Originally posted by no1marauderIf 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?
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 w ...[text shortened]... d, no more morally justified than pulling the wings off of flies (probably far less justified).
God is worthy of worship as He is in Himself - the Truth. That God holds people accountable for their actions and beliefs is merely part and parcel of Who He is, and not in itself the reason God is worthy of worship.
Originally posted by AgergWhat basis is there for your assumption that God is capable of lying?
[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 co ...[text shortened]... aps something else
(I'm assuming the existence of a god purely for arguments sake btw!)[/b]
Originally posted by epiphinehasThis is drivel but it's pretty obvious that a logical answer will not be forthcoming.
[b]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?
God is worthy of worship as He is in Himself - the Truth. That God holds people accountable for their actions and beliefs is merely part and parcel of Who He is, and not in itself the reason God is worthy of worship.[/b]
Originally posted by twhiteheadGod chastises (disciplines, punishes, restrains, chastens, refines, purifies) His people, i.e., those who are 'born again' through faith in His Son, Jesus Christ; "The Lord disciplines the one he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives" (Hebrews 12:6). This kind of punishment is indeed correctional and formative. God's chastisement may be unpleasant, but the ends justify the means (a holy character is produced).
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 na ...[text shortened]... lso do not see how forgiveness can be compatible with a 'tally book' system of justice.
On the other hand, the punishment reserved for unrepentant sinners, those who refuse to come under the headship of Jesus Christ, is not correctional.
__________
My time is short right now, so I can't get to your other concerns quite yet. Apologies.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou asked how God's willingness to make those who disobey Him suffer makes Him worthy of worship.
This is drivel but it's pretty obvious that a logical answer will not be forthcoming.
My answer: it doesn't. God is worthy of worship for Who He is. Is it too much to expect you to understand this? I don't think so.
Originally posted by epiphinehasWhat basis is there for your assumption that God is capable of lying?
What basis is there for your assumption that God is capable of lying?
That I don't trust your Bible 🙂 and that if there does exist some entity that lies eyond my ability to perceive, detect, measure etc... I see no reason to assume it has any of the definitions you or anyone else attach to it.
Originally posted by AgergFair enough.
[b]What basis is there for your assumption that God is capable of lying?
That I don't trust your Bible 🙂 and that if there does exist some entity that lies eyond my ability to perceive, detect, measure etc... I see no reason to assume it has any of the definitions you or anyone else attach to it.[/b]
Originally posted by epiphinehasSo having answered your questions...would it really be violating gods nature by lying if it were actually true that god could indeed lie, ie: some of what he wrote or inspired others to write were lies? (the reason he lies he may think it best he kept to himself)
Fair enough.
Originally posted by AgergI suppose not. It wouldn't violate God's nature to lie if God is by nature a liar.
So having answered your questions...would it really be violating gods nature by lying if it were actually true that god could indeed lie, ie: some of what he wrote or inspired others to write were lies? (the reason he lies he may think it best he kept to himself)
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou quote me out of context. What I meant was that no matter how much good that one does in this evil world, one will not inherit the Kingdom of God unless one accepts Jesus Christ as Savior. Helping one's neighbor is not a waste of time; where did I say that? Jesus stated that helping one's neighbor is good, giving to the poor is good, and loving one's neighbor as one's self is good.
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 ...[text shortened]... d thus get yourself eternal life. I think both your neighbor and Jesus would think differently.
I may be delusional, but I am blissfully delusional.
I am not a Bible scholar, so I defer...except what I DO know...Peace.
If I can recast Agerg’s opening question in more abstract terms—
I. If I claim that George has, and perhaps can even be in some way defined by, a certain attribute X, you have to understand what X means before you can agree or disagree that George demonstrates said attribute. For example, to say that George is just, we have to have some notion of what behaving justly entails. Only after (1) defining what acting justly entails, and then (2) measuring George’s behavior against such criteria can one say whether, and to what degree, George can be said to have the attribute of justness.
This seems unproblematic if (big “if” ) we can objectively state, and agree upon, what being just entails. Then anyone whose behavior fits the terms can be said to have the attribute of being just.
II. If, on the other hand, one simply says something like “George is by definition perfectly just”, then George’s behavior becomes a kind of template for deciding whether anyone else’s behavior should be considered just. The answer to the question “What entails being just?” is simply, “Whatever George does/would do.”
But, here, “just” becomes no more than a kind of shorthand for “whatever George does/would do”. (As Agerg says, it is simple tautology.) I could just as well say that George is “ishpric”, and when asked what “ishpric” means, respond by saying that it is the attribute of George-behavior. In other words, the word “just” has no normative content at all—since I don’t know what “just” means, other than that it’s “what George does/would do”, I have no idea whether that’s a positive trait, worthy of either respect or emulation, or not.
At that point, we’re back to the problem of just what “just” (or “ishpric” ) entails. Otherwise, any claims about such attributes—X, or being just, or being “ishpric”—are simply vacuous. And failure either to define what attribute X entails—for George or Tim or anyone else—or to simply admit the vacuity, leads to what SwissGambit has labeled “bizarro speech”.
Agerg’s question, it seems to me, boils down to asking theists if they can talk about their god-concepts without resorting to vacuous tautologies (and, I would add, question-begging circularity) or incomprehensible bizarro-speech. It is, in a sense, a gauntlet thrown down.
________________________________________
EDIT: All of this would also apply to Epi's comment about God being worthy of worship because he is "the Truth".
Originally posted by vistesdIt must be noted though that even though the word being used does not tell us anything about George in this context, if one uses a word that means something else in other contexts one can fool people into thinking that George has certain properties. When people use God as a definition they frequently use words that people already hold in high esteem.
II. If, on the other hand, one simply says something like “George is by definition perfectly just”, then George’s behavior becomes a kind of template for deciding whether anyone else’s behavior should be considered just. The answer to the question “What entails being just?” is simply, “Whatever George does/would do.”
Originally posted by epiphinehasBeing holy, God cannot abide the presence of sin.
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.
The Hebrew notion of holiness (kedushah), as used in the Torah, is not really a moral term—and so whether or not God can “abide the presence of sin” (whatever you mean by that) does not follow from “being holy” (kadosh).
I only call you on that because I have seen that statement (or similar ones) many times; and it is strictly incorrect. The Hebrew term for justice is tzedekah; a just person is a tzaddik.
I should also note that kedushah is , and has been, perfectly compatible with Jewish versions of non-dualism—a very broad and ancient and “orthodox” stream in Judaism—and does not presume dualistic theism. The “separateness” implied by kedushah need not be seen as an ontological separateness, and the world itself is infused with kedushah.
Originally posted by twhiteheadAgreed. I would have to ask: "But what does X mean--in this context, in that context, etc.?"
It must be noted though that even though the word being used does not tell us anything about George in this context, if one uses a word that means something else in other contexts one can fool people into thinking that George has certain properties. When people use God as a definition they frequently use words that people already hold in high esteem.