Do you think Christians get the problems people have with their religion?

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

Don't worry - we know you're a NT kinda believer.

I am both old and new testament, but I know what you're gettin at:)

I don't 'excuse' the wiping out of whole nations by God btw. I wholeheartedly back them. Now does that equate to 'jimitime supports genocide'? In simple terms, yes, if you want a tabloid headline that is. However, its all about who the judge is. Do I agree with the Rwandan Genocide? Absolutely not! Do I agree with the Genocide of the Jews? Absolutely Not! Do I agree with the Genocide of the Sodomites? Yes! Why? Because they were judged by a perfect and Just judge. That is the point of contention though. You operate on the premise that 'kill a child = evil' therefore if god did it, he is evil. I operate on the premise 'God = Just'. So with my premise, I justify all things 'God' does. I accept that he knows more than me. I accept he is wiser than me. I accept that he wants and does whats best for his people, even if his people don't realise it. Take Abraham and his son Issac. Abraham had the faith, that God was good and just, so although he didn't realise why God asked him to sacrifice his son, he had the faith to leave things in Gods hand. Consequently god stopped him, and Abraham was shown righteous by faith.

I think the judgements on the peoples in the Hebrew scriptures are also a testament of judgements to come. God will look after his people, but will strike those who oppose him, and I'm cool with that.

robindch

pH wrote: »

I'm not sure that's correct, the NT is far stronger on hell and eternal damnation that the OT.

Yep. As a concept, hell doesn't really exist in the OT, since it's meaningless without the souls that the OT says little, if anything, about. In simple terms, the god of the OT concentrates upon punishment in this life (hence widespread genocide), while the god of the NT concentrates upon punishment when you're dead (hence Hades (not 'hell', btw)).

Which switch is a pretty neat propagatory trick, since you cannot firmly disprove the existence of Hades, and the infinite torment which is promised by the bible makes a pretty straightforward appeal to people susceptible to the rational-choice argument.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

I operate on the premise 'God = Just'.

But why? How can you possibly rationalise that?

If God does things that appear to be unjust surely the obvious position is that he is unjust?

This seems to be the ultimate issue here. You guys all say that God = Just. You take that for granted, its like none of you have even entertained any other position.

But then this is supposed to have been revealed to you, otherwise why would you believe it in the first place.

So when this was being revealed to you where was the Jericho genocide?

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

However, its all about who the judge is.

You see that is the danger, that is why people get nervous about religion, and why people like myself believe it is dangerous form of manipulation, because no it isn't about who the judge is.

It doesn't matter who the judge is, somethings are just wrong. Genocide is wrong. It is wrong if the Rwandans do it and it is wrong if the Hebrews do it.

An Palestinian suicide bomber may well say that he disproves of suicide bombing (in fact I've seen interviews where they have) in normal circumstances, but God has approved this conflict, it is a righteous cause, therefore suicide bombing is ok.

When a person accepts this mind set they accept anything, because anything can be justified on the assertion that the higher authority, the highest authority, has approved it. Anything that was once unacceptable now becomes acceptable, and those carrying it out who would be horrified by the idea of the action before now accept it whole heartily, as you accept genocide whole heartily.

pH

JimiTime wrote: »

I don't 'excuse' the wiping out of whole nations by God btw. I wholeheartedly back them. Now does that equate to 'jimitime supports genocide'? In simple terms, yes, if you want a tabloid headline that is. However, its all about who the judge is. Do I agree with the Rwandan Genocide? Absolutely not! Do I agree with the Genocide of the Jews? Absolutely Not! Do I agree with the Genocide of the Sodomites? Yes! Why? Because they were judged by a perfect and Just judge.

Here's the problem with this position: the fact that the OT God has disappeared and no longer raises cities and leaves his ethnic cleansing to his followers these days. Once you agree that some genocides and mass murder are just because they've been decreed so by God then the method of that genocide (direct intervention in the OT, by his followers these days.

How can you be against the Rwandan genocide? Has God told you it was not just? Are you presuming to know the mind of God? What if a priest in Africa was visited by an angel and claimed that God had judged the Tutsis and had inspired the Hutus to kill them? Would you believe him?

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

Here's the problem with this position: the fact that the OT God has disappeared and no longer raises cities and leaves his ethnic cleansing to his followers these days. Once you agree that some genocides and mass murder are just because they've been decreed so by God then the method of that genocide (direct intervention in the OT, by his followers these days.

How can you be against the Rwandan genocide? Has God told you it was not just? Are you presuming to know the mind of God? What if a priest in Africa was visited by an angel and claimed that God had judged the Tutsis and had inspired the Hutus to kill them? Would you believe him?

I find that this is the bit that really makes me laugh. All of the, 'this is the danger'. What if some priest said such and such. Rest assured, if God had not revealed a new covenant through his Son, Jesus, then the nation of Israel would still be Gods people, and he could well in fact be wiping out nations that were not godly. However, we are under the new covenant. Which means that there is only one more judgement to come. That judgement will be final, and will not be carried out by men. Those who are not ignorant of Christs message have nothing to fear in this matter. Psycho's will be Psycho's though, and whether they are misusing the bible, or the quaran or whatever, they'll carry out the deeds they want to.

Seriously though, I find this 'fear of religion' you seem to have a bit more unsettling. I would be the first to say i hate religion, in the context of what it is today. Its synonomous with greed, expoitation, murder, child abuse, self righteousness etc etc. I think the RC church 'was' a dangerous institution when it had its power for the reasons you mentioned. It placed itself as an authority direct from God(and still does, it just doesn't get away with what it used to). The scriptures would tell us their rotten fruits though, and let us discern their crimes. If anyone comes to put themselves between people and God, then that is a dangerous precedent. It means that they have control over people, and can utilise this for hideous things if they wish. However, a personal relationship with god, guards from this type of thing. Yes, we can get things wrong, but its quite easy to see when something is not Godly. So to conclude, Faith and religion are not necessarily hand in hand. I am a Christian, but I am not religious.

Zombrex

JimiTime wrote: »

However, we are under the new covenant. Which means that there is only one more judgement to come.

The argument that you think it would fine for Gods chosen people to butcher every single one of us but luckily he currently doesn't want to, isn't exactly reassuring Jimi.

History shows that it doesn't take very much for people to come to the conclusion that may God does want them to butcher everyone.

JimiTime wrote: »

Yes, we can get things wrong, but its quite easy to see when something is not Godly.

Well I find it very difficult to see how any of you think the Old Testament is "godly", but you rationalize it as anything is Godly if God wants it.

Which again is the scary bit.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but how did you come to the conclusion that God is just in the first place?

This seems to just be something religious people take for granted, in a kinda of "sure what would be the point of an unjust God" way. An unjust God serves no purpose to you so you just don't accept the possibility.

If everyone agrees that the God of the Old Testament acts in what appears to be highly immoral fashion, where do you guys get this revelation that God is in fact, good?

Or to put it another why, where am I supposed to get this revelation, since I'm constantly being told that if I just opened my mind this would be revealed to me

If God appears to be, in the Bible, bad, then surely he is just bad (or if you refuse to accept a bad god, surely he just doesn't exist)?

I have come to this conclusion through a few different ways, reading scripture (especially the NT), reading about the lives of the (mystic) saints and personal experience. What is very apparent to me is that God takes sin very seriously. It's not just something that can be forgotten or swept under the carpet. God sees sin as rebellion against ones Creator and God being the good Father that He is, often punishes errant children for their own ultimate good.

Scripture makes us clear that God exhorts us to turn away from sin and repent and seek forgiveness. God shows His love for us by being ever ready to forgive the repentant sinner. It's hardened, unrepentant sinners that God has a problem with.

The problem is that we on earth can't see the full implications of sin, we don't see the enormity of it as God does. St. Faustina in her diary received a revelation from God on the enormity of sin and she said something to the effect that she would rather suffer the pains of Hell a thousand times over than commit even a "small" deliberate sin. I really don't think people have any idea of the level of holiness that God is calling each of us to. As Jesus said "Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect". That's a tall order but that's what God wants us to strive towards and it is possible to get there with the help of God's grace as many saints have proved.

Faith tells me that it's impossible for God to sin. I believe God is infinitely good and holy despite appearances to the contrary sometimes. Taking life is God's prerogative. My faith tells me that everything God does is justified because God is infinitely wise. We will never understand these things until we die and the "veil" is pulled aside.

Ezekiel 33 makes it clear that God takes no pleasure in killing but rather He wants the sinner to repent and receive forgiveness. By sending His only Son into the world to die for our sins, God shows that He is merciful and wants us to be saved and that He takes sin very seriously.

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

I have come to this conclusion through a few different ways, reading scripture (especially the NT), reading about the lives of the (mystic) saints and personal experience. What is very apparent to me is that God takes sin very seriously. It's not just something that can be forgotten or swept under the carpet. God sees sin as rebellion against ones Creator and God being the good Father that He is, often punishes errant children for their own ultimate good.

Scripture makes us clear that God exhorts us to turn away from sin and repent and seek forgiveness. God shows His love for us by being ever ready to forgive the repentant sinner. It's hardened, unrepentant sinners that God has a problem with.

The problem is that we on earth can't see the full implications of sin, we don't see the enormity of it as God does. St. Faustina in her diary received a revelation from God on the enormity of sin and she said something to the effect that she would rather suffer the pains of Hell a thousand times over than commit even a "small" deliberate sin. I really don't think people have any idea of the level of holiness that God is calling each of us to. As Jesus said "Be perfect as your Father in Heaven is perfect". That's a tall order but that's what God wants us to strive towards and it is possible to get there with the help of God's grace as many saints have proved.

Faith tells me that it's impossible for God to sin. I believe God is infinitely good and holy despite appearances to the contrary sometimes. Taking life is God's prerogative. My faith tells me that everything God does is justified because God is infinitely wise. We will never understand these things until we die and the "veil" is pulled aside.

Ezekiel 33 makes it clear that God takes no pleasure in killing but rather He wants the sinner to repent and receive forgiveness. By sending His only Son into the world to die for our sins, God shows that He is merciful and wants us to be saved and that He takes sin very seriously.

Noel, I sometimes wonder how your head feels in this forum.

PDN

stevejazzx wrote: »

If that's the case shouldn't we have many more interjections by our governing rightous God? Oh wait are you one of these (insert unknown variable) who believes that the Tsunami in 2004 was a punishment?

No, I'm not one of those.

Are you a rapist?

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

If I do PDN feel free to point that out :rolleyes:

Oh, I will.

You said "no-one could complain of injustice when they were finally removed"
Punishment can mean anything. "Finally removed" means genocide.

No, in the context in which I was talking "finally removed" meant that another nation took their place. This could have occurred by war or, as when Israel was removed from the land, by being carried into exile.

The point I made was that the Amorites had become so wicked that no-one could complain if they were removed from being the occupants and rulers of the piece of land that Abraham's descendants were going to occupy.

I never said that all of the Amorites, every one of them, deserved to be killed.

You do know I can quote back your posts from a different forum PDN?

It is a bit ridiculous calling someone a liar for misrepresenting you when they can quote back exactly what you said to them.

Can you go two posts without calling someone a liar?

If you would tell the truth we could go thousands of posts without me calling you a liar.

If you had genuinely misunderstood what I had said then you could have queried that in the thread in question and I would have gladly clarified. Instead you chose to carry it into another forum and commence a new thread in which you deliberately misrepresented me. That, in my view, certainly constitutes lying.

vibe666

okay, so people are willing to accept genocide when it is performed by their god because even if they don't understand the reasons for it, they know he is good and just and that he had his reasons. okay, so that was a few thousand years ago before the re-write, fair enough.

the one thing above everything else that always gets me is that god can do anything he wants, he's everywhere at all times and nothing gets by him. so why does he let his 'agents' on this earth (i.e. priests etc.) sexually abuse young children?

I'm delighted for the person earlier in the thread because god had time to 'touch' him/her and make their life better and more reqarding for them but appalled that they believe god has time to make them feel better about their existence but can't spare the time to stop innocent childrens lives being ruined by the very people who are supposed to be spreading his message.

I just can't believe in any god who would allow that to happen and refuse to accept that if he existed that there can be any justification at all ever under any circumstances for him letting such things go on.

please someone out there who has faith explain to me how your god would let this happen? i really want to understand how you could possibly have even an ounce of faith in such a god as this. if you can give me a valid argument based on anything other than blind faith I'll pick up a bible today and read it cover to cover and spend some time in church finiding out a lot more about your religion.

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Noel, I sometimes wonder how your head feels in this forum.

I'm not sure how to take this post. What do you mean?

kelly1

A few people asked about the apparent change in God's ways when comparing the OT/NT or Old Law/New Law. Here is a passage from The Dialogue by St. Catherine of Siena which explains the difference between the two:

The law of fear was the Old Law that I gave to Moses. It was build on fear alone: Whoever sinned suffered the penalty.
The law of love is the New Law given by the Word, my only-begotten Son. It is built on love. The Old Law was not disolved by the New, but fulfilled. This is what my Truth said: "I have come not to destroy the Law but to fulfil it". He thus joined the law of fear with the that of love. The imperfectness of the fear of suffering was taken away by love, and what remained was the perfectness of holy fear, this is, fear simply of sinning, not because of personal damnation but because sin is an insult to me, supreme Goodness. So the imperfect law was made perfect by the law of love.
The fiery chariot of my only-begotten Son came bringing the fire of my charity to your humanity with such overflowing mercy that the penalty for sins people commit was taken away. I mean the punishment in this life that follows immediately upon the sin - for it was ordained in the Law of Moses that punishment be dealt out as soon as a sin was committed. Not so now: There is no more need for slavish fear. This does not mean that sin goes unpunished. The punsihment is rather set aside until the next life, when the soul is separated from the body, except for sinners who make atonement by means of perfect contrition. While you are alive you have a season of mercy, but once you are dead is it your season of justice.
You ought, then, to get up from slavish fear and come to love and holy fear of me. Otherwise you cannot help but fall back into the river [symbolic of the dangers of the world]. There you will be exposed to the waves of trouble and the thorns of comfort - for all comforts are thorns that sting the soul who loves them inordinately.

I don't know if this makes things any clearer but what I do know is that God is constantly drawing His people to higher levels of holiness and perfection but it has to be done in stages and not before we as a human race a ready to move on to the next stage. This is the reason why divine revelation is progressive. Our ultimate goal is to become like Christ. The Hebrews of the OT weren't ready for that.

Zombrex

kelly1 wrote: »

God sees sin as rebellion against ones Creator and God being the good Father that He is, often punishes errant children for their own ultimate good.

On what basis do you determine that it is "for their own ultimate good"

Given that most Christians seem to say that they don't understand at all why God would do what he did in the Old Testament, how do you determine that both a) that was their own good b) God wouldn't do something unless it was for their own good.

BTW, I find it interesting that you say mostly from the NT. Did you come to the Old Testament already fixed in the conclusion that God exists, God is good and God cannot do bad?

kelly1 wrote: »

Scripture makes us clear that God exhorts us to turn away from sin and repent and seek forgiveness. God shows His love for us by being ever ready to forgive the repentant sinner. It's hardened, unrepentant sinners that God has a problem with.

Well obviously, he regularly annihilates them.

But how out of this do you determine that God is good? Sin is ultimately rebellion away from how God has determined we should live our lives. Surely an evil tyrannical God would also regularly annihilate people who rebelled against him. So I'm not sure how you are determining from this that God isn't actually a tyrannical god who sometimes takes favor on his devout followers who promise to do what they are told, rather than a good loving God who sometimes orders the execution his more rebellious creations.

kelly1 wrote: »

The problem is that we on earth can't see the full implications of sin, we don't see the enormity of it as God does.

Yes but the flip side of that, as has been mentioned before, is that that also means you actually have no idea if what you believe is actually true or real. If we can't see the full implications of sin or the enormity of what God does that also means we can't judge if God is good.

God could be a right tyrannical jealous petty sob, and you wouldn't be able to tell because you cannot see enough of God to determine this.

So again the question is on what grounds beyond mere wishful thinking do you actually come to the conclusion that God is good?

kelly1 wrote: »

Faith tells me that it's impossible for God to sin.

What does that mean?

kelly1 wrote: »

I believe God is infinitely good and holy despite appearances to the contrary sometimes.

Why though?

Is it simply because the alternative wouldn't offer you anything and as such faith in such a god would be pointless?

Or is there some rational reason you have come to this conclusion?

kelly1 wrote: »

My faith tells me that everything God does is justified because God is infinitely wise.

How have you determined this? If God wasn't infinitely wise how would you know?

kelly1 wrote: »

We will never understand these things until we die and the "veil" is pulled aside.

How do you understand them now though? If we never understand these things on what basis do you determine that God is infinitely good and wise?

kelly1 wrote: »

Ezekiel 33 makes it clear that God takes no pleasure in killing but rather He wants the sinner to repent and receive forgiveness.

And you have determined that Ezekiel 33 is accurate how exactly?

kelly1 wrote: »

By sending His only Son into the world to die for our sins, God shows that He is merciful and wants us to be saved and that He takes sin very seriously.

That doesn't explain the Old Testament. If God wants us all to be saved why did he not send Jesus to Jericho 3000 years earlier?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I never said that all of the Amorites, every one of them, deserved to be killed.

[EDIT]

Apologies PDN.

While I think it is clear we both strongly disagree with each other and feel that we are misrepresenting each other, the language in that last post was out of line and over the top for what is in essence a not very important internet discussion.

pH

JimiTime wrote: »

I find that this is the bit that really makes me laugh. All of the, 'this is the danger'.

What if some priest said such and such. Rest assured, if God had not revealed a new covenant through his Son, Jesus, then the nation of Israel would still be Gods people, and he could well in fact be wiping out nations that were not godly. However, we are under the new covenant. Which means that there is only one more judgement to come. That judgement will be final, and will not be carried out by men.

...

Rest assured, I am a Christian, but I am not religious.

Wonderful, so we can ignore everything said by every other Christian leader and evangelist on the planet, and we should listen to you, because you feel that you're the first person in 2,000 years to figure out Christ's message correctly? If so it's self obsessed nonsense, you really think that you're that special that you have figured out what God wants and his plans for us, and billions of your fellow Christians are wrong?

Tim Robbins

kelly1 wrote: »

I'm not sure how to take this post. What do you mean?

I wonder what is going on in you head. What are you motivated by and what are yoy are trying to achieve? How does youe head feel? Frustrated, humoured, saddened?

I think PDN is here to practise his rhetorical skills, some of the other christians have lingerings doubts and usually run once a few awkards questions come, J C I think could be part of a money making propagandists movement, but yourself in terms of the pyschology of what is going on inside your head, I cannot even begin to fathom.

I think it's harder to debate Christianity coming from a Catholic perspective for two simple reasons:
1. You have more supernatural stuff to believe in and argue. Transubstantiation for example.
2. A lot of the bad stuff in Christianity can be scapped goated or blamed on Rome or the RC Church.

Dades

Wicknight/PDN - I'd prefer it if the thread could keep a more general tone.

Wick - if you can link back to where PDN posted certain remarks then there's obviously another thread where that particular discussion belongs. Although he has commented here, that was only in response to you quoting him from another forum.

Start a new thread inviting opinions on biblical genocide if you like, but keep responses in this thread to the actual contributions to the thread.

Thanks in advance.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

Wicknight/PDN - I'd prefer it if the thread could keep a more general tone.

Wick - if you can link back to where PDN posted certain remarks then there's obviously another thread where that particular discussion belongs. Although he has commented here, that was only in response to you quoting him from another forum.

Start a new thread inviting opinions on biblical genocide if you like, but keep responses in this thread to the actual contributions to the thread.

Thanks in advance.

Apologies Dades

JimiTime

pH wrote: »

Wonderful, so we can ignore everything said by every other Christian leader and evangelist on the planet, and we should listen to you, because you feel that you're the first person in 2,000 years to figure out Christ's message correctly? If so it's self obsessed nonsense, you really think that you're that special that you have figured out what God wants and his plans for us, and billions of your fellow Christians are wrong?

Oh dear. If thats what you take from it PH, I'll opt out now. This thread was going down a path of how Christians can't see the woods from the tree's! The Irony.

Yours sincerely,
the 'Self Obsessed' Jimitime.

vibe666

can I ask that one of the christians here please read my previous post and answer if you can. It's something that's been bugging the crap out of me for a very long time.

CerebralCortex

I think the absence of an answer speaks volumes!!!

JimiTime

vibe666 wrote: »

can I ask that one of the christians here please read my previous post and answer if you can. It's something that's been bugging the crap out of me for a very long time.

A few misconceptions first. The 'Agents of God' you talk about, are 'NOT' agents of God. They are agents of men. You're question boils dowm to the following I think:
'Why does God permit suffering?' and would be better taken over in the Christianity forum. However, I don't think you'll get anything definitive. The answer maybe there, but you'll have to work it out yourself, as there will be conflicting opinion on it. Also, the answer will not be simplistic, and will entail a much deeper understanding of Gods ways and purposes. If you really want to know such an answer, study and prayer should be your point of call though.

JimiTime

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I think the absence of an answer speaks volumes!!!

This forum is great.:D Really builds me up. Thanks CC.

vibe666

JimiTime wrote: »

A few misconceptions first. The 'Agents of God' you talk about, are 'NOT' agents of God. They are agents of men.

really?

what happened to the church being the word of god on earth? is there not something in catholic doctrine/dogma (excuse possibly incorrect terminology, I'm not a theologist) saying that the word of the church is the word of god and whatever they say is gods word, therefore correct. does that not make them agents of god? maybe I just don't understand.

I think my question boils down to this.

god is all knowing, all seeing and all powerful. I hear lots of Christians saying that god has spoken to them, or blessed them or looked after them directly in one form or another healing illnesses blessing them with good fortune etc. they go to church and listen to the priest recount stories from the bible about various different subjects and they try to live their lives by the things they are taught and be good and as sinless as they can be, asking for forgiveness of those transgressions they inadvertently might commit.

i have a close female friend who was repeatedly and severely sexually abused by an uncle from the time she was 5 or 6 years old until she reached her teens. she prayed to god every day for him to make him stop hurting her, but it went on for several years with her uncle eventually involving his own son as an extra abuser. predictably he was smart enough to stop once she reached puberty, but by all accounts he moved onto his own daughter after that.

my question is, if your god won't answer the prayers of an abused child, why would he have the time or inclination to talk to you, 'touch' you (or anyone else) or to help you get that promotion at work, or help your vegetable garden to grow nicely or bring you 'luck' in whatever form you see fit to assign to his good grace? plenty of priests have performed the same or worse abuse of innocent children and if anyone in the world knows more about god than a priest then feel free to pipe up. if a priest can spend his life learning all about his religion and god and still perform such despicable acts then i seriously doubt it's possible for him to have any belief in god at all or the fear of eternal damnation would surely outweigh any sick secxual urges he might have.

it's quite conceivable that he may well have spent the early hours of the morning rogering an alter boy and then stood up on the pulpit and attended his flock a couple of hours later at mass.

if someone can tell me what 'good' and 'just' god would allow all that then please let me know.

kelly1

Wicknight wrote: »

On what basis do you determine that it is "for their own ultimate good"

I believe God's primary concern for us is our salvation. I don't know if God actively punishes anyone but He can certainly makes things difficult by withdrawing His protection and grace.

Imagine a scenario where someone is a party animal and they go out most nights of the week having a great time and God continues protect that person so that they come to no harm. Is this person likely to turn to God given that they've found "hapiness" in drink, drugs, sex etc? Of course not. So God punishes this person so that they come to their sense and realize that they're on the road to destruction.

As a general point, if we had very little suffering and difficulties in this life, we wouldn't have much reason to turn to God. We would be living in an earthly paradise but without recourse to our Creator and this would lead to damnation.

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that most Christians seem to say that they don't understand at all why God would do what he did in the Old Testament, how do you determine that both a) that was their own good b) God wouldn't do something unless it was for their own good.

In the O/T, some people were killed outright and some were punished depending on the extent of their wickedness and their willingness to repent. One reason for ordering killings seems to be that God could see how the wicked could and would spread sin among the Israelites. Also God knows the future so He knows who's going to repent and who's not. Maybe His justice demands their killing in return for their sin or maybe He's doing it for the benefit of the Jews, I don't know.

Wicknight wrote: »

BTW, I find it interesting that you say mostly from the NT. Did you come to the Old Testament already fixed in the conclusion that God exists, God is good and God cannot do bad?

Maybe I did. Having said that, I want to understand why God does the things He does from His perspective and not judge God according to my very limited wisdom, knowledge and understanding.

Wicknight wrote: »

But how out of this do you determine that God is good? Sin is ultimately rebellion away from how God has determined we should live our lives. Surely an evil tyrannical God would also regularly annihilate people who rebelled against him. So I'm not sure how you are determining from this that God isn't actually a tyrannical god who sometimes takes favor on his devout followers who promise to do what they are told, rather than a good loving God who sometimes orders the execution his more rebellious creations.

There is no comparison between God and a tryant. Tyrants are selfish and power-hungry whereas God is concerned with our happiness and ultimate fate and doesn not attempt to control us. If we are punished, it is for our own good and the good of others. God know that rebellion against His laws end up in damnation and He doesn't want anyone to be damned but rather wants every living soul on planet earth to live joyfully with Him for eternity. Children who are never chastised or scolded grow up to be spoilt, tryannical brats. So God sometimes uses tough love to correct us and that's fine by me.

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes but the flip side of that, as has been mentioned before, is that that also means you actually have no idea if what you believe is actually true or real. If we can't see the full implications of sin or the enormity of what God does that also means we can't judge if God is good.

God could be a right tyrannical jealous petty sob, and you wouldn't be able to tell because you cannot see enough of God to determine this.

So again the question is on what grounds beyond mere wishful thinking do you actually come to the conclusion that God is good?

There is no doubt in my mind that God is good and Jesus Christ is proof of that. He died for us on the cross. He gives His entire being to us in the form of the Eucharist. If Jesus could have give us a greater gift, He would have done so. He also loved the His chosen people in the Old Testament despite their frequent unfaithfulness (golden calf, etc). God could have damned them all to hell and I'm sure they would have deserved it, but instead He showed them His great mercy by sending His Son to die for them. And what did they do? The had Him crucified! And God continues to love us despite all this.

Wicknight wrote: »

What does that mean?

I means I have faith or I believe that God is the greatest good and is incapable of evil because it is totally opposite and repugnant to His nature. You could easily say that I believe this because I want to believe it. And why wouldn't I want to believe that there is an ultimate good and an ultimate love given what I see happening in the world around us. God is gives me hope.Call me a fool is you wish. I believe what I believe but faith isn't as blind as you think.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why though?

Is it simply because the alternative wouldn't offer you anything and as such faith in such a god would be pointless?

While that is true, it's not the only reason I believe in a good God. I have had many prayers answered and my life had changed dramatically for the better since I turned back to God. Reading the Gospel or the writings of the saints is like breathing fresh air. It lifts the soul up to God and makes one wonder at His majesty. There is so much about God to be amazed at - His love, goodness, mercy, humility, power, wisdom and omniscience. And Jesus is all these things personified. Jesus makes God more accessible to us.

Wicknight wrote: »

Or is there some rational reason you have come to this conclusion?

Not really but I think it's rational to say that a "bad" God would be self-destructive. I'm sure Thomas Aquinas could offer some philosophical reason for why God must be good.

Wicknight wrote: »

How have you determined this? If God wasn't infinitely wise how would you know?

Difficult one to answer. I don't know for certain so it boils down to faith really.

Wicknight wrote: »

And you have determined that Ezekiel 33 is accurate how exactly?

I can't know for sure. My belief is that Ezekiel is the revealed word of God. I don't believe that God would keep us in the dark so I believe that He has revealed His nature and expectations of us progressively. Faith again.

Wicknight wrote: »

That doesn't explain the Old Testament. If God wants us all to be saved why did he not send Jesus to Jericho 3000 years earlier?

First of all Jesus saved those who came before Him and after Him. I imagine the people of Jericho wouldn't have listened to Jesus anyway. I trust that God got the timing just right, not too late and not to soon. Again more faith.

JimiTime

vibe666 wrote: »

really?

what happened to the church being the word of god on earth? is there not something in catholic doctrine/dogma (excuse possibly incorrect terminology, I'm not a theologist) saying that the word of the church is the word of god and whatever they say is gods word, therefore correct. does that not make them agents of god? maybe I just don't understand.

Yeah, Catholocism say this. God never signed up to it though. Catholocism does not represent Christ or God, it represents the Catholic Church. It says its the mediator between God and man, but as I said, thats a claim God never signed up to.

I think my question boils down to this.

god is all knowing, all seeing and all powerful. I hear lots of Christians saying that god has spoken to them, or blessed them or looked after them directly in one form or another healing illnesses blessing them with good fortune etc. they go to church and listen to the priest recount stories from the bible about various different subjects and they try to live their lives by the things they are taught and be good and as sinless as they can be, asking for forgiveness of those transgressions they inadvertently might commit.

i have a close female friend who was repeatedly and severely sexually abused by an uncle from the time she was 5 or 6 years old until she reached her teens. she prayed to god every day for him to make him stop hurting her, but it went on for several years with her uncle eventually involving his own son as an extra abuser. predictably he was smart enough to stop once she reached puberty, but by all accounts he moved onto his own daughter after that.

my question is, if your god won't answer the prayers of an abused child, why would he have the time or inclination to talk to you, 'touch' you (or anyone else) or to help you get that promotion at work, or help your vegetable garden to grow nicely or bring you 'luck' in whatever form you see fit to assign to his good grace? plenty of priests have performed the same or worse abuse of innocent children and if anyone in the world knows more about god than a priest then feel free to pipe up. if a priest can spend his life learning all about his religion and god and still perform such despicable acts then i seriously doubt it's possible for him to have any belief in god at all or the fear of eternal damnation would surely outweigh any sick secxual urges he might have.

it's quite conceivable that he may well have spent the early hours of the morning rogering an alter boy and then stood up on the pulpit and attended his flock a couple of hours later at mass.

if someone can tell me what 'good' and 'just' god would allow all that then please let me know.

As I said previously, this is not a one liner answer. If you really want the answer, you'll need to look into it on a personal level. However, if you want opinions about it, ask over on Christianity.

vibe666

JimiTime wrote: »

Yeah, Catholocism say this. God never signed up to it though. Catholocism does not represent Christ or God, it represents the Catholic Church. It says its the mediator between God and man, but as I said, thats a claim God never signed up to.

are you sure? how do you know? are you not a catholic then or do you just have a direct line to god that the heads of the catholic church are missing?

kelly1

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I wonder what is going on in you head. What are you motivated by and what are yoy are trying to achieve? How does youe head feel? Frustrated, humoured, saddened? ...... in terms of the pyschology of what is going on inside your head, I cannot even begin to fathom.

I think it's harder to debate Christianity coming from a Catholic perspective for two simple reasons:
1. You have more supernatural stuff to believe in and argue. Transubstantiation for example.
2. A lot of the bad stuff in Christianity can be scapped goated or blamed on Rome or the RC Church.

It's interesting that you are interested in my inner workings

I'm partly motivated by pride i.e. in winning debates but I'm more motivated by the importance of bringing Christ to those who don't believe in Him and don't really understand what He's about. I am saddened by the fact that people don't understand God's limitless goodness. I am frustrated by the fact that I can't adequately communicate the beauty of God's plan for us. It is also regrettable that many here find my beliefs laughable and put my faith down to nothing more than delusion.

I'm in the difficult position that I've discovered something very beautiful and when I try to convey this, it's usually met with disbelief, mistrust and ridicule. Most people for example don't see the value of holiness, or virginity or chastity and giving up worldly pleasure for the sake of God. Most don't see the value of "taking up ones cross" in order to be a disciple of Christ. I really just think people are blind to God way's and I think this is the greatest of tragedies. People will try to seek happiness in anything but God e.g. drink, drugs, sex, money etc but none of these things bring lasting happiness and often end up in suffering when disillusionment sets in or our excesses catch up with us.

Catholicism in particular can be very difficult to defend. There is a huge amount of misunderstanding about the Church propagated by those who are ignorant or openly hostile towards the Church. The Church has no shortage of enemies and you have to wonder why sometimes why it is persecuted so much. Yes, the Church has scored lots of "own goals" but I still believe that it was founded by Christ and will continue to grow in holiness until the Church becomes ready to be the "bride of Christ" as told in Revelation.

Is there anything in particular about my psychology that you can't fathom?