12 Jan 05
If we are made in god's image , then we resemble him , and he resembles us . So is god a mammal ? Does he have hair ? A navel ? Nipples ? Genitals ? Gender ?
You may be going to answer that he resembles us in spirit , not flesh . But so many things that go into fashioning the human psyche/spirit are part of a physical existance . So does god get hungry ? Sleepy ? Horny ? If he doesn't have these urges , desires , motivations that have formed us so much , than how much in his image can we be ?
12 Jan 05
1 edit
Several problems, Bishop.
Originally posted by bishop wolf
The Bible also declares, however, that Lucifer, who was once chief of the angles, grew jealous of God's power and wanted to be like him. He was therefore cast out of heaven and has been a force in our world since it was created; in the Garden of Eden he caused the fall of mankind.
This is not in the Bible, except for the Vulgate (old Latin Bible) and the flawed
readings of the King James and New King James Bibles. The word in Hebrew
is 'Morning Star' or 'Shining One.' This legend of Lucifer (not in the Bible, but
instead the 3rd century C.E.) is derived loosely from a misreading of the passage
in Isaiah 14:12-15. This passage very, very clearly refers to the King of Babylon,
as the context in the preceding verses indicates. Another misused passage is the
Ezekiel 28:11-19, which is a metaphorical exposition directed at Nebuchadnezzar
(note: 'Son of Man' in the 11th verse and then again in 29:18).
'Lucifer' <> 'Satan' until the third century. This misnomer has stuck, despite
clearer and more accurate translations, as do the accompanying myths about
Satan's 'Fall' with the 'third of angels' and whatnot.
Originally posted by bishop wolf
God made mankind perfect and we choose to sin, to remove ourselves from God...
God made us in His image, not perfect. If we were perfect, why then would
we fall to temptation? Falling to sin is a sign of imperfection from within.
Humankind dwelt in perfection, but was not perfect. Those who are perfect
do not fall to temptation. That's pretty obvious.
Nemesio
12 Jan 05
What about this one (and a million and one others)
Christianity says that you need to be baptised if you want to go to heaven. Don't you think thats a little unfair on the people of africa, india and all muslim nations who are brought up in their local religion.
So God says you must be born in this part of the world if you want to be saved, born in india == burn in hell..
12 Jan 05
Originally posted by chancremechanicYou say nature is responsible for killer tsunamis. But who is responsible for nature? According to christianity, god is. So god deliberately made a world in which killer tsunamis and earthquakes are prevalent.
No, nature is....but, man is responsible for global warming, so, maybe indirectly our presence and mutilation of the ecosystem "may" have been the cause of this tsunami by unleashing unseen phenonena that could start a chain of events to cause such a catastrophe...case in point: California mudslides...where suburbia has compromised the natural hold ...[text shortened]... d didn't promise us a rose garden...but He does promise to be there with us...if we believe....
You can say that man's free will is responsible for many personal evils and that he has brought them upon himself. The theory being that he will learn from these examples and subsequently do good. But having 160,000 people killed in a tsunami has no instructive, or moral purpose. Now, tsunamis have no evil character in a natural, scientific world. They are merely naturally occuring phemomenon. But in a world which is overseen by an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, creator god, tsunamis are indicative of evil at work.
So god either directly caused that tsunami with his own hand, or he created, and continues to tolerate, the conditions which caused that tsunami. Either way, god is directly responsible for the deaths of those 160,000 people. To say that Satan did it doesn't help you here, because god obviously could defeat Satan but chooses not to. So to summarize the argument:
1. We have a world where earthquakes, tsunamis, and other disasters (which could not have been caused by man's free will) are prevalent.
2. If god is omnipotent, then he could have either designed a world without these things in the first place, or he could change it to eradicate them. The fact that god continues to tolerate such pointless suffering means that he is not omnibenevolent.
3. The concept of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, creator god is inconsistent with the presence of evil in the world (or at least evils which are not attributable to man's free will).
4. Therefore, the traditional christian conception of god is logically inconsistent and cannot exist. This should not be taken as proving that god does not exist, but merely that the traditional christian conception of god cannot exist. It would still be possible for there to be a god who in either not omnipotent, not omnibenevolent, or who did not create the world in the first place.
12 Jan 05
I will respond to the unanswered posts later. - We've got some great issues being discussed here. I would just like to share with you a great source for questions and answers: Answers in Genesis ministry which focuses on creation.
http://www.ansersingenesis.org/
The second link goes directly to their response to the recent disaster in Asia.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0110death.asp
12 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by chancremechanicNo.
Here's some food for thought...do you think it possible that nuclear weapons testing could fracture the quake faults further, thus precipitating an earth quake?
Study a bit.
Krakatoa released more energy in six days than has been released or can be released by all mammals -- including man -- in a million years. Including if we could set off every bomb (regular and Nuke), blow every power unit, ignite every bit of carbon energy ever pumped/mined. Oh. And also ignite all the methane ever farted by every animal alive.
The 9.0 Alaska quake did that too. As did the Aceh quake.
It is a nice dream to think we are important and powerful. "Look At Us! We can alter the Earth, we are so important! Wow. Aren't we special!!! Haruumph!"
We are not. Not even close. Even if we tried. We would have absolutely no effect. Zero. Nill. Zilch.
And in case you missed it, there have only been about a hundred "nukes" detonated. Ever. Not even a tenth of the energy of Mt. Saint Helens. And they only caused half as much "polution" as st. Helens. Sorry.
12 Jan 05
Originally posted by Moldy CrowAnd if he gets horny, to whom does He turn for relief? I'm not sure I'd want to be at the right hand of the Father.
If we are made in god's image , then we resemble him , and he resembles us . So is god a mammal ? Does he have hair ? A navel ? Nipples ? Genitals ? Gender ?
You may be going to answer that he resembles us in spirit , not flesh . But so many things that go into fashioning the human psyche/spirit are part of a physical existance . So does god get hungry ...[text shortened]... ges , desires , motivations that have formed us so much , than how much in his image can we be ?
But, irreverence aside, your question is a good one. Some theologians even claim that God does not undergo change, but exists in a state of timeless perfection. If so, it would almost impossible to attach any meaning to the idea that God acts, because a discrete action would imply a change in state.
12 Jan 05
Originally posted by rwingettWhat do you think of the argument that, unless the world were genuinely imperfect and dangerous, many sovereign human virtues, such as courage, fortitude, and sacrifice, could not truly exist, so God permits natural evils to occur as a necessary condition to realize those virtues?
You say nature is responsible for killer tsunamis. But who is responsible for nature? According to christianity, god is. So god deliberately made a world in which killer tsunamis and earthquakes are prevalent.
You can say that man's free will is responsible for many personal evils and that he has brought them upon himself. The theory being that he will ...[text shortened]... ot omnipotent, not omnibenevolent, or who did not create the world in the first place.
12 Jan 05
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeFirst, the case would have to be made that virtue cannot flourish without evil. I am not entirely convinced of the validity of that statement. But if the argument is accepted, then you would have to figure out just how much evil is necessary to allow the realization of virtue.
What do you think of the argument that, unless the world were genuinely imperfect and dangerous, many sovereign human virtues, such as courage, fortitude, and sacrifice, could not truly exist, so God permits natural evils to occur as a necessary condition to realize those virtues?
The case could be made that the presence of moral evil is necessary for the flowering of human virtue. It has some instructive value. People learn to do good and be virtuous by seeing the consequences of evil actions. There is also the hope that by right action they may be able to eradicate moral evil.
But the presence of natural evil cannot be similarly justified. Such randomly destructive phenomenon are incapable of imparting any moral instruction on the victims. Plus there is the fact that even if people did choose to act righteously they could still be washed away by tsunamis.
An omnibenevolent god would allow no more evil that was absolutely necessary to acheive his ends. Moral evil alone is capable of making virtue possible, and does so much more efficiently than natural evil. Natural evil, on the other hand, inflicts a gratuitious amount of suffering for a minimum amount of moral improvement. A god who willfully inflicted such suffering on his creation would be more likely to be viewed as a sadist rather than as being omnibenevolent.
So I would come back to the conclusion that natural evil is incompatible with the concept of an omnipotent, omnibenevolent, creator god.
13 Jan 05
1 edit
Originally posted by rwingettI never said that satan caused the tsunami...please point out in my thread where I said that and I'll stand corrected. God is good! Why? Because he has let man exist for thousands of years when He could have wiped us off the face of the earth plenty of times..not counting the great flood during Noah's time. If you read Genises, man did live in a paradise where earthquakes did not exist, but man sinned and paradise came to a screeching halt. Now, I question God's reasons for famine, earthquakes, death and destruction as much as you probably, but I don't try to figure it out...our finite minds couldn't handle the truth in our earthly context, but He did promise to answer the big "WHY" when the time is right.....the Bible says that "the Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away", so if God chooses to take our lives, whether by tsunami ot by tornado, He has every right because He gave it to us in the first place...I don't fault your questioning or desire to embrace the fact that, OK, technically God did cause the tsunami, and I empathize because I feel the same way in some ways. I mean, what loving human father would cause harm to his children? I don't have the answers, and I will state emphatically that neither do you, so we are left to ponder...😕
You say nature is responsible for killer tsunamis. But who is responsible for nature? According to christianity, god is. So god deliberately made a world in which killer tsunamis and earthquakes are prevalent.
You can say that man's f ...[text shortened]... ent, or who did not create the world in the first place.
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyThanks for putting that in perspective....😉
No.
Study a bit.
Krakatoa released more energy in six days than has been released or can be released by all mammals -- including man -- in a million years. Including if we could set off every bomb (regular and Nuke), blow every power unit, ignite every bit of carbon energy ever pumped/mined. Oh. And also ignite all the methane ever farted by eve ...[text shortened]... energy of Mt. Saint Helens. And they only caused half as much "polution" as st. Helens. Sorry.
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by dk3nnyI'll answer this one on behalf of the believers.
... Christianity says that you need to be baptised if you want to go to heaven. Don't you think thats a little unfair on the people of africa, india and all muslim nations who are brought up in their local religion.
So God says you must be born in this part of the world if you want to be saved, born in india == burn in hell..
Bill O'Reilly just interviewed Christian author Tim LaHaye on Fox News. O'Reilly asked the same basic question. LaHaye's answer was to quote a scripture that went something like this: "I will judge those under the Law by the Law. I will judge those not under the Law without the Law."
I would take that to mean (giving it a New Testament spin when in fact it may be an Old Testament passage that literally is talking about Jewish Law) that if somebody lives their life without any exposure to the concept of Jesus and salvation and baptism, that person will be sent to Heaven or Hell based on some assessment of how morally good they were.
13 Jan 05
Originally posted by chancremechanicI did not mean to imply that you, personally, had said that Satan had caused the tsunami. But it had been suggested by someone else, so I was trying to cover both arguments in one post.
I never said that satan caused the tsunami...please point out in my thread where I said that and I'll stand corrected. God is good! Why? Because he has let man exist for thousands of years when He could have wiped us off the face of the earth plenty of times..not counting the great flood during Noah's time. If you read Genises, man did live in a ...[text shortened]... ve the answers, and I will state emphatically that neither do you, so we are left to ponder...😕
Why did man sin? Because god gave man free will so that he might choose between good and evil. But man did exactly what god designed him to do. He made a free choice. Is it right that man should be tormented for all eternity for exercising this god given capacity? Giving man free will also means giving him the ability to make a choice unacceptable to god. In fact it seems inevitable that eventually they would do so. So in retrospect it seems more a matter of "when" man would sin and not "if" he would sin. the Fall was just a matter of time in coming.
Plus, as an omniscient being, god would have to have known in advance that man would sin. He designed them specifically to be capable of sin and must have seen in advance that they would, in fact, commit sin. We are left with the inescapable conclusion that the Fall must have been part of god's plan all along. He must have known, in advance, that he was setting man up for an impossible task and that he was going to have to punish man for it. In fact we could say that he was looking forward to punishing man. And he has done so with gusto. These are not traits that are compatible with an omnibenevolent god.
If we cannot know why god has seen fit to punish us with natural evil, then how can we be said to know anything at all about god? You can't claim that god's methods are inscrutible in one area and then at the same time claim to know what god is intending in other areas. If you are prepared to give god credit for all the good things, then why would you be so hesitant to assign blame for all the bad things? It's a package deal.
I do not claim to have any of the answers. As you say, none of us do. Which is why is puzzles me how so many christians could be so sure their answer is the right one.
14 Jan 05
Originally posted by rwingettThat is a point that I have made in my own debates elsewhere. I went so far as to suggest that from a believer's point of view, one of the most horrific crimes one can do is to produce offspring. The Bible says, "Narrow is the way, and few are they who find it." That tells us that the majority of offspring even of a married pair of believers are destined to spend eternity being tormented in Hell. How can a Christian couple decide to create a pregnancy, with such a terrible consequence as that lying in wait for most or all of their children?
... We are left with the inescapable conclusion that the Fall must have been part of god's plan all along. He must have known, in advance, that he was setting man up for an impossible task and that he was going to have to punish man for it...