Why do the God-haters persist?

[thebrucebeat]

How can he be despicable, if he doesn't exist?

The same way the miserly Scrooge was despicable.
Fiction paints some very despicable characters.

 

[daws101]

You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.

As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.

They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...

false

Who are some historians who question the existence of the biblical Jesus?
In: History, Politics & Society, Religion & Spirituality, Atheism [Edit categories]
Answer:



Historians traditionally take the approach that a person attested to by an ancient author probably did exist, unless there is reason to believe otherwise. The following is a quick list of some who challenge this view of Jesus, which could be extended with some research. I have not read most of the works cited and in these cases can not attest to the quality of the conclusions drawn:

Downing (In Search of the Historical Jesus, edited by H. McArthur) is quoted as saying, "There is now no dearth of scholars who think that the Jesus of the gospels never existed in history."

H. Raschke wrote, "The historical existence of Jesus need not be denied as it has never been affirmed".

Albert Schweitzer, the world famous theologian and missionary, "There is nothing more negative than the result of the critical study of the Life of Jesus. The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence."

Pastor J. Kahl, "Nothing at all is known of Jesus beyond the bare fact that 'he existed at a date and place which can be established approximately' and that both his teaching and manner of death remain unknown so that 'the name of Jesus is bound to remain cryptic and meaningless, indistinguishable from a myth'."

G. A. Wells, author of Did Jesus Exist?

Richard Carrier, author of Sense and Goodness without God

Earl Doherty, author of The Jesus Puzzle: Did Christianity Begin with a Mythical Christ? Challenging the Existence of an Historical Jesus

Timothy Freke, who co-authored with Peter Gandy, The Jesus Mysteries.

Michael Grant, author of Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels

Maurice Goguel, author of Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History (1926)

 

[Agit8r]

How can he be despicable, if he doesn't exist?

Those who call themselves "His body" do exist.

 

[koshergrl]

You deny the existence of God, yet you just said he was despicable.

So you have a problem. Can't be both ways. If he doesn't exist, then he can't be despicable.

 

[daws101]

You're not educating me regarding Josephus. I know who he is.

As I said, I'm still waiting for the evidence that doesn't exist, to support the lie that all archaeologists and historians agree that Christ is a mythical creature.

They don't. Not at all. In fact, many of the pre eminent archaeologists and historians are actually Christians...

Why would you support a man who betrayed his own people as well as the Christians of the day to the Romans?

That's not the question that should be asked. The question is, did he accurately report what he saw? There is no doubt that Josephus wrote eloquently about the Romans...he was PAID to do that. The fact that Jesus appears in any of Josephus' writings lends credence to his existence. There is no reason for Josephus to make him up after all.

Furthermore, whenever archaeologists get to dig deep enough they invariably find evidence to support what was written in the bible. Pilate is mentioned on a plaque that was found in Ceasarea for instance. He's not mentioned in Roman sources but his name was found on the stone during a dig in 1961.

that brings up something I thought would be obvious....
the romans were meticulous record keepers there is no non biblical source roman or otherwise that that corroborates josephus's account...
every time jesus is claimed to have spoken publicly the romans were there just like the modern day police ....but not one account of the water to wine or the fish and loaves stories ...

 

[daws101]

How can he be despicable, if he doesn't exist?

you and lot's o other people believe he does...you cannot in all honesty say god is not despicable or not a mass murder...
to believe in him you have to take the good with the evil...
if you don't you're either tailoring god to fit your pov or you are a cino....christian in name only

 

[koshergrl]

How can you hate something you claim doesn't exist?

Ah well, logic and sense isn't the forte of Christianophobic hate mongers, I suppose.

 

[daws101]

You deny the existence of God, yet you just said he was despicable.

So you have a problem. Can't be both ways. If he doesn't exist, then he can't be despicable.

sure he can as already explained to you, fictional characters are as good or as evil as you wish them to be..

 

[daws101]

How can you hate something you claim doesn't exist?

Ah well, logic and sense isn't the forte of Christianophobic hate mongers, I suppose.

the only people claiming the imaginary Christianophobic hate mongers hate an imaginary god are the believer hate spewers!
if you and other believers had any sense or had any idea what logic or reason are, you'd not believe what you believe...

 

[koshergrl]

You deny the existence of God, yet you just said he was despicable.

So you have a problem. Can't be both ways. If he doesn't exist, then he can't be despicable.

sure he can as already explained to you, fictional characters are as good or as evil as you wish them to be..

So you admit your depiction of God as angry, evil, or whatever is not based in reality.

And you're right. The God you want doesn't exist. The real God is pure love and righteousness.

 

[koshergrl]

How can you hate something you claim doesn't exist?

Ah well, logic and sense isn't the forte of Christianophobic hate mongers, I suppose.

the only people claiming the imaginary Christianophobic hate mongers hate an imaginary god are the believer hate spewers!
if you and other believers had any sense or had any idea what logic or reason are, you'd not believe what you believe...

That's some pretty riveting gibberish you just spewed there, duhs. The dope wearing off?

 

[holston]

You deny the existence of God, yet you just said he was despicable.

So you have a problem. Can't be both ways. If he doesn't exist, then he can't be despicable.

sure he can as already explained to you, fictional characters are as good or as evil as you wish them to be..

So you admit your depiction of God as angry, evil, or whatever is not based in reality.

And you're right. The God you want doesn't exist. The real God is pure love and righteousness.

This last concept escapes their grasp.
They see the evil in the world and cannot reconcile it's presence with the existence of an all powerful God who is "good" who will not step in and cause all evil to cease.

They cannot see any reason why a "good" God who was powerful enough to eradicate all evil would not.

This can only be because they either have not given the matter enough thought, they haven't had enough time and experience to have done so yet, or they are unable to reason that far.

The only other alternative is that they simply refuse to see.

A person who cannot reason is only guilty of a mental deficiency. A person who CAN reason but refuses to might be either too lazy to or is HAPPY to leave his thoughts lying where they are.

I can't say which case applies to these people here.

But I can say that only a fool would deliberately CHOOSE to believe that God does not exist if there was just as much reason to suppose that he did.

I can see why a person would refuse to believe in a God who was evil.
In fact, I would agree that refusing to believe in such a God would be the right thing to do.
For what fool would wish that God almighty were evil? It would take an even bigger fool to say that God was evil and yet still profess a belief in him.

For then what would such a God have to think and say about a tiny person who had that much audacity? Shouldn't he then fear what such an evil power would do to him for openly proclaiming him to be so? Who could stop an Almighty force of evil from doing evil?


I sympathize with those who become so disillusioned by the misery and corruption of the world that they find it difficult to believe that a "good God" could preside over this mess.

But when I examine the New Testament scriptures I catch a glimmer of hope that a good God may indeed exist and that there are good reasons why he has permitted the forces of evil to exist among men.

Whether I "choose" to believe or whether I am able to believe or not, I am still confronted with the problem of evil and pain either way.

The atheistic proposition has no hope whatsoever in it unless one can look forward to total non existence, in which case it makes all our efforts on earth to be temporal and futile. Why would a reasonable person WANT to persist in BELIEVING in such an absurdity if he had any better alternative?

An ability to believe enough to qualify as a genuine faith must be based upon reasonable evidence. NO belief can be based upon KNOWING EVERYTHING since that is impossible for ANY MAN. Even atheists must admit that they do not know and cannot know everything. Therefore their conviction that there is no God or that God could not possibly be good is based upon nothing more than their own assumptions and suppositions about how things OUGHT to be.

The faith of atheism can not be based upon scientific reasoning because there is no body of science which contains a proof that God cannot exist. Moreover, there is no systematic line of reasoning which can be demonstrated which affirms that the proposition of God's existence is unreasonable OR impossible.


The sorriest state a man can be in concerning what he "chooses" to believe or the faith which he affirms with his mouth, is one who has chosen to deny God's existence, not because of the pain and suffering which is rampant in the world, but because he feels personally deprived of those things which he desires most.

And what should a person who is "good", desire most?

A person who denies the existence of God or of his goodness because of an apparent lack of selfless attention to the creature needs and pleasures of his creations, cannot justifiably accuse such a God of being evil for not meeting those standards while the person himself who is making the accusations cannot likewise live up to those standards which he requires of God, without making the tacit admission that it is he himself who is unrighteous and that it is only a presumption to assume that God is equally as lacking.

A simpler way of putting this would be to say that it isn't fair to assume that God does not exist or isn't good because the person thinking that finds himself incapable of being as righteous as he would have God to be in order to admit his existence.

A person who is honest enough with himself to admit that he himself is not capable of meeting the standards which he would demand a righteous God cannot logically negate the existence of God on those grounds without similarly denying his own existence.

Since that person DOES admit the existence of evil, he necessarily must admit the existence of GOOD, since evil cannot exist without reference to that which is good.

So one is left not only with the problem of explaining the existence of EVIL but also the existence of GOOD. Since one is not synonymous or compatible with the other we cannot say that the origin of evil was good or that the origin of good was evil. We recognize them to be at opposite poles.

Even if we were to allow the idea that one spawned the other, we still can't determine which came first. This leaves us with an unbearable paradox which to me is just another way of describing hell.

A "yin and yang" universe of this nature without end or resolution is no better than any other hell I could imagine.

I would much prefer that the atheists be correct than believe in that!

But we have decided that the true nature of the universe does not depend upon our wishful thinking. Haven't we?

The ultimate TRUTH is not a matter of what I WANT to believe is it?
This rule would apply to a heaven or a hell.

Given no more information than I have to go on , and no greater faculties of reason than those I possess, I would CHOOSE to believe in an Almighty God who IS GOOD, and who is able to resolve these paradoxes once and for all.

I would CHOOSE not to be like a miserable DOG being condemned to chase his own tail throughout eternity.

Otherwise I would CHOOSE not to be at all, just as the atheist proposes.

If those latter two options are the only ones available then I would much PREFER to CHOOSE the atheist one. Oblivion would be infinitely more MERCIFUL, ..............
IF such a THING as MERCY were to exist.

But then, when I think of concepts such as MERCY, and GOODNESS, I tend to associate those things in my mind with the attributes I would assign to an Almighty God IF I had my "rathers".

If the universe is entirely devoid of mercy and goodness in the first place, I fail to see how such concepts could have emerged from the stones of the ground, seeing that they lack intelligence altogether.

To believe that the stones produced these "things" one would have to believe in something like a law of entropy which works in reverse. In other words, that all things tend to become more and more organized as time progresses. This of course violates the common sense experience which convicts us in the belief of certain laws of thermodynamics.

The most ardent evolutionist can only imagine how consciousness, emotion, and moral concepts have "evolved" from inanimate matter. To claim otherwise is more than a little presumptuous. So to accuse Christians or other believers in God as guilty of "wishful thinking" is somewhat intellectually unfair if not downright dishonest.

I submit to you, that a truly "open" mind, or a "scientifically reasonable" one, would approach the issue of the existence of God without preconceived notions which have grown out of personal disappointments or unwarranted assumptions about the role of pain and suffering in the world whether it is ours or someone elses.

God will no more disappear if we fall on the floor holding our breath and kicking our feet than Santa Claus will appear on my roof at Christmas.

People are going to suffer and die in any case.
That's no reason to slam the door in the face of hope prematurely simply because I am dissatisfied with my interminable ignorance or the speed in which God moves to demonstrate himself to me personally.

In the meantime I'll do what I can to improve my circumstances and hope that Providence will cut me some slack when I need it. I'll conduct myself as though what I say and do matters enough to be judged someday by one who has the full story inside and out, the wisdom to render the right verdict, and the power to pass sentence.

If conducting myself in that manner is a fools errand then the most I can wish for is total annihilation. (If only it were that simple. )

No friends. The absurdity of that proposition is just too much for me to reasonably accept, other people's definition of what constitutes the body of "science" not withstanding.

 

[Derideo_Te]

sure he can as already explained to you, fictional characters are as good or as evil as you wish them to be..

So you admit your depiction of God as angry, evil, or whatever is not based in reality.

And you're right. The God you want doesn't exist. The real God is pure love and righteousness.

This last concept escapes their grasp.
They see the evil in the world and cannot reconcile it's presence with the existence of an all powerful God who is "good" who will not step in and cause all evil to cease.

They cannot see any reason why a "good" God who was powerful enough to eradicate all evil would not.

This can only be because they either have not given the matter enough thought, they haven't had enough time and experience to have done so yet, or they are unable to reason that far.

The only other alternative is that they simply refuse to see.

A person who cannot reason is only guilty of a mental deficiency. A person who CAN reason but refuses to might be either too lazy to or is HAPPY to leave his thoughts lying where they are.

I can't say which case applies to these people here.

But I can say that only a fool would deliberately CHOOSE to believe that God does not exist if there was just as much reason to suppose that he did.

I can see why a person would refuse to believe in a God who was evil.
In fact, I would agree that refusing to believe in such a God would be the right thing to do.
For what fool would wish that God almighty were evil? It would take an even bigger fool to say that God was evil and yet still profess a belief in him.

For then what would such a God have to think and say about a tiny person who had that much audacity? Shouldn't he then fear what such an evil power would do to him for openly proclaiming him to be so? Who could stop an Almighty force of evil from doing evil?


I sympathize with those who become so disillusioned by the misery and corruption of the world that they find it difficult to believe that a "good God" could preside over this mess.

But when I examine the New Testament scriptures I catch a glimmer of hope that a good God may indeed exist and that there are good reasons why he has permitted the forces of evil to exist among men.

Whether I "choose" to believe or whether I am able to believe or not, I am still confronted with the problem of evil and pain either way.

The atheistic proposition has no hope whatsoever in it unless one can look forward to total non existence, in which case it makes all our efforts on earth to be temporal and futile. Why would a reasonable person WANT to persist in BELIEVING in such an absurdity if he had any better alternative?

An ability to believe enough to qualify as a genuine faith must be based upon reasonable evidence. NO belief can be based upon KNOWING EVERYTHING since that is impossible for ANY MAN. Even atheists must admit that they do not know and cannot know everything. Therefore their conviction that there is no God or that God could not possibly be good is based upon nothing more than their own assumptions and suppositions about how things OUGHT to be.

The faith of atheism can not be based upon scientific reasoning because there is no body of science which contains a proof that God cannot exist. Moreover, there is no systematic line of reasoning which can be demonstrated which affirms that the proposition of God's existence is unreasonable OR impossible.


The sorriest state a man can be in concerning what he "chooses" to believe or the faith which he affirms with his mouth, is one who has chosen to deny God's existence, not because of the pain and suffering which is rampant in the world, but because he feels personally deprived of those things which he desires most.

And what should a person who is "good", desire most?

A person who denies the existence of God or of his goodness because of an apparent lack of selfless attention to the creature needs and pleasures of his creations, cannot justifiably accuse such a God of being evil for not meeting those standards while the person himself who is making the accusations cannot likewise live up to those standards which he requires of God, without making the tacit admission that it is he himself who is unrighteous and that it is only a presumption to assume that God is equally as lacking.

A simpler way of putting this would be to say that it isn't fair to assume that God does not exist or isn't good because the person thinking that finds himself incapable of being as righteous as he would have God to be in order to admit his existence.

A person who is honest enough with himself to admit that he himself is not capable of meeting the standards which he would demand a righteous God cannot logically negate the existence of God on those grounds without similarly denying his own existence.

Since that person DOES admit the existence of evil, he necessarily must admit the existence of GOOD, since evil cannot exist without reference to that which is good.

So one is left not only with the problem of explaining the existence of EVIL but also the existence of GOOD. Since one is not synonymous or compatible with the other we cannot say that the origin of evil was good or that the origin of good was evil. We recognize them to be at opposite poles.

Even if we were to allow the idea that one spawned the other, we still can't determine which came first. This leaves us with an unbearable paradox which to me is just another way of describing hell.

A "yin and yang" universe of this nature without end or resolution is no better than any other hell I could imagine.

I would much prefer that the atheists be correct than believe in that!

But we have decided that the true nature of the universe does not depend upon our wishful thinking. Haven't we?

The ultimate TRUTH is not a matter of what I WANT to believe is it?
This rule would apply to a heaven or a hell.

Given no more information than I have to go on , and no greater faculties of reason than those I possess, I would CHOOSE to believe in an Almighty God who IS GOOD, and who is able to resolve these paradoxes once and for all.

I would CHOOSE not to be like a miserable DOG being condemned to chase his own tail throughout eternity.

Otherwise I would CHOOSE not to be at all, just as the atheist proposes.

If those latter two options are the only ones available then I would much PREFER to CHOOSE the atheist one. Oblivion would be infinitely more MERCIFUL, ..............
IF such a THING as MERCY were to exist.

But then, when I think of concepts such as MERCY, and GOODNESS, I tend to associate those things in my mind with the attributes I would assign to an Almighty God IF I had my "rathers".

If the universe is entirely devoid of mercy and goodness in the first place, I fail to see how such concepts could have emerged from the stones of the ground, seeing that they lack intelligence altogether.

To believe that the stones produced these "things" one would have to believe in something like a law of entropy which works in reverse. In other words, that all things tend to become more and more organized as time progresses. This of course violates the common sense experience which convicts us in the belief of certain laws of thermodynamics.

The most ardent evolutionist can only imagine how consciousness, emotion, and moral concepts have "evolved" from inanimate matter. To claim otherwise is more than a little presumptuous. So to accuse Christians or other believers in God as guilty of "wishful thinking" is somewhat intellectually unfair if not downright dishonest.

I submit to you, that a truly "open" mind, or a "scientifically reasonable" one, would approach the issue of the existence of God without preconceived notions which have grown out of personal disappointments or unwarranted assumptions about the role of pain and suffering in the world whether it is ours or someone elses.

God will no more disappear if we fall on the floor holding our breath and kicking our feet than Santa Claus will appear on my roof at Christmas.

People are going to suffer and die in any case.
That's no reason to slam the door in the face of hope prematurely simply because I am dissatisfied with my interminable ignorance or the speed in which God moves to demonstrate himself to me personally.

In the meantime I'll do what I can to improve my circumstances and hope that Providence will cut me some slack when I need it. I'll conduct myself as though what I say and do matters enough to be judged someday by one who has the full story inside and out, the wisdom to render the right verdict, and the power to pass sentence.

If conducting myself in that manner is a fools errand then the most I can wish for is total annihilation. (If only it were that simple. )

No friends. The absurdity of that proposition is just too much for me to reasonably accept, other people's definition of what constitutes the body of "science" not withstanding.

Ironic!

This last concept escapes their grasp.
They see the evil in the world and cannot reconcile it's presence with the existence of an all powerful God who is "good" who will not step in and cause all evil to cease.

Has it escaped your grasp that if evil exists it is because your God created it in the first place?

They cannot see any reason why a "good" God who was powerful enough to eradicate all evil would not.

Since your God created the evil in the first place what would be his motivation for eradicating it?

This can only be because they either have not given the matter enough thought

Obviously you haven't given much thought to the paradox that your God is 100% responsible for all of the evil in this world. What is even worse is that your God knows that it is going to happen and yet does nothing to stop it from happening. Therein lies premeditation and collusion when it comes to this evil.

Needless to say you have probably not given any thought to the paradox inherent in the concept of omnipotence either.

 

[koshergrl]

Of course he is. Nothing happens except by his Design.

That doesn't make him evil. It makes him perfect, and omnipotent.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Of course he is. Nothing happens except by his Design.

That doesn't make him evil. It makes him perfect, and omnipotent.

So perfection encompasses evil and imperfection?

Isn't that an oxymoron?

 

[BreezeWood]

But when I examine the New Testament scriptures ...

* (Hint) those are not working either - time for Newer new ones ... Triumph of Good over Evil, the inside story in under 100 pages.

.

 

[holston]

Ironic!

Has it escaped your grasp that if evil exists it is because your God created it in the first place?

You are falsely assuming that God "created" evil.

Since your God created the evil in the first place what would be his motivation for eradicating it?

Assuming he created it, I can't think of one, unless he was like some people are who are rotten but still want others to think that they are good. Al Capone opened soup kitchens during the depression I've heard. But I wouldn't say that made him a true humanitarian.

One problem with humans is that they tend to judge others according to their own subjective set of experiences and perceptions when to do so requires them to make the gross assumption that everyone else feels and thinks the same way they do themselves.
What "scientific" evidence can they produce which proves that everyone else does. There is no known method I am aware of which allows one person to experience first hand the emotions, thoughts, and feelings of others. We can only "assume" that they resemble those of our own.

It is much more presumptuous to jump to conclusions about the infinite mind of God so much so that a simple comparison seems ridiculous.
The only reason I allow for it in my own mind is based on the New Testament scriptures which tell us that God essentially was "made flesh" in order that he should be tempted in all manner like unto man.

In other words, because God was able to stoop to the level of man does not mean that man is able to ascend to the level of God.

Obviously you haven't given much thought to the paradox that your God is 100% responsible for all of the evil in this world. What is even worse is that your God knows that it is going to happen and yet does nothing to stop it from happening. Therein lies premeditation and collusion when it comes to this evil.

This is obviously not true unless you are a Pantheist who believes that EVERYTHING is GOD, which is rather absurd on the face of it.

Right now I am typing words. It is I who am responsible for them, not you.
Likewise, YOU are responsible for YOUR actions, not me.
Since neither of us can claim to be God, then it holds that God is not responsible for the actions of either one of us.

You are also assuming that God can only be GOOD if he prohibits all possible evil from existing. There are some conceptual problems inherent in that idea of a universe.

Nevertheless you cannot say with certainty which things God has allowed and whether there ARE certain actions and deeds which he HAS prevented.

You could gain a much better idea of how God acts to intervene in the affairs of men if you studied the Old Testament a little.

Some people erroneously conclude as you have that God never does anything or takes any actions which would interfere with mens desires to commit evil. Others may think that if God intervenes once, then he must always intervene in order to be logically consistent with their own concepts of what a GOOD God MUST do.

Others do not see the paradox inherent in presuming that man could be given a mind of his own and at the same time be subjected to a force which constantly acted at every moment in time to prevent him from exercising the free will he is supposed to have.

If you take the time to follow this line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion you will see some of the absurd scenarios this would lead to. To prevent every fool with a notion of harming himself, God would have to be constantly suspending the laws of nature to the point where every individual would be living in a fantasy universe of his own in which there were no dependable rules of operation at all.

Needless to say you have probably not given any thought to the paradox inherent in the concept of omnipotence either.

Not at all. I have thought many times on the concept of omnipotence.

What results is similar to what happens when one tries to grasp the concept of infinity.

You can try the mental experiment of trying to envision large numbers beginning with the smallest value you can hold in your mind and then proceeding conceptually to larger and larger ones. The mind rapidly loses the ability to form an accurate mental depiction of them.
The most we can do is handle them conceptually. We can't really juggle them mentally the way we can mentally feel our own fingers and toes.

The terms omniscience and omnipotent are concepts which imply an INFINITE capacity for knowledge and awareness.

It is said that a cat fish can "see" in pitch black with his whiskers just like a bat can "see" with his ears.
I can scarcely imagine what either sensation would feel like.

Even more baffling is the story I heard where when a person who was blind from birth was asked whether she "saw" black, she replied "NO" !

Dig it. A person who is blind from birth does not "see" black or anything else. There is the total lack of any concept of vision!

I can more easily imagine myself to be a deep sea fish than to "picture" NOTHING when I close my eyes.


There are many many illustrations of this nature I can cite which address the problems inherent with the conceptual problems of perception, even on these planes which are much closer to our experience than the infinite would allow.

I can't imagine what it would be like to be able to see a 360 degree panoramic view, much less what it would be like to be in multiple locations at once.

I can't imagine what it would be like to exist independently of the past, present, or future.

I can't imagine what it would be like to be as big as the furthermost reaches of outer space and yet smaller than the smallest "quark" of the densest space at the same time.

If you dwell on these concepts long enough, it begins to become almost laughable to presume to make judgements on HOW creation SHOULD be.


The Biblical account of creation mentions the existence of beings which have been referred to as angels.

These angels were said to have existed long before the creation of the earth. Living in heaven with God from the moment of their creation must have subjected them to a different set of rules than those which Adam and Eve encountered once they violated God's prohibitions.

For when the Angel called Lucifer fell from grace, he must have done so with a much more intimate knowledge of what he was doing than shortsighted Adam was blessed with. Because apparently once Lucifer decided to assume the position of God he was "cast down like lightening". From all I can gather he has no way of reversing the course of his decision.

The idea of this fills me with a kind of dread which I cannot describe. The possibility of committing any sort of act of any consequence for which there is no hope of reversal is a very frightening proposition indeed.

I guess that is where someone came up with the saying "Fools rush in where angels dare to tread".

I'm not saying that I haven't been such a fool. I AM saying that the prospects of continuing to be one or of having no way to ameliorate the consequences of having been so are positively terrifying.

This is what I am suggesting when I speak of a person who would call God EVIL and at the same time admit of his existence.

A homely analogy to elucidate this idea would be to imagine a person who walked up to a really bad person who was known to be very fierce and mercilessly cruel in his dealing with others, and then to dare him to knock the chip off your shoulder.

There aren't many people in the world who are either that fearless or foolish that they would be so insolent to someone whom they knew they could not handle in a physical contest and who would be certain to attack if crossed.

It amazes me how so many people know of people like this and are very careful not to tax their limits yet would speak as if with a brazen authority about an "evil" God as if one were to exist that he would just ignore the insult.

I would have to be so confident that such an evil God did NOT exist before I dared say anything which might offend him.

If I am so weak and fearful that I have to watch my step so carefully around vile and vicious men, then I shudder to think what such a God might do.

If I couldn't avoid such a person, I at least would not want to say anything to upset him if I valued my hide.
But all physical monsters can do is tear your body up. Eventually death would make it impossible for them to cause you further pain.
This escape wouldn't be available on a spiritual plane.

I wouldn't expect an thoroughly EVIL God to be capable of showing ANY mercy whatsoever.
To do so would give him an attribute more akin to a GOOD God. What self respecting EVIL God would want to do that?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Ironic!

Has it escaped your grasp that if evil exists it is because your God created it in the first place?

You are falsely assuming that God "created" evil.

Since your God created the evil in the first place what would be his motivation for eradicating it?

Assuming he created it, I can't think of one, unless he was like some people are who are rotten but still want others to think that they are good. Al Capone opened soup kitchens during the depression I've heard. But I wouldn't say that made him a true humanitarian.

One problem with humans is that they tend to judge others according to their own subjective set of experiences and perceptions when to do so requires them to make the gross assumption that everyone else feels and thinks the same way they do themselves.
What "scientific" evidence can they produce which proves that everyone else does. There is no known method I am aware of which allows one person to experience first hand the emotions, thoughts, and feelings of others. We can only "assume" that they resemble those of our own.

It is much more presumptuous to jump to conclusions about the infinite mind of God so much so that a simple comparison seems ridiculous.
The only reason I allow for it in my own mind is based on the New Testament scriptures which tell us that God essentially was "made flesh" in order that he should be tempted in all manner like unto man.

Obviously you haven't given much thought to the paradox that your God is 100% responsible for all of the evil in this world. What is even worse is that your God knows that it is going to happen and yet does nothing to stop it from happening. Therein lies premeditation and collusion when it comes to this evil.

This is obviously not true unless you are a Pantheist who believes that EVERYTHING is GOD, which is rather absurd on the face of it.

Right now I am typing words. It is I who am responsible for them, not you.
Likewise, YOU are responsible for YOUR actions, not me.
Since neither of us can claim to be God, then it holds that God is not responsible for the actions of either one of us.

You are also assuming that God can only be could if he prohibits evil from being committed.

You cannot say with certainty which things God has allowed and whether there ARE certain actions and deeds which he HAS prevented.

You could gain a much better idea of how God acts to intervene in the affairs of men if you studied the Old Testament a little.

Some people erroneously conclude as you have that God never does anything or takes any actions which would interfere with mens desires to commit evil.

Others do not see the paradox inherent in presuming that man could be given a mind of his own and at the same time be subjected to a force which constantly acted at every moment in time to prevent him from acting on it.

If you take the time to follow this line of reasoning to it's logical conclusion you will see some of the absurd scenarios this would lead to.

Needless to say you have probably not given any thought to the paradox inherent in the concept of omnipotence either.

Not at all. I have thought many times on the concept of omnipotence.

What results is similar to what happens when one tries to grasp the concept of infinity.

You can try the mental experiment of trying to envision large numbers beginning with the smallest value you can hold in your mind and then proceeding conceptually to larger and larger ones. The mind rapidly loses the ability to form an accurate mental depiction of them.
The most we can do is handle them conceptually. We can't really juggle them mentally the way we can mentally feel our own fingers and toes.

The terms omniscience and omnipotent are concepts which imply an INFINITE capacity for knowledge and awareness.

It is said that a cat fish can "see" in pitch black with his whiskers just like a bat can "see" with his eyes.
I can scarcely imagine what either sensation would feel like.

Even more baffling is the story I heard where when a person who was blind from birth was asked whether she "saw" black, she replied "NO" !

Dig it. A person who is blind from birth does not "see" black or anything else. There is the total lack of any concept of vision!

I can more easily imagine myself to be a deep sea fish than to "picture" NOTHING when I close my eyes.


There are many many illustrations of this nature I can cite which address the problems inherent with the conceptual problems of perception, even on these planes which are much closer to our experience than the infinite would allow.

I can't imagine what it would be like to be able to see a 360 degree panoramic view, much less what it would be like to be in multiple locations at once.

I can't imagine what it would be like to exist independently of the past, present, or future.

I can't imagine what it would be like to be as big as the furthermost reaches of outer space and yet smaller than the smallest "quark" of the densest space at the same time.

If you dwell on these concepts long enough, it begins to become almost laughable to presume to make judgements on HOW creation SHOULD be.


The Biblical account of creation mentions the existence of beings which have been referred to as angels.

These angels were said to have existed long before the creation of the earth. Living in heaven with God from the moment of their creation must have subjected them to a different set of rules than those which Adam and Eve encountered once they violated God's prohibitions.

For when the Angel called Lucifer fell from grace, he must have done so with a much more intimate knowledge of what he was doing than shortsighted Adam was blessed with. Because apparently once Lucifer decided to assume the position of God he was "cast down like lightening". From all I can gather he has no way of reversing the course of his decision.

The idea of this fills me with a kind of dread which I cannot describe. The possibility of committing any sort of act of any consequence for which there is no hope of reversal is a very frightening proposition indeed.

I guess that is where someone came up with the saying "Fools rush in where angels dare to tread".

I'm not saying that I haven't been such a fool. I AM saying that the prospects of continuing to be one or of having no way to ameliorate the consequences of having been so are positively terrifying.

This is what I am suggesting when I speak of a person who would call God EVIL and at the same time admit of his existence.

A homely analogy to elucidate this idea would be to imagine a person who walked up to a really bad person who was known to be very fierce and mercilessly cruel in his dealing with others, and then to dare him to knock the chip off your shoulder.

There aren't many people in the world who are either that fearless or foolish that they would be so insolent to someone whom they knew they could not handle in a physical contest and who would be certain to attack if crossed.

It amazes me how so many people know of people like this and are very careful not to tax their limits yet would speak as if with a brazen authority about an "evil" God as if one were to exist that he would just ignore the insult.

I would have to be so confident that such an evil God did NOT exist before I dared say anything which might offend him.

If I am so weak and fearful that I have to watch my step so carefully around vile and vicious men, then I shudder to think what such a God might do.

If I couldn't avoid such a person, I at least would not want to say anything to upset him if I valued my hide.
But all physical monsters can do is tear your body up. Eventually death would make it impossible for them to cause you further pain.
This escape wouldn't be available on a spiritual plane.

I wouldn't expect an thoroughly EVIL God to be capable of showing ANY mercy whatsoever.
To do so would give him an attribute more akin to a GOOD God. What self respecting EVIL God would want to do that?

Interesting!

You are falsely assuming that God "created" evil.

You were the one who alleged that your God is "all powerful" which means that he must have created evil. If he didn't then he cannot be "all powerful" because another equally powerful entity must exist to have created evil.

The terms omniscience and omnipotent are concepts which imply an INFINITE capacity for knowledge and awareness.

Nope! I suggest that you look up the term omnipotent.

 

[holston]

But when I examine the New Testament scriptures ...

* (Hint) those are not working either - time for Newer new ones ... Triumph of Good over Evil, the inside story in under 100 pages.

.

I take this to mean that you want the whole thing in a nut shell.

It pretty much has already been given to you in that form already, which IS the New Testament.

I'm sorry but you aren't allowed a "new" one every time you feel an urge or there is a change in the weather.
The same rule has to apply to everyone. Otherwise there wouldn't be "one" plan of salvation, there would be literally billions.

Then again, that is exactly what some people propose to be the situation.
They maintain that there are as many ways to heaven as there are people in the world.

I suppose that could be considered to be "true" depending on the way in which you wish to conceptualize it.

But there still must remain some standard to which they are all obliged to adhere. Otherwise we would have a situation in which one would be as good as another regardless of how disparate and contradictory they were.
Again, that is exactly what some people propose to be the truth.
In which case I fail to see why there needs be any "truth" at all, since everyone would be free to create whatever "truth" they desire.


Let's say for the moment that we can grant your request for a "new" plan.
While we are at it, let's grant every person a "new" plan every time they wish for one.

No doubt there would be many among this mob who would complain of a lack of conformity, consistency, and stability. They would complain that there is no standard by which to gauge anything.

Unfortunately you can't have the kind of uniformity that can be relied upon to remain unchanged from day to day, and at the same time leave the whole matter to the caprice of a billion individuals.


So I speculate that your contention that the New plan "isn't working" is based more upon your private expectations of how it should work and what those results should
entail rather than simply looking at the thing for what it is and taking it at face value.

Many people have the erroneous notion that God's plan for the redemption of man requires the creation of a paradise on earth. This is the idea that the Jews believe in when they speak of a "Mashianic Age".

They are still looking for a conquering King who will provide them all with the kind of earthly comforts which the Muslims look forward to after blowing themselves to kingdom come.

In fact, there are still many many different people who are following all sorts of schemes concocted by men in order to achieve "Nirvana" or find "Elderado" on earth. None of them have succeeded in the history of mankind. But just like the search for the perpetual motion machine, there are still those who persist in the belief that such can be found.

The pain and dissatisfaction they feel in their own personal lives is so unbearable that they cannot reconcile their minds to accepting anything less.

And any "God" who is not willing or able to provide this paradise on earth is not worth worshiping in the first place. Right? I don't think so. Either give my Paradise or make my Mashianic Age come to pass or you are no God of mine. Isn't that essentially what they are demanding?
We demand comfort and pleasure of our "Gods", otherwise what GOOD are they? These people don't want a God; they want an old man in the sky with a long beard who will give them whatever they want whenever they want it without expecting so much as an act of obedience or a fine thank-you in return.


If the teachings of New Testament Christianity are not sinking in, or taking hold, it's only with those people who equate the worship of God with the acquisition of creature comforts and earthly "success".

Christianity is the type of religion that demands that our attention be focused on the higher qualities of mercy, charity, compassion, honesty, good deeds and so forth, irrespective of what ill fortune befalls us.
This is the story of Job.
Thankfully God doesn't demand of the majority of us the patience which Satan sought to destroy in Job.

Our trials and tribulations are not near as demanding as it was of those who were fed to lions, impaled on sticks, decapitated, crucified upside down, and so forth.
This doesn't mean that acceptance of the Christian yoke will relieve a person of all hardships and make him exempt from illness, death, or mistreatment at the hands of other men.

It involves accepting the idea that such qualities as mercy and charity and those mentioned above exist anyway despite the abundance of evil in the world, and that they still demand that we treasure them more than we would a pain free existence.

This brings the question to mind as to whether a "pain free" existence on a spiritual plane were even possible in the absence of those spiritual qualities.

 

[holston]

You were the one who alleged that your God is "all powerful" which means that he must have created evil. If he didn't then he cannot be "all powerful" because another equally powerful entity must exist to have created evil.

The terms omniscience and omnipotent are concepts which imply an INFINITE capacity for knowledge and awareness.

Nope! I suggest that you look up the term omnipotent.

Yes I am alleging that God is all powerful.

That is not to say that God has not given man or the devil a power of his own.
He couldn't exactly do that and at the same time prevent him from using it now could he?

1. Able in every respect and for every work; unlimited in
ability; all-powerful; almighty; as, the Being that can
create worlds must be omnipotent.
[1913 Webster]

God's will and pleasure and his omnipotent power.
--Sir T. More.
[1913 Webster]

2. Having unlimited power of a particular kind; as,
omnipotent love. --Shak.
[1913 Webster]

The Omnipotent, The Almighty; God. --Milton.
[1913 Webster]

I stand by what I said.