Can you describe your god objectively?

Originally posted by dystoniac
Yes, I agree with you, and that is where faith comes in. Works without faith mean nothing. Faith means EVERYTHING because without it, Christianity would have never founded. This is the essence of Christianity: one MUST have absolute faith in Jesus; without it, all the good one does means nothing. Eternal life is a gift. The only way to accept this gif ...[text shortened]... or not. Don't take my word for it. The Bible is clear about the way to eternal life. Peace.

Sounds remarkably close to self delusion to me.

And by the way the Bible is far from clear (as is obvious in this forum) and I find no reason to consider it a more trustworthy source than you.

What is interesting is that my own reading of the Bible leads me to believe that Jesus' message was far different from yours. I got the impression that Jesus thought people should do good because it was good not in order to buy your way into heaven. You seem to be saying that if you help your neighbor then you are wasting your time unless you have faith in Jesus and thus get yourself eternal life. I think both your neighbor and Jesus would think differently.

Originally posted by Agerg
For all the attrbutes you hold to be true about your god(s), do you ever think about them objectively or do you define everything using your god as a reference point to determine the magnitude of another creatures attributes?

For example, if I defined a milliwob to be an entity that is perfectly good/moral/etc... then for any action it performs these action ...[text shortened]... t using tautologies such as "He has perfect judgement, perfect morals, is without sin etc..."?

God is.

Originally posted by Agerg
I focused on them points because you can objectively define what is say, a perfect plan, or omnipotence, omniscience (doing so might encourage such people as myself to then look for counter-examples to such definitions), but I can't see how god's morality, goodness etc... can be measured objectively Also I find that talking about God as being sinless to be abs en I would find myself conceiving a more powerful god that could circumvent such bounds.

Unless of course your god's omnipotence is bounded with respect to what can or can't be done. But then I would find myself conceiving a more powerful god that could circumvent such bounds.

What God cannot do is fail to be consistent with His own nature. If we define omnipotence as the power to do anything, including violating one's own nature, then God is definitely not omnipotent.

Originally posted by rwingett
Interesting. If you renounce god's moral perfection it would pretty much circumnavigate the problem of evil. The question then becomes - is a morally imperfect god worthy of worship? Does this theodicy leave you with too little left?

If you renounce god's moral perfection it would pretty much circumnavigate the problem of evil.

I'm not sure what you mean by God's "moral perfection," and therefore can't tell you whether I've renounced it or not. "Moral perfection" sounds more like a human achievement than one of God's eternal attributes. EDIT: I do not deny that God is morally blameless.

What I do renounce is the notion that God has not, does not, cannot, and will not cause harm. If we define "perfect goodness" or "omni-benevolence" as the inability to cause harm, then God cannot be called, "perfectly good." As I pointed out, a holy God must be a God of judgment Who holds accountable those who transgress His holy law. As such, a holy God must of necessity cause harm. And therefore, a "perfectly good" God Who is incapable of causing harm cannot also be holy.

Further, it wasn't my intention to circumnavigate the problem of evil.

The question then becomes - is a morally imperfect god worthy of worship?

A "morally imperfect" god is not worthy of worship; neither is a "perfectly good" god worthy of worship; but a "holy" God certainly is.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Unless of course your god's omnipotence is bounded with respect to what can or can't be done. But then I would find myself conceiving a more powerful god that could circumvent such bounds.

What God cannot do is fail to be consistent with His own nature. If we define omnipotence as the power to do anything, including violating one's own nature, then God is definitely not omnipotent.[/b]

Interesting...and who or what determined that which should be the nature of your god? Are there forces/agents in play behind the scenes that prevent your god from being different to say, how you suppose it should be?

Originally posted by josephw
God is.

yeah cheers for that Josephw....nice one

Originally posted by Agerg
Interesting...who or what determined that which should be the nature of your god?

As others pointed out, God is Who He is, i.e., nobody determined what His nature should be.

What we know about God, however, only God Himself could reveal.

Originally posted by Agerg
Interesting...and who or what determined that which should be the nature of your god? Are there forces/agents in play behind the scenes that prevent your god from being different to say, how you suppose it should be?

Are there forces/agents in play behind the scenes that prevent your god from being different to say, how you suppose it should be?

Outside of God's nature, no.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
As others pointed out, God is Who He is, i.e., nobody determined what His nature should be.

What we know about God, however, only God Himself could reveal.

So then presumably, you aren't exactly sure what exactly is your god's nature; and thus might be taking a step too far when you say that your god performing some action(s) may be in violation of its nature?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
As I pointed out, a holy God must be a God of judgment Who holds accountable those who transgress His holy law. As such, a holy God must of necessity cause harm. And therefore, a "perfectly good" God Who is incapable of causing harm cannot also be holy.

I have long struggled with this question. What purpose does punishment (or any form of judgment) serve if it is not:
1. Revenge.
2. An attempt at discouraging repeat behavior.
3. An attempt at discouraging copy cat behavior.

I find some people have this notion that 'an eye for an eye' justice system or a 'tally book of sins' justice system is the natural order of things which requires no further explanation.
What does it mean to be 'accountable'?

I think you mentioned before that God will not allow sin into heaven, but I don't really see how that ties up with justice.

I also do not see how forgiveness can be compatible with a 'tally book' system of justice.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You post seems to focus on the moral aspect of God, e.g., "perfectly good/moral/without sin, etc...." Is this intentional?

I can tell you that the God of the Bible is not perfectly good. If we define a "perfectly good" being as someone who never causes harm, God simply cannot fit that bill. For example, God has on many occasions ordered the deaths ...[text shortened]... ent whatsoever, since to do so would necessarily entail the imposition of suffering.

epiphinehas: Being holy, God cannot abide the presence of sin.

If I understand your theology correctly, sin is disobeying God. Thus, God merely can't abide anyone disobeying him and is perfectly willing to make those who do disobey him suffer. How does this make him worthy of worship? It seems to be simple cruelty directed towards beings who are infinitely inferior to God, no more morally justified than pulling the wings off of flies (probably far less justified).

Originally posted by Agerg
So then presumably, you aren't exactly sure what exactly [b]is your god's nature; and thus might be taking a step too far when you say that your god performing some action(s) may be in violation of its nature?[/b]

So then presumably, you aren't exactly sure what exactly [b]is your god's nature...[/b]

I ascertain God's attributes by reading the Bible, for I believe that it is the inspired word of God. What assurance I derive from what I find there is dependent upon the amount of faith which I possess.

...and thus might be taking a step too far when you say that your god performing some action(s) may be in violation of its nature?

It would help if you could provide an example.

The Bible says that "it is impossible for God to lie' (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). This reveals an important element of God's nature: that He cannot lie. If God were to lie, then he would be violating that nature.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
So then presumably, you aren't exactly sure what exactly [b]is your god's nature...[/b]

I ascertain God's attributes from reading the Bible, for I believe that it is the inspired word of God. What assurance I derive from what I find there is dependent upon the faith which I possess.

...and thus might be taking a step too far when you say s nature: that He cannot lie. If God were to lie, then he would be violating that nature.

Assuming your god wrote/inspired the writing of the Bible, what if he lied when he wrote/inspired it?...what if he is very capable of lying but said he isn't, say for your benefit?

Do the Bible passages you allude to describe the mechanism via which one such as myself (or better still, someone who cares less eiter way) could determine it plausible that your god absolutely cannot lie?

Originally posted by Agerg
Assuming your god wrote/inspired the writing of the Bible, what if he lied when he wrote/inspired it?...what if he is very capable of lying but said he isn't, say for your benefit?

Do the Bible passages you allude to describe the mechanism via which one such as myself (or better still, someone who cares less eiter way) could determine it plausible that your god absolutely cannot lie?

Assuming your god wrote/inspired the writing of the Bible, what if he lied when he wrote/inspired it?...what if he is very capable of lying but said he isn't, say for your benefit?

I don't understand the significance of this line of questioning.

Do the Bible passages you allude to describe the mechanism via which one such as myself (or better still, someone who cares less eiter way) could determine it plausible that your god absolutely cannot lie?

Not explicitly, but faith is implied.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]Assuming your god wrote/inspired the writing of the Bible, what if he lied when he wrote/inspired it?...what if he is very capable of lying but said he isn't, say for your benefit?

I don't understand the significance of this line of questioning.

Do the Bible passages you allude to describe the mechanism via which one such as myself (or be ...[text shortened]... it plausible that your god absolutely cannot lie?

Not explicitly, but faith is implied.[/b]

"I don't understand the significance of this line of questioning."
The idea of him betraying his own nature by lying would be a none issue if your assumption that he absolutely couldn't lie was false...and it would be false if your god lied when he said he couldn't lie!...
As for his reasons for lying? why do any of us lie?! perhaps he saw that the consequences of you knowing or wondering if he could lie were far worse than the consequences of any lies he told you. (assuming that an omnipotent god does actually have to face any consequences for lying that is)...perhaps something else

(I'm assuming the existence of a god purely for arguments sake btw!)