30 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidIntermittent implies a kind of willy-nilly happenstance. It defies logic to assume that an omniscient God isn't in control of every particle of the universe.
How is it not intermittent?
There to take the Jews out of Egypt, not there to save them from the concentration camps. Was that not going 'too far' for God?!
Don't worry about God's chosen people. They will exist forever.
30 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI think that there's a difference between God creating a world in which it is possible to contemplate the commission of immoral acts and carry them out and a world where God occasionally intervenes. I don't think interventions of limited scope present much of a problem for my argument. I also don't think the argument I made in my previous post necessitates my defending the literal truth of the Old Testament.
How then do we account for the interventions God has made (according to the Bible) in human history, apparently putting our freewill in jeopardy? Is his Omni-benevolence and desire to stop evil intermittent, random, limited, here today gone tomorrow? Take Exodus 6:6 for example:
"Say, therefore, to the sons of Israel, 'I am the LORD, and I will bring you out from ...[text shortened]... outstretched arm and with great judgments.'
Where was God at other dark period's in our history?
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29783
30 Jan 20
@secondson saidIt defies logic to assume that an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God would tolerate the existence of evil and only sporadically intervene to prevent it.
Intermittent implies a kind of willy-nilly happenstance. It defies logic to assume that an omniscient God isn't in control of every particle of the universe.
Don't worry about God's chosen people. They will exist forever.
(Is sporadic better than intermittent? )
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29783
30 Jan 20
@deepthought saidIf we are to speak of the Christian God. in this context, then I'm afraid you don't have the option of discounting the Old Testament. (It's the word of God after all).
I think that there's a difference between God creating a world in which it is possible to contemplate the commission of immoral acts and carry them out and a world where God occasionally intervenes. I don't think interventions of limited scope present much of a problem for my argument. I also don't think the argument I made in my previous post necessitates my defending the literal truth of the Old Testament.
And I think you underplay the significance of previous divine interventions. Why then and not now? If God 'is' able to intervene in a way that doesn't compromise man's autonomy, and is indeed all-loving, why hasn't He done so in recent history?
30 Jan 20
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidWhy don't you also add He is just, righteous, holy as well as loving, all of these have to be in play in everything He does and says. So when evil occurs, His righteousness and justice are equally important as being loving.
If we are to speak of the Christian God. in this context, then I'm afraid you don't have the option of discounting the Old Testament. (It's the word of God after all).
And I think you underplay the significance of previous divine interventions. Why then and not now? If God 'is' able to intervene in a way that doesn't compromise man's autonomy, and is indeed all-loving, why hasn't He done so in recent history?
31 Jan 20
@kellyjay said"He is just..."?
Why don't you also add He is just, righteous, holy as well as loving, all of these have to be in play in everything He does and says.
How do you square this what you said last year?
You said, if God were fair, He'd torture all human beings in burning flames for eternity because that is what they deserve ~ let's be glad God is not fair.
Just and Fair mean the same things, right?
On one hand you are saying, thank goodness he is not fair, and now you are saying he is just. You can't have it both ways.
31 Jan 20
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidI used the words "literal truth". I think you've missed something, part of the point of the crucifixion is that it removes any necessity for further divine intervention.
If we are to speak of the Christian God. in this context, then I'm afraid you don't have the option of discounting the Old Testament. (It's the word of God after all).
And I think you underplay the significance of previous divine interventions. Why then and not now? If God 'is' able to intervene in a way that doesn't compromise man's autonomy, and is indeed all-loving, why hasn't He done so in recent history?
Edit: I think that there's a similar idea in Islam where Mohammed is the last Prophet and there's no more direct divine intervention in the world.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29783
31 Jan 20
@deepthought saidHuman suffering did not end with the crucifixion. A perfectly loving deity would not be content to sit back and let people suffer now, safe in the knowledge that they were going to be saved in the end. Or is current suffering of no concern to God? Has it been rendered irrelevant by the crucifixion of Christ?
I used the words "literal truth". I think you've missed something, part of the point of the crucifixion is that it removes any necessity for further divine intervention.
Edit: I think that there's a similar idea in Islam where Mohammed is the last Prophet and there's no more direct divine intervention in the world.
And 'literal truth' is applied by Christians to 'events' in the OT, such as the exodus out of Egypt. (The example I gave of previous divine interventions). Such events are critical to the whole Christian/Jew narrative.
31 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke said"A perfectly loving deity would..." as if you know. This is why you miss so much in scripture; you want it to fit into your little box, if God was, He would act like I think He should. So you miss entirely the God who is there because He isn't the God who you believe should be.
Human suffering did not end with the crucifixion. A perfectly loving deity would not be content to sit back and let people suffer now, safe in the knowledge that they were going to be saved in the end. Or is current suffering of no concern to God? Has it been rendered irrelevant by the crucifixion of Christ?
And 'literal truth' is applied by Christians to 'events' ...[text shortened]... ve of previous divine interventions). Such events are critical to the whole Christian/Jew narrative.
31 Jan 20
@deepthought saidRemove the need for divine intervention? You ever do a word study on the sanctification of man or walking in the Spirit? Christianity is nothing but a divine interaction, being God's goal from the beginning; if not, the whole thing is just one more man-made religion. You cannot even see the Kingdom of God unless you are born again.
I used the words "literal truth". I think you've missed something, part of the point of the crucifixion is that it removes any necessity for further divine intervention.
Edit: I think that there's a similar idea in Islam where Mohammed is the last Prophet and there's no more direct divine intervention in the world.
- Joined
- 14 Mar 15
- Moves
- 29783
31 Jan 20
@kellyjay saidIf 'I' know it (a being with less than perfect benevolence) then a supreme being with Omni benevolence will most certainly know it.
"A perfectly loving deity would..." as if you know. This is why you miss so much in scripture; you want it to fit into your little box, if God was, He would act like I think He should. So you miss entirely the God who is there because He isn't the God who you believe should be.
With my limited power and benevolence I would do whatever it took and intervene in any way I could to prevent a child dying of cancer. Why wouldn't an omnipotent and perfectly loving deity do the same? (And then some).
Answers on a postcard please.
31 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidSporadic and intermittent is all the same to me. Both imply impotence on God's part.
It defies logic to assume that an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God would tolerate the existence of evil and only sporadically intervene to prevent it.
(Is sporadic better than intermittent? )
The omnibenevolent and omnipotent creator God did not create "in the beginning" the conditions, of which you by default agree are amiss, that currently exist on earth.
You know there's something wrong with man, and because it ain't gettin' fixed in the way you suppose it should, you presume, by the apparent lack of intervention by an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God, that there is no God.
God's plan is laid out in the Bible. Everything will come around as predicted. All will be restored. Logically, there can be no doubt. God is going to intervene, but on His timetable, not ours.
31 Jan 20
@DeepThought
"I'm arguing that it is necessary for God to allow evil into the world if agents are to have any freedom at all."
Clear logic.
31 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThe end isn’t here but in the eternal. We all are condemned, and God’s work of redemption is taking place in this world of sin. Even in the midst of all the evil He redeems, saves, and starts refining us making us like Jesus. Only that with Christ as Lord and Savior moves into the eternal Kingdom. In this life we have tribulation, but those who are His, are never left alone.
If 'I' know it (a being with less than perfect benevolence) then a supreme being with Omni benevolence will most certainly know it.
With my limited power and benevolence I would do whatever it took and intervene in any way I could to prevent a child dying of cancer. Why wouldn't an omnipotent and perfectly loving deity do the same? (And then some).
Answers on a postcard please.
31 Jan 20
@ghost-of-a-duke saidNor was the purpose of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ to end suffering.
Human suffering did not end with the crucifixion.
The crucifixion provided redemption for man, and it settled the score between God and Satan.
When Jesus returns He will personally put an end to evil once and for all. It's the plan, as it is clearly predicted. No prophecy of God has ever failed, nor will it ever.