Originally posted by LemonJelloRight, God being God gets to do whatever God wants, because...well, he is
I'm not the one having trouble here, and I think you just continue to dodge the actual issue.
You have espoused a view on God's rights that in essence says that God has the right to do whatever with His creation for whatever reason at all. It follows naturally that God has the right to line up a bunch of Jewish persons and to execute them for no other ...[text shortened]... it your way: for all you know, it may simply be to bring Himself some kicks and giggles.
God after all. Now why God does things He does will lay behind what God
wanted to do when He started the universe. You again, attempt to belittle
God in life or death as if God does have the right or power to choose when
life starts or when it ends. NO HUMAN has that at their finger tips, but you
want to reduce what God does to that of a mere human.
Kelly
3 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayLemonJello is not implying the God is human. He is asking if God meets acceptable standards or can be used to provide us with standards.
Right, God being God gets to do whatever God wants, because...well, he is
God after all. Now why God does things He does will lay behind what God
wanted to do when He started the universe. You again, attempt to belittle
God in life or death as if God does have the right or power to choose when
life starts or when it ends. NO HUMAN has that at their finger tips, but you
want to reduce what God does to that of a mere human.
Kelly
You have written:
Having choices is freedom, not picking something just out of ... the why gets into good and evil. You need a standard by which to judge, if we don't have one we are all bound by, than none is so important we should all care about it; however, if there is...than good will be something we can judge by it. God being the standard sets the bar very high.
Lemonjello is reasonably asking you to explain what this standard represents given the narrative of the Bible and you are failing to respond logically. It is all very well to say we can never know what God's purposes might be - that is something like what I referred to in the Book of Job. But that fails to explain how we are to comply with a standard in this life and how that standard is to gain general acceptance, in your words, "one we are all bound by."
In effect, if God's standards are beyond our comprehension then they cannot be a useful standard for us unless, like Alexander the Great and others, we decide that we are gods, which somehow fails to satisfy unless everyone else agrees that we are. Then if we are all gods and everyone agrees, we have no standards, only arbitrary whims.
The Old Testament did not initially set out to argue that God was Just or anything else. Christians have imported the ideas of Plato, with its insistence on a higher, ideal standard which can ultimately be equated by Christians with their ideal notion of what God must be. The resulting tension with the account given in the Bible is glaringly obvious.
Your counter that
One thing is sure none of us in this life that is will live forever. So from this I say that you cannot charge God with murder or anything else since He is the One that set the rule down in the first place on life and death, it is His to do with as He wills not us.does not satisfy even most Christians. At best, you might say that God in the Bible does murder people but that is okay since he then gives them compensation in the afterlife, but compensation demands a wrong before it can be described that way. A more coherent counter was suggested by Sumydid:
God can do all the things you said, and much, much worse if He wants. His sandbox. But, if He is a God worthy of praise and love, He won't do those things; and of course all the things you mentioned are hypothetical because God has never done anything remotely close to those arbitrary acts of torture and murder.His second clause fails to convince those like LemonJello and myself who can read what is in the Bible and say he is wrong - God has been described doing unjust and arbitrary things and we have given examples - certainly I have. However we can ignore the Bible and look at history to see that dreadful stuff has kept happening and cries out for an answer if you insist on your account of God as the designer and cause of everything. As Darwin observed, if God designed all the horrible, vicious things we see about us, and there are many to choose from, then He is not really very attractive at all, let alone "worthy of praise and love" No - He is worthy of severe complaint!
One way to evade this problem is to refer to sin:
The sin's God was dealing with seems to be left out of your account here, I guess if you want to call the human race a total victim in all of this that makes sense; however, if mankind is accountable for His/hers actions than justice seems to scream for God's interaction.was Suzianne's offer. However, this only really seems credible as applied to our fate in an afterlife since all the evidence shows it is not credible for events in this life. So we are getting into a complete quandary looking in the Bible for a credible set of standards we can all be bound by (your words again).
I suspect that like FreakyKBH you are reliant on the claim that it is impossible to devise any standards at all that are not flawed and empty, so we are left to abandon reason and turn to blind faith. Naturally, while many agree with this position, they turn to such a bewildering diversity of objects for their blind faith that they cause endless difficulty in human history, while wailing that all would be well if only everyone agreed with their particular obsession and if everyone who disagreed was, ideally, burned alive.
Originally posted by finneganTo get God's standards just ask, WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?
LemonJello is not implying the God is human. He is asking if God meets acceptable standards or can be used to provide us with standards.
You have written: [quote]Having choices is freedom, not picking something just out of ... the why gets into good and evil. You need a standard by which to judge, if we don't have one we are all bound by, than none is s ...[text shortened]... their particular obsession and if everyone who disagreed was, ideally, burned alive.
3 edits
Originally posted by RJHindsGreat. In an acute ward of a children's hospital we have to make a difficult decision about the types of treatment to offer a seriously ill child. Each has implications which mean that they might affect its quality of life, some entail possible severe and prolonged pain, it is not evident that the child can give fully informed consent owing to its age and poor health, but it can be talked with carefully, unfortunately each option also has very big resource implications, including the competing needs of other children on the same ward and a long queue of others who desperately need to be admitted for the highly specialised services only available here. If nothing is done the child will certainly die. However, it might die slowly and painfully or quickly depending how it is handled.
To get God's standards just ask, WHAT WOULD JESUS DO?
One parent is a Muslim, one is a Hindu. The consultants are variously evangelical Christian, a Hindu, and an atheist, the key nurses are practising or lapsed Catholics, the child's counsellor is a mild mannered Buddhist but we are not sure how seriously or what type. You are the ethical expert for the day. Your task is to tell them that having considered their various opinions and concerns you have decided to ask what would Jesus do. Then they will do what you consider that Jesus would do if he had lived another 2,000 years and got his head around things.
That'll work.
(You should see some of the documentaries showing such decisions being made before making trite assumptions about the ethical complexity of such a place.)
Of course in an American hospital you would need an accountant and advice about the small print of the family's insurance policy, something not relevant in an English NHS hospital. Apparently the ethics of insurance are pretty central to Americans, what with individual freedom and all that, and Americans seem pretty confident that this is how Jesus would want things to be. Happily, in England Jesus is a socialist, though he is currently consulting the American Jesus on the matter of health care and seems to be shifting a bit. Fact is that He never seemed to have a lot of interest in politics. Another vast area of life in which some imaginative reading is necessary.
Originally posted by finneganCongress from time to time will write a law and they don't have to obey it. With
LemonJello is not implying the God is human. He is asking if God meets acceptable standards or can be used to provide us with standards.
You have written: [quote]Having choices is freedom, not picking something just out of ... the why gets into good and evil. You need a standard by which to judge, if we don't have one we are all bound by, than none is s ...[text shortened]... their particular obsession and if everyone who disagreed was, ideally, burned alive.
life and death God sets the rules, and can as He sees fit change them. I again
point out that God not only created life but keeps all the universe in working order,
man does not do that. If you body stops healing itself you'll die, if your body stops
functioning you'll die, your life and times are completely in God's hands. As this is
true for eveyone at all time without exception, how can you say that God can be
held in error if He acts one way or another, it is all up to Him? If you find some
deaths okay and others not, why would you think that, did someone promise
things were going to be different for one and not another?
Kelly
Originally posted by finnegan"Lemonjello is reasonably asking you to explain what this standard represents given the narrative of the Bible and you are failing to respond logically. It is all very well to say we can never know what God's purposes might be - that is something like what I referred to in the Book of Job. But that fails to explain how we are to comply with a standard in this life and how that standard is to gain general acceptance, in your words, "one we are all bound by."
LemonJello is not implying the God is human. He is asking if God meets acceptable standards or can be used to provide us with standards.
You have written: [quote]Having choices is freedom, not picking something just out of ... the why gets into good and evil. You need a standard by which to judge, if we don't have one we are all bound by, than none is s ...[text shortened]... their particular obsession and if everyone who disagreed was, ideally, burned alive.
The standard, as what was pass down through scripture, what we are all aware of,
who gets the last say on all disputes? God is going to judge us by what we are all
aware of, we will have no excuse before God. You can go to God's Word or your
own and you will still end up falling short. We had one rule where at the beginning
where we came up short, we had OT law where we came up short, we have grace
where we rely completely on God not our selves, and that is where we are saved.
If you reject the call of who so ever will come to God, you have no excuse.
I do believe we are all aware of right and wrong, I like CS Lewis work "Mere
Christianity" where he says we always credit ourselves for the good things we do
and come up with excuses for the bad, which means we know the difference.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayI submit that you yourself are a counter to Lewis’ claim here (whether or not you always were, you are now). I have never known you to excuse your (rare!) bad behavior on here. I strongly suspect that is true of the rest of your life as you now live it. I trust that you will agree that I also have not been known to excuse my own (perhaps less rare) bad behavior on here—behavior of which you have once or twice been, in every case unfairly, the target. We have known each other for so many years!
"Lemonjello is reasonably asking you to explain what this standard represents given the narrative of the Bible and you are failing to respond logically. It is all very well to say we can never know what God's purposes might be - that is something like what I referred to in the Book of Job. But that fails to explain how we are to comply with a standard in th s we do
and come up with excuses for the bad, which means we know the difference.
Kelly
So, both theists (such as yourself) and non-theists (such as myself) are capable of both identifying and refusing to excuse for themselves acts of “bad behavior”—from the viewpoint of differing standards (yours Christian, mine more Buddhist—or just that nagging feeling of “conscience”, whatever that actually may be). I can already “hear” you, dear old friend, beginning to declaim about the source (recognized or not) of that nagging “conscience” (whatever that might actually be). 🙂 We will disagree of course.
Note: This post is only in response to that Lewis quote.
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdI'm not suggesting that only Christians hear this good or bad behavior little voice
I submit that you yourself are a counter to Lewis’ claim here (whether or not you always were, you are now). I have never known you to excuse your (rare!) bad behavior on here. I strongly suspect that is true of the rest of your life as you now live it. I trust that you will agree that I also have not been known to excuse my own (perhaps les ...[text shortened]... ). 🙂 We will disagree of course.
Note: This post is only in response to that Lewis quote.
or however we wish to describe this knowledge. I believe it is a human trait we all
share, and being Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or even an Athiest would grasp that,
but I'm sure there are the very rare that do not. If I came across suggesting that
was the case where we didn't share that my bad. Personally, I believe God has a
great deal to do with that, but I'm sure others have other ideas on the matter.
With respect to good or bad behavior, I have my fair share of bad and in the midst
of it I'm trully in the midst of it with my excuses, reasons, my justifcation for it. It
is when I stop and take a look where I have gone and done do I know I have to
turn around and repent or try to make things right. I'm not suggesting I'm always
going to see the bad and react correctly I wish I could, but a lot of times our
own rightousness blinds us to the logs in our own eyes as we look at others.
Thanks for you kind words too.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOur faith in Christ is the only righteousness we have, my brother.
I'm not suggesting that only Christians hear this good or bad behavior little voice
or however we wish to describe this knowledge. I believe it is a human trait we all
share, and being Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or even an Athiest would grasp that,
but I'm sure there are the very rare that do not. If I came across suggesting that
was the case where we ...[text shortened]... o the logs in our own eyes as we look at others.
Thanks for you kind words too.
Kelly
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdError deleted. Please ignore. 😛
I submit that you yourself are a counter to Lewis’ claim here (whether or not you always were, you are now). I have never known you to excuse your (rare!) bad behavior on here. I strongly suspect that is true of the rest of your life as you now live it. I trust that you will agree that I also have not been known to excuse my own (perhaps les ...[text shortened]... ). 🙂 We will disagree of course.
Note: This post is only in response to that Lewis quote.
Originally posted by RJHindsYes, our faith in Christ is the only righteousness I rely on before God, not my
Our faith in Christ is the only righteousness we have, my brother.
HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! Holy! Holy! Holy!
own. I was just stressing the point that we still protect our own even when we
should not from time to time and just admit we were wrong.
Kelly
4 edits
Originally posted by KellyJayI do not dispute that, to a Christian for example, scripture is their source for confidence in a final judgement and an after life. That represents a standard in the religious sense without getting hung up on what it actually contains. Nor would I insist that by living in accordance with a purely human / philosophically derived set of standards, anyone could rest assured of their eventual salvation in any afterlife.
"Lemonjello is reasonably asking you to explain what this standard represents given the narrative of the Bible and you are failing to respond logically. It is all very well to say we can never know what God's purposes might be - that is something like what I referred to in the Book of Job. But that fails to explain how we are to comply with a standard in th s we do
and come up with excuses for the bad, which means we know the difference.
Kelly
People who attempt to live their mortal lives in accordance with scripture do, as a historical fact, discover many difficulties interpreting what is required of them in their own scripture. This is reflected in the great diversity of (at least often) honestly intended but often bitterly disputed theological battles over time and the very serious differences in the social and moral teaching of different Christians over time. (Think only of the conflict between the Vatican stamping down on "Liberation Theology" in South and Central America as one of countless examples.)
What I argue, and this thread argues, is that the use of terms in religious teaching often conflicts with the widely accepted intentions of society at large when using the same terms in the context of politics and social life.
There is no major religion that does not have at its heart a variant of the Golden Rule, not to do to others what you would not wish them to do to you. Philosophically, it also has a good reputation as a foundation stone for an acceptable social life. This and other features give me great confidence that humanity can rely on many shared values and that a democratic and open, inclusive society is possible which tolerates all faiths and none. However, one of many enemies to an open society is a theocratic appeal to authoritarian, exclusive and oppressive values, and that can often come draped in the sugary language of a religion where terms are misused as part of a programme to confuse and disarm ordinary people into abandoning their opportunity for a fair society.
Your reference to standards in relation to a final judgement in an after life is not to be confused with our search for standards that can be widely accepted and applied in society. You may hold the view that they can and should be compatible, while I may hold the view that you are seriously mistaken, and we may argue the toss over that, but they are not the same thing and do not have the same objectives. They just use many of the same words to mean different things and that is a problem.
Originally posted by LemonJelloIt's hard to understand what atheist's and theist's definition of love is. Some say I love my dog, I love my wife, I love ice cream....really? Would you equate loving your wife with loving your dog?
Theistic systems can seem to pervert very basic terms. (Note I'm not claiming here that this is true of all theistic systems.) Here are some examples, in reference to some mainstream Christian beliefs.
[b]'Love'.
It's hard to understand what many theists mean by 'love', given that their belief that God is loving must be read as consistent with ...[text shortened]... ould like some clarification from interested theists on this, please.[/b]
At least the bible definition is much more descriptive, there is "phileo" love, there is "agape" love and many others.
God is agape love, He is just, He is holy...terms that must be understood to explain all of your questions.
God created spirit beings, and man. He gave both free will. To have His love returned He had to give free will. Satan was created as the morning star, very powerful and 2nd in command of all God's host.
Iniquity was found in him, he rebelled, he was cast down to earth. God being "just" could not at the time exterminate him. But in God's wisdom, He had a plan, knowing Lucifer would rebel along with 1/3 of the other spirit beings also called angels.
God created man, also with free will. Lucifer deceived Eve and Adam went along and ate of the fruit. They sinned. God being holy, hates sin, cannot tolerate it.
God bannished Adam and Eve from the garden, man was cursed at this point, so was Lucifer...Genesis 3:15...God who was love had a plan to redeem man in those very same verses....Every man born since Adam was born with sin already residing within. It is like cancer, it eats away at man and eventually destroys him. It has much influence on man, that is why little children are selfish with their toys. Lucifer also became ruler of this earth. I do not understand all the legal ramifications involved, but God's plan to redeem man had to be legal in order for Him to maintain His being just and holy.
God's plan to redeem man involved a "2nd Adam" (Jesus Christ). He was created in a virgin. God created seed within her, her bloodline went back to Adam. He was born without this sinful nature, had free will, and was 100% man. He had to study the scriptures,, he was groomed, he grew in wisdom and stature. He understood not only who he was but what his mission would be. He knew he was the promised seed in Genesis 3:15.
To shorten this summary, Jesus was crucified due to satanic influence. (The whole world is still under this influence, which is the reason for war and all the evil going on in this world).
Satan now thought he had beaten God, he thought he would live forever because he just killed the heir. But he never expected that God would raise him from the dead and give him all authority in heaven and earth. This transfer of power has not been fully manifested yet. Not until Christ returns in glory. Then satan will be dealt with, along with his host. Right now, he is angry, he knows his time is short.
Man has a choice, he can continue in sin or repent, receive Jesus as Lord and be cleansed of all his sin...however, the sin nature remains in him until Christ returns and changes us completely with new bodies. This sinful nature in Christians is a daily struggle, read Romans chapter 6...But the new nature dwells in us, it is called the gift of holy spirit which dwells in Christians to help us.
The sin nature can be subdued, beaten by allowing our minds to feed on the bible, God's Word. We change our way of thinking, we seek those things above, not things on this earth.
This is called the renewing of our minds mentioned in Romans 12...
Unfortunately, many Christians are stymied, they get saved, receive the gift of holy spirit, but never do anything with it. They don't continue in their growth, they don't take the time to read, study their bibles, they don't submit to the Lord Jesus and you can't tell them apart from unbelievers. They behave in the same way as before.
Anyway, once you start to understand some of these matters, your questions are easily answered.....🙂
1 edit
Originally posted by finneganWell for one thing I've not pointed you to any "rule" or standard, other than that
I do not dispute that, to a Christian for example, scripture is their source for confidence in a final judgement and an after life. That represents a standard in the religious sense without getting hung up on what it actually contains. Nor would I insist that by living in accordance with a purely human / philosophically derived set of standards, anyone coul jectives. They just use many of the same words to mean different things and that is a problem.
God's is one we are all going to be bound by, and those we acknowledge (our rules).
I've of the opinion that I cannot show you God, He has to do that and will for all
with willings hearts. I'm also of the opinion that to love God is our highest calling
and to love others as ourselves is right up there with the first. If you do that you
will do well with both God and man.
The places where people argue and fight over I believe has more to do with the
hearts of the fighters than the rules they are fighting over. I do not overly worry
about denominiations, I don't push any and have belonged to different ones and
I'll say that it does not matter which one you belong to if you heart isn't right with
God who cares, and if it is right with God again who cares!
Where I'm having an issue is that some people here feel God is wrong for being
and acting like God. No one complained God granted life to people, but some here
do complain that some died as if there "should" be some other end than the one
they ended up with. Since all the people we were talking about all died, and that
is the end of man's life and God set that up, how is God some how to be called
wrong when he ends one life one way and another's life another way? They all
will die, you may as well cry the sky is blue.
Kelly
Originally posted by finneganThe greatest commandment is for us th do everything in love. See how that works for you.
I do not dispute that, to a Christian for example, scripture is their source for confidence in a final judgement and an after life. That represents a standard in the religious sense without getting hung up on what it actually contains. Nor would I insist that by living in accordance with a purely human / philosophically derived set of standards, anyone coul ...[text shortened]... jectives. They just use many of the same words to mean different things and that is a problem.