An impersonal god?

philologos

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

So you're here to save us ?
What if we don't want to be saved.

When did I say this in this thread? I posted personally because the OP had issues with the Judeo-Christian concept of God and that I wanted to clear some things up.

I recognise that the choice of belief is entirely up to each and every individual.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why does God care about us again ?
I find it funny that Christians always say that God is Omnipotent, Omnipresent and Omniscience yet he cares about what Humans do.
Heres a simple riddle to prove that God and Evil cannot exist:

^^ The Epicurean problem of Evil doesn't entertain the possibility that evil could have a purpose to serve in this world in terms of personal development which is something that many Christians and Jews would entertain. As such it isn't entirely comprehensive. An example of this is when Joseph is sold into slavery in Egypt and he says to his brothers the following:

Genesis 50:19-20 wrote:

But Joseph said to them, ‘Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God? Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today.

As for why God cares about us, I really couldn't imagine a higher power who had created the world and then abandoned it. It's a reason why I am a theist rather than a deist. Why wouldn't God not care for his creation?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Now I know you Christians are'nt really in the business of logic. But is you could give me an answer for my little quote I would be very surprised.

I think you will find that Christian philosophers have responded to the Problem of Evil for a long time at this point. Infact it has been happening for centuries. I suggest that you pick up a book on Philosophy of Religion instead of claiming an arrogant stance. Infact I'll reccommend you An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Brian Davies, it deals with this subject in depth. I personally studied this subject in the first semester of philosophy this year.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Why would a supreme God care what we do ?
Isn't vanity a sin ?

God's laws are intended for God's creation. I thought that would have been rather obvious. I don't think it is vain that a God who created the world in all it's glory would instruct us how best to live in it, considering that He is an omniscient being in Christian interpretation. I don't see how that is vain in the slighest.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The idea of a Christian is ludicrous. simple as.

It's fine to hold that view, but give decent reasons for having your views.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

What sort of a loving father would torture his Children for all eternity becuase they don't believe in him ?
All religions make up a Hell story to get scare people into converting.

God has given all people a way to repentance. People can choose to be stubborn and not to accept the offer He has given out of love. However, it is a mere fallacy to suggest that if people do not take up an offer due to their own pride that it is somehows God's fault that they didn't.

MysticalSoul

OP, personally I do not believe in the "big man in the sky" either, as to me, the God that I believe in is both male and female combined, and not male as we were raised to believe. Neither do I believe that he is constantly watching us, I believe the God of my own belief is always present, and just knows, rather than watching and scrutinising what we do. God is not the one to judge us, we reflect on our past life when we are at that in between stage of this life and the after life. I read an interesting book recently, by Michael Newton on the lives between lives (can't remember the exact title, but is along those lines), and in it it said that God does not like the word God, as us humans have made the word God too personal. Michael Newton does work on past lives etc.

When I say the word God, it is not the God I was raised to believe, but use the word God, as for a long time had an aversion to the word. Conversations with God is a fab read too, and takes some of the mystery out of some of the other beliefs that are linked to organised religion. One thing that stands out for me personally was the view on sexuality, where it is stated in the book "why would I give you a toy to play with, if I did not want you to enjoy it" - for me this stood out, as sexuality seems to one thing religion tries to control/shame us for, and for me personally, I think both spirituality and sexuality are very much connected.

philologos

God does not have any gender. Him, or He is just how most Christians relate to God, as a heavenly Father. However, there is nothing to say that God is literally male in the Biblical text.

When Moses speaks to God at the burning bush , God says "I am what I am" (Exodus 3:14). I.E God doesn't conform to human standards and is far more than we can possibly imagine. However, God has revealed Himself in limited human terms that we can understand somewhat, but there is much more we will never know about God.

Iwasfrozen

Jakkass wrote:

^^ The Epicurean problem of Evil doesn't entertain the possibility that evil could have a purpose to serve in this world in terms of personal development which is something that many Christians and Jews would entertain. As such it isn't entirely comprehensive. An example of this is when Joseph is sold into slavery in Egypt and he says to his brothers the following:
[QUOTE=Genesis 50:19-20 ] But Joseph said to them, ‘Do not be afraid! Am I in the place of God? Even though you intended to do harm to me, God intended it for good, in order to preserve a numerous people, as he is doing today.

[/QUOTE]
I think you'll find the Epicurean model does of course entertain the possibility of evil serving a purpose for personal development.
According to your Religion God gave us the power to distinguse from good and evil for some reason that is totally unclear to even so called "Christian Scientists" and theologians. But that doesn't adress the problem Epicuras poses and that is, Why would God an all powerful and all knowing Being, allow Evil to exist in the first place ?

Jakkass wrote:

As for why God cares about us, I really couldn't imagine a higher power who had created the world and then abandoned it. It's a reason why I am a theist rather than a deist. Why wouldn't God not care for his creation?

If he cares for us then why does he torture us for all eternity if we do not praise and satisfy his bloated and immature ego ? Surely such vanity can only be a Human creation.

Jakkass wrote:

I think you will find that Christian philosophers have responded to the Problem of Evil for a long time at this point. Infact it has been happening for centuries. I suggest that you pick up a book on Philosophy of Religion instead of claiming an arrogant stance. Infact I'll reccommend you An Introduction to the Philosophy of Religion by Brian Davies, it deals with this subject in depth. I personally studied this subject in the first semester of philosophy this year.

No Chirstian theologians do not adress the problems with religion, they simply make up selective ideas to fill in the cracks of their religion.
Basically Christian theologians only operate within the boundaries that Religion sets.

Jakkass wrote:

God's laws are intended for God's creation. I thought that would have been rather obvious. I don't think it is vain that a God who created the world in all it's glory would instruct us how best to live in it, considering that He is an omniscient being in Christian interpretation. I don't see how that is vain in the slighest.

God wants us to worship him indefinatly and thank him for our life.
If we do not thank him for our life we are tortures forever.
I believe it was Jesus that siad a Sinner should cut off his tongue because it is better he does not have a tongue then us it to blasphemy against the Lord.

Jakkass wrote:

It's fine to hold that view, but give decent reasons for having your views.

Apparently my creator doesn't think it's fine and now wants to "cast me down into a lake of fire" for my traitorous ways.

Jakkass wrote:

God has given all people a way to repentance. People can choose to be stubborn and not to accept the offer He has given out of love. However, it is a mere fallacy to suggest that if people do not take up an offer due to their own pride that it is somehows God's fault that they didn't.

If God existed and truely loved us, he would give us his love unconditionally, he certainaly wouldn't make us conform to any Human institution or book and would speak to us directly.
Alas there is no God or no afterlife, the promise of an paradise for believers and Hell for non believers was designed to get people into that Religion and keep them in it.

Give me proof of Gods existence and I will happily convert, if you can't give us proof then you are nothing but a long line of crackpot Zealots trying restrict the ways in which we live our lives.

philologos

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

I think you'll find the Epicurean model does of course entertain the possibility of evil serving a purpose for personal development.
According to your Religion God gave us the power to distinguse from good and evil for some reason that is totally unclear to even so called "Christian Scientists" and theologians. But that doesn't adress the problem Epicuras poses and that is, Why would God an all powerful and all knowing Being, allow Evil to exist in the first place ?

Many Christians have already dealt with this question in the past from Augustine right up to the late Herbert McCabe in the philosophy of religion. There are several different theories that Christians have. My inkling is that evil serves a purpose in our lives and our personal development, and that if there were no such thing as evil there would be no appreciation for what is good, i.e if everything was good it would be just "normal" not good. Again, as I say that is merely my take on it, and people will disagree on that issue. I don't see it as a problem that evil is allowed if evil has a purpose and a reason for its existence.

In Epicurus' logical problem of evil there is no room for this argument. God could have in his omniscience seen that evil has a purpose in the development of who we are and permitted it on that reasoning. Or that evil has a purpose but we as finite human beings are unable to discern it. There is a great analogy in a book, which has a whole chapter on this very subject, that I read about a year ago about this:

Okay then imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bears confidence but he cannot do it, so he has to shoot the bear full of drugs. The bear however thinks that this is an attack and that the hunter is trying to kill him. He doesn't realise that this is being done out of compassion. Then in order to get the bear out of the trap, the hunter has to push him further into the trap to release the tension on the spring. If the bear were semiconscious at that point, he would be even convinced that the hunter was his enemy who was out to cause him suffering and pain. But the bear would be wrong. He reached the incorrect conclusion because he is not a human being

^^ And we can reach the incorrect conclusion because we are not God.

Another analogy:

"I remember when one of my daughters was about four or five years old, and she was trying to thread a needle in Brownies. It was very difficult for her . Every time she tried, she hit herself in the finger and a couple of times she bled. I was watching her, but she didn't see me. She jsut keep trying and trying.
My first instinct was to go and do it for her, since I saw a drop of blood. But wisely I held back, because I said to myself, 'She can do it.' After about five minutes she finally did it. I came out of hiding and she said, "Daddy, daddy - look what I did! Look at what I did!" She was so proud that she had threaded the needle that she had forgotten all about the pain.
That time the pain was a good thing for her. I was wise enough to have foreseen it was good for her. Now, certainly God is much wise than I was with my daughter. So it's at least possible that God is wise enough to foresee that we need some pain for reasons which we may not understand but which he foresees as being necessary to some eventual good. Therefore, He's not being evil by allowing that pain to happen.

I prefer the evidential argument by the atheist William Rowe in comparison to the Epicurean problem of evil merely because it's much more effective than the Epicurean argument, because it doesn't say that God definitely doesn't exist, but rather it says if there is a loving God it is unlikely that it exists. I appreciated this argument a lot more than the logical argument of Epicurus because it makes much more sense in the long run that an atheist would argue this way given that God is by definition unfalsifiable.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If he cares for us then why does he torture us for all eternity if we do not praise and satisfy his bloated and immature ego ? Surely such vanity can only be a Human creation.

You've got it the wrong way around. God cared so much for the world that He gave us rules to protect us because He loves us. God then after His people messed up sent prophets to warn them. They did not listen. Then, God gave us Jesus Christ, the Messiah to save us from our sins by His saving death. Why? Because God loved us. It was revealed to us that if we believe in Him and seek out His will for us, we would have forgiveness and a clean shot before the final days.

Whereas people still to this day ignore this through their bloated egos, and through their arrogance. Yes, the vanity of man is mans creation, especially when it leads them to think that God's love is merely vanity.

No Chirstian theologians do not adress the problems with religion, they simply make up selective ideas to fill in the cracks of their religion.
Basically Christian theologians only operate within the boundaries that Religion sets.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

God wants us to worship him indefinatly and thank him for our life.
If we do not thank him for our life we are tortures forever.
I believe it was Jesus that said a Sinner should cut off his tongue because it is better he does not have a tongue then us it to blasphemy against the Lord.

Hm, it seems a bit perculiar to me that if God were the creator that one wouldn't thank Him for our wonderful existence.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Apparently my creator doesn't think it's fine and now wants to "cast me down into a lake of fire" for my traitorous ways.

God doesn't want to send anyone to hell, rather He wants us to come into a meaningful relationship with Him:

Hosea 11:8-9 wrote:

How can I give you up, Ephraim? How can I hand you over, O Israel? How can I make you like Admah? How can I treat you like Zeboiim? My heart recoils within me; my compassion grows warm and tender. I will not execute my fierce anger, I will not again destroy Ephraim; for I am God and no mortal, the Holy One in your midst, and I will not come in wrath.

2 Peter 3:9 wrote:

The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

I find it interesting that people are so willing to criticise that which they do not really understand.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If God existed and truely loved us, he would give us his love unconditionally, he certainaly wouldn't make us conform to any Human institution or book and would speak to us directly.
Alas there is no God or no afterlife, the promise of an paradise for believers and Hell for non believers was designed to get people into that Religion and keep them in it.

Is Christianity a human institution? I personally believe it is of God, rather than of man. As for the Bible being a book, it may be a book, but it is believed to be divinely inspired.

As for saying there is no God, or no afterlife. That's good for you, but again, what can you do to suggest that is the case?

And of course, I believe the existence of hell and heaven is to serve God's justice. God is a God of mercy for those who are willing to seek mercy, but God will punish those for their deeds unless they seek out this mercy. If you do not seek out mercy that isn't God's fault for not offering, but rather mankinds fault for not seeking it.

Iwasfrozen

Jakkass wrote:

Many Christians have already dealt with this question in the past from Augustine right up to the late Herbert McCabe in the philosophy of religion. There are several different theories that Christians have. My inkling is that evil serves a purpose in our lives and our personal development, and that if there were no such thing as evil there would be no appreciation for what is good, i.e if everything was good it would be just "normal" not good. Again, as I say that is merely my take on it, and people will disagree on that issue. I don't see it as a problem that evil is allowed if evil has a purpose and a reason for its existence

And thats the problem, Christian theologians only allow themselves to seek conclusions based on the laws of their religions. This means that they will never reach a logical conclusion.
Just as the Bible was proven wrong with the creation in life as described in Genesis they will be proven wrong in more things as science advances.
Humans say that God created Humans in his image, but I wonder what they will say when we inevitably make contact with extra terestrial life in the future.

Jakkass wrote:

I prefer the evidential argument by the atheist William Rowe in comparison to the Epicurean problem of evil merely because it's much more effective than the Epicurean argument, because it doesn't say that God definitely doesn't exist, but rather it says if there is a loving God it is unlikely that it exists. I appreciated this argument a lot more than the logical argument of Epicurus because it makes much more sense in the long run that an atheist would argue this way given that God is by definition unfalsifiable.

Another example of Christians theologians thinking only inside the boundaries that their Religion sets.

Jakkass wrote:

You've got it the wrong way around. God cared so much for the world that He gave us rules to protect us because He loves us. God then after His people messed up sent prophets to warn them. They did not listen. Then, God gave us Jesus Christ, the Messiah to save us from our sins by His saving death. Why? Because God loved us. It was revealed to us that if we believe in Him and seek out His will for us, we would have forgiveness and a clean shot before the final days.

Yes, God cares about me so much that he gave me life then restricts that life with countless rules, of which if I don't follow I will be sent to hell.

Jakkass wrote:

Whereas people still to this day ignore this through their bloated egos, and through their arrogance. Yes, the vanity of man is mans creation, especially when it leads them to think that God's love is merely vanity.

Do you think people deny it because of logic rather than vanity ?

Jakkass wrote:

Hm, it seems a bit perculiar to me that if God were the creator that one wouldn't thank Him for our wonderful existence.

Theres a difference between the Creator accepting our praise and demanding that we praise him like a spoilt child at the threat of Hell.

Jakkass wrote:

God doesn't want to send anyone to hell, rather He wants us to come into a meaningful relationship with Him:

If God doesn't want to send people to Hell then why does he ?

Jakkass wrote:

Is Christianity a human institution? I personally believe it is of God, rather than of man. As for the Bible being a book, it may be a book, but it is believed to be divinely inspired.

The first Pope of the RC church was St.Peter and all Prodestant churchs are descended from that church.
Yes, they are all Human institutions.

philologos

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

And thats the problem, Christian theologians only allow themselves to seek conclusions based on the laws of their religions. This means that they will never reach a logical conclusion.
Just as the Bible was proven wrong with the creation in life as described in Genesis they will be proven wrong in more things as science advances.
Humans say that God created Humans in his image, but I wonder what they will say when we inevitably make contact with extra terestrial life in the future.

I don't think this is the case. Many Christian thinkers have been open to logic if you merely read their material. I personally think that not many can beat Thomas Aquinas in terms of his logic, particularly on morality and ethics. Likewise C.S Lewis in terms of his logic in Mere Christianity and Miracles is quite extraordinary.

As for the Bible being proven wrong on creation that also depends on how one views Genesis. You know that and I know that.

As for extraterrestial life, you should really look to the Christianity forum for a thread on this. Most Christian posters do not see it as a problem at all. Rather it means that God's creation is much more sophisticated than we ever could have imagined. I think it's a bit of a leap on your part to say that it is "inevitable" though.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Another example of Christians theologians thinking only inside the boundaries that their Religion sets.

I don't see how. I mean most atheists will rarely give the supernatural any serious consideration. So aren't they not also restricting their understanding on the same note?

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Yes, God cares about me so much that he gave me life then restricts that life with countless rules, of which if I don't follow I will be sent to hell.

Restriction? I think it is a freedom that I am able to be free of the negative pressures of this world and that I am able to live a fulfilling life in the knowledge of God. Have you ever noticed that the theme that runs through the New Testament is actually freedom rather than restriction.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Do you think people deny it because of logic rather than vanity ?

Atheists don't have a monopoly on logic. Many Christian thinkers have shown themselves to be logical, and many Christians have been involved in science over the centuries. I consider it highly illogical to even employ this argument.

Likewise anyone who claims to have a purely rational assessment of the world is just plain wrong. Humans are emotional beings and emotions will always impact how they are doing. Even if they were purely rational, reason isn't the source of all knowledge. Empiricism is needed before we even reason in the first place. The different between atheists and theists is not reason, but rather their sources of empiricism which they use to begin with.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Theres a difference between the Creator accepting our praise and demanding that we praise him like a spoilt child at the threat of Hell.

I have yet to see what is remotely childish about God giving us laws to protect us.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If God doesn't want to send people to Hell then why does he ?

Due to the fact that God is both a God of justice and mercy. God reconciled mercy and justice on the Cross where Jesus was offered to pay the price of our sins on the understanding that we remain loyal to God before the Final Judgement. If one does not accept this atonement for ones sins, one will have to pay for them ones self by eternal punishment.

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

The first Pope of the RC church was St.Peter and all Prodestant churchs are descended from that church.
Yes, they are all Human institutions.

1. We do not know that Peter was the first Pope. We do not even know if Peter died in Rome.
2. Protestantism is descended from independence and free reading and interpretation of the Bible.

Some people think that Catholicism was the sole Christian church from day one, it simply wasn't. We have the Jewish Church of James the Righteous, the Armenian Apostolic Church of Barnabas and Jude, the Indian Church of Thomas, the Gentile Church of Paul all of these existed before the Roman Catholic Church.

Iwasfrozen

Jakkass wrote:

I don't think this is the case. Many Christian thinkers have been open to logic if you merely read their material. I personally think that not many can beat Thomas Aquinas in terms of his logic, particularly on morality and ethics. Likewise C.S Lewis in terms of his logic in Mere Christianity and Miracles is quite extraordinary.

Christian theologians are restricting them selves due to their vary nature as Christian theologians.
Let me give an example: If a Christian theologian found undoubted proof that God did not exist then they would have to ignore this evidence becuas eif they didn't they would not be "Christian" theologians.

Jakkass wrote:

As for the Bible being proven wrong on creation that also depends on how one views Genesis. You know that and I know that.

Another example, once Christians where proven wrong on creationism they took the theory of evolution, inserted it into their belifes, and said that Genesis must be a paroble, despite the fact it was treated as truth by the Abramic religions for hundreds of year.

"Hmm, this whole creation thing doesn't seem to be working in our favour lads, what should we do ?"
*Commence head scratching*
"I know, why don't we take this Darwin fellows theory and fit it nice and snuggly into our own religion, by saying Genesis is a story not to be taken seriously and that Adam was some form of Monkey man, we can carry on as normal."
*Commence appulse from Christians, Jews and Muslims around the world.*

Jakkass wrote:

As for extraterrestial life, you should really look to the Christianity forum for a thread on this. Most Christian posters do not see it as a problem at all. Rather it means that God's creation is much more sophisticated than we ever could have imagined. I think it's a bit of a leap on your part to say that it is "inevitable" though.

But if Man was made in Gods image, and these Alians don't look like Humans, then surely these Alians don't look like God.
Or is that another part of Genesis that is a story ?

Jakkass wrote:

I don't see how. I mean most atheists will rarely give the supernatural any serious consideration. So aren't they not also restricting their understanding on the same note?

You're confusing Atheism with Humanism.
Atheists don't believe in a creator, Humanists ignore all supernatural phonomina. Many Atheists are also Humanists, but not all.
I am an Atheist but not a Humanist.

Jakkass wrote:

Restriction? I think it is a freedom that I am able to be free of the negative pressures of this world and that I am able to live a fulfilling life in the knowledge of God. Have you ever noticed that the theme that runs through the New Testament is actually freedom rather than restriction.

You didn't answer my question, why did God give us the freedom to see right form wrong only to bombard us with countless rules such as no sex before marrige, don't drink, don't smoke, etc.

Jakkass wrote:

Atheists don't have a monopoly on logic. Many Christian thinkers have shown themselves to be logical, and many Christians have been involved in science over the centuries. I consider it highly illogical to even employ this argument.

To consider something is illogical.

Jakkass wrote:

Likewise anyone who claims to have a purely rational assessment of the world is just plain wrong. Humans are emotional beings and emotions will always impact how they are doing. Even if they were purely rational, reason isn't the source of all knowledge. Empiricism is needed before we even reason in the first place. The different between atheists and theists is not reason, but rather their sources of empiricism which they use to begin with.

If God is perfect then why didn't he allow us to understand his endless ego that needs to be constantly praised ?

Jakkass wrote:

I have yet to see what is remotely childish about God giving us laws to protect us.

To protect us from what ? Himself ?
Surely he doesn't need to give us laws to protect us from himself ?
And yes, your picture of God is childish. He creates us, gives us freedom of choice, askes us to worship him by our own choice, and if we choose not to he has a hissy fit and sends us to hell.
Why did he bother giving us free will at all ?

Jakkass wrote:

Due to the fact that God is both a God of justice and mercy. God reconciled mercy and justice on the Cross where Jesus was offered to pay the price of our sins on the understanding that we remain loyal to God before the Final Judgement. If one does not accept this atonement for ones sins, one will have to pay for them ones self by eternal punishment.

Torturing someone forever is hardly for not believing in you is hardly justice.

Jakkass wrote:

1. We do not know that Peter was the first Pope. We do not even know if Peter died in Rome.

1. We don't know that God exists but that hasn't stopped Christians before.

Jakkass wrote:

2. Protestantism is descended from independence and free reading and interpretation of the Bible.

Protestantism is descended from the movement of Martain Luther, a German monk who rightly accused the RC church of heresy for charging people money to get into heaven.

Jakkass wrote:

Some people think that Catholicism was the sole Christian church from day one, it simply wasn't. We have the Jewish Church of James the Righteous, the Armenian Apostolic Church of Barnabas and Jude, the Indian Church of Thomas, the Gentile Church of Paul all of these existed before the Roman Catholic Church.

Actually, I didn't know this.
Thanks for the information.

Nerin

could you guys start a new thread to discuss this please?
i like seeing debates on here, especially without mud slinging and childishness, but its kinda detracting from this thread and taking over.

thanks.

Iwasfrozen

No problem, I opened up a new thread.