one occassion than another, it doesn't change who or what we are, it's just responding differently to different times and situations.

[Drich]

If God is omnipotent, then it is never necessary for him not to be omnibenevolent.

why?

Cruelties are only ever forgivable if they are strictly necessary. For God, none of his cruelties can be necessary.

why?

If we have the understanding that unnecessary cruelties are indicative of evil, then God is evil.

who here has the authority to deem an act or happenstance cruel? Truly without omnipotence, who can say the suffering of a potion of the population or even of an individual is not without Merritt or does not serve the greater good?

---

Where does the bible or God claim Omni benevolence?

Isn't the opposite of that "capricious"?

No, there is no opposite of the bible not making a claim. It is just an observation.

Is the opposite of Omni benevolence capriciousness? Again no. The doctrine of Omni benevolence dictates God has the capacity and obligation to provide all the needs of his followers out of a sense of this all encompassing selfless love, and what is not stated in the doctrine but expected by believers and non believers as well is that we get to judge God performance via what has been provided.

The opposite of that is sovereign authority. (Being the alpha and omega) Meaning God get to decide what He will and will not do, based on the what He Himself has identified as His Character traits, and not what we have assigned him from what was left over from the worship of Greek gods.

[Mudhammam]

who here has the authority to deem an act or happenstance cruel? Truly without omnipotence, who can say the suffering of a potion of the population or even of an individual is not without Merritt or does not serve the greater good?

Um, people? We decide what actions have value as means to an end and those which are gratuitous. Slicing a child's stomach open for fun = happenstance cruel. Doing so to perform a life-saving surgery is quite different. It's usually not that complicated.

[Drich]

who here has the authority to deem an act or happenstance cruel? Truly without omnipotence, who can say the suffering of a potion of the population or even of an individual is not without Merritt or does not serve the greater good?

Um, people? We decide what actions have value as means to an end and those which are gratuitous. Slicing a child's stomach open for fun = happenstance cruel. Doing so to perform a life-saving surgery is quite different. It's usually not that complicated.

So something like killing a baby is ALWAYS wrong?

[Ryantology]

If God is omnipotent, then it is never necessary for him not to be omnibenevolent.

why?

Omnipotence and omniscience makes necessity invalid. God can, literally, do anything he wants. If he wanted to be completely benevolent, he could be, and everything would still work precisely the way he wants it to. Your god has to make the conscious decision to be cruel and murderous, and the only logical explanation is a desire to see the results of such decisions.

Cruelties are only ever forgivable if they are strictly necessary. For God, none of his cruelties can be necessary.

why?

See above.

who here has the authority to deem an act or happenstance cruel? Truly without omnipotence, who can say the suffering of a potion of the population or even of an individual is not without Merritt or does not serve the greater good?

If your god has omni-qualities, then happenstance never enters the equation. Everything, even the most unlikely events, happens strictly according to his plans. After all, "the greater good" can be accomplished by any means when an omni-being is at work. Suffering cannot, by definition, be necessary given that. It is absolutely impossible.

Either God is not omnipotent and omniscient, and certain events are beyond his control, or he is and he either deliberately causes death and suffering intentionally or allows it to happen through neglect. There is literally no third option. You want your cake and eat it too, but you simply cannot.

And don't bore me with Plantinga's defense. It's amateur-hour horseshit a ten year old could pick apart.

[Esquilax]

who here has the authority to deem an act or happenstance cruel? Truly without omnipotence, who can say the suffering of a potion of the population or even of an individual is not without Merritt or does not serve the greater good?

Oh, so nobody can ever make determinations about things without knowing everything?

Okay, cool: since you don't know everything, you can't make any determinations about god, and thus none of us need to listen to another thing you say ever again. Sweet.

The part that really gets to me about this bullshit "greater plan" defense is that it's so clearly biased, because you don't want us discarding everything anyone without omnipotence says. You just want them discarding anything that disagrees with what you want to be true. That's why you conveniently left out the fact that you yourself wouldn't have the authority to label such acts morally just, under this definition.

Dishonesty: the calling card of the christian apologist.

[max-greece]

Dishonesty: the calling card of the christian apologist.

I like to think of it as self-deception more than outright dishonesty but otherwise - great post.

[Mudhammam]

Um, people? We decide what actions have value as means to an end and those which are gratuitous. Slicing a child's stomach open for fun = happenstance cruel. Doing so to perform a life-saving surgery is quite different. It's usually not that complicated.

So something like killing a baby is ALWAYS wrong?

ALWAYS? I wouldn't say so but in many instances? Sure.

[Chas]

When you say 'misinterpretations', what do you actually mean? Since we have know way of knowing what the real meaning is, you can only dispute another's interpretation based on your own interpretation.

Your interpretation has no greater claim to correctness than mine.

I'd have to go with the interpretation after careful study down through the centuries. But you're right, except that we believe, and this is what scripture says, that we have the guidance of the Holy Spirit in interpreting it. I and I also acknowledge that you will reject that notion.

---

It's not that I reject that notion, it's that I don't accept it because you have no evidence to support your belief.