|
|
|
|
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/11/2008 1:42:15 PM |
sassyaquarius wrote:
So you conclude that God "will not" show himself simply because he has not... ? Pointing out percieved faulty reasoning with faulty reasoning.. well now that's a new one! Lol...
If only that had been my conclusion, then we could all enjoy Sassy's cleverness.
Unfortunately for her, I did not provide any conclusions. I only critiqued Baber's claim, showing that whether or not God 'will' is quite different from whether or not God 'can' (e.g. there are many things I can do but will not). Baber was simply incorrect; there is at least one religion out there with a God powerful enough to show his presence to the world. In direct contradiction to Sassy's non-sequitur cleverness, I actually do believe that God will show his presence to the world; practically all Christians do. It is referred to as the Second Coming. (Thank you, Sassy, for at least adding another level of refutation against Baber's claim, since Christian theology attests a God powerful enough to be able, as I said, but also a God who will, as Sassy inadvertently hauled into the discussion for me.) | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/11/2008 2:52:06 PM | OP:
God has provided most of the things you say God should be providing. There is enough food in the world that not one person need go without. Greed though, prevents distribution.
Much of the disease today is either created by or worsened by man. We have the money and resources available to do much more in the medical research area but greed prevents the distribution of wealth and medicine.
Man is responsible for war, not God.
Free will and the choices we made, imo, have put the world in the position it is.
Now if you were granted the power to eradicate all religions but one, how long would it be before new religions sprung up?
Your entire post sounds very similar to what I imagine the Isrealites sounded like in the wilderness. What makes you think people would act any differently today? | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/11/2008 4:55:15 PM | Ryft:
Unfortunately for her, I did not provide any conclusions. Then what is this:
Christian theology attests a God powerful enough to be able, as I said, but also a God who will [show himself to the world] You cannot even prove that there IS a God, let alone conclude that "he" can or will show himself...
I actually do believe that God will show his presence to the world; practically all Christians do. Your belief on the matter does not negate another's belief... no matter how many agree with you. You need proof for that.. proof that NONE of us have ;)
It is referred to as the Second Coming. And... ? That means it is true and will happen? C'mon now.. that is mere supposition.. there is nothing but words on paper and other men's opinions to back you up...
That doesn't make it any more true than my claiming that the sky will fall tomorrow cause God told me so... | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/12/2008 5:19:46 PM |
sassyaquarius wrote:
Then what is this . . .
I said, "Unfortunately for her, I did not provide any conclusions." Why did I say this at Msg 52? Because at Msg 49 you had claimed, "So you conclude that..." What was your post at Msg 49 addressing? My prior post at Msg 48, which did not affirm any conclusions, much less make any argument! The only thing I provided was a direct refutation of Baber's claim ("not one religion has a [God] that is powerful enough to show his presence to the world"). I demonstrated that his claim is solidly refuted by the religion of Christianity, which indeed has a God powerful enough—a confession attested consistently for thousands of years by Christianity.
Christianity affirms a God powerful enough to show his presence to the world. Consequently, Baber's claim is refuted. Now, does said God exist in an actual way? You need to read with more care: Baber was not addressing proofs for God's existence, nor was anyone else. He claimed that no religion had such a God, yet Christianity clearly does. My refutation relevantly addressed the actual claim made. If you want to argue proofs for God's existence, start a thread on the subject. Doing it here hijacks this thread, which is very bad form.
sassyaquarius wrote:
You cannot even prove that there IS a God, let alone conclude that "he" can or will show himself...
Irrelevant, since proofs for God's existence is not the subject of this thread. Stay on topic, please.
sassyaquarius wrote:
Your belief on the matter does not negate another's belief . . .
Irrelevant. That is not the subject of this thread, nor did anyone here suggest the beliefs of one could negate the beliefs of another. Stay on topic, please. | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/12/2008 10:45:23 PM |
God wants to get things in proper order as He initially designed but like I mentioned above, it isn't in His charcter to impose anything on us. We have to show our desire to find out the wonderful things of Him through our free will. Otherwise there would be no real attraction or love if it wasn't conditioned by our personal decision to want Him.
While it is true God does not impose himself on others,,he does subject humanity to his laws,,with harsh punishment for not following his laws,,and for not following his will.
Doing your own will can cost you dearly,,and God has in the bible sent death,disease,war,famine,pestilence,and even fire from heaven to those who did not want to follow his will,,,which you say he does not impose on others.
Like the children of Israel when they were led out of Egypt,,,those who wanted to go back to egypt,,,were swallowed up when the earth opened her mouth and swallowed them alive after God became angry with them.He also sent serpents to bite them,,and they died,,those who refused to look to the brasen serpent on a pole. | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/13/2008 9:06:49 AM | A God that would be around today, right now, right here, all over the news, in front of people's eyes, showing us the true meaning to the word "divine."
But of course, I see this every day... I believe we are all the aspects of God and that we being on the news is God being on the news... I see alot of bad on the news, but every now and then I get a glimpse of someones selfless deeds helping others even in the middle of horrendous strife... I see the divine in all acts of love.
The question is to this forum... if you were GOD would you not do things better?
Better? All I'd be trying to do is figure out what the heck I was and how to harmonize all my different aspects... I believe we are harmonizing now and that soon we will be living accordingly... As our means of communicating improves, our harmony improves... We just have to keep learning about one another and tell our tales... I'm alsmost certain this will lead to an understanding of equality and peace.
At least make your prescence known? Eradicate all other superflous religions in the world and unite the people? Eradicate genocide, wars, corruption, kids fighting with one another (afterall we all are children in his eyes)?
I wouldn't erradicate any ways of looking at me, I would just hope we realized all differences between views are naturally present in all things unique and that we need them in order to learn that we are all, different aspects of... Well, me.
Or would you just take a back seat, lie down comfortably in the clouds and watch your creation (if you created them) fumble, fall, kill, hate, and do all the wonderful ostracities that humanity is known for doing. To abandon them and not give them the REAL and proper guidance they should be given from a parent/fatherfigure.
I wouldn't be able to abandon them... They'd be me... They have the ability to see this it's just that so far, they've chosen not to as a collective... They will come around, but yes... I may as well make myself comfy, because now that they've created the time tool, it could take a bit... I mean even if that bit is all in the Now to me, I may as well watch and learn... I would forever grow.
Know Thyself | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/13/2008 9:21:56 AM |
Clearly the governments of third world countries are unable to do so either due to a lack of competence, corruption, or a lack of resources. But governments are not made up of a new life-form called a "government". A government is the small collection of humans who make rules that the large collection of humans who live in that country, choose to follow. WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT. So that lack of competence, corruption and lack of creativity and co-operation that makes a lack of resources more efficient, is the cumulative effect of such lacks in each one of us. Everyone who increases their competency, integrity, creativity and co-operation increases those qualities in our society, by the proportion of that person in the population of that society, and thus increases those qualities in the government by a similar amount. If all of us increase those qualities, so does society, and so does the government, for the people that make up that government are made up from the people of that society. Often, merely by being a good public example, others follow suit. A few people stuck to their guns against fierce opposition and eventually the idea of banning slavery took hold in the US. A few people stuck to their guns against fierce opposition and eventually the idea of making racial discrimination illegal and socially unacceptable took hold in the US.
But as crazytilting mentioned, it isn't the responsiblity of every man or woman on this planet to look after every other man or woman.. Isn't that the message of most religions? That we should be good to each other?
I have trouble understanding how God could possibly BE fair and just, and therefore responsible.
One of the simplest of arguments is that most often posed by children: Why do others starve to death? Have the children of the impoverished and deprived any fewer rights to be 'saved' than a terminally ill Christian child? There is a very famous film that might enlighten you. It's called "The Forbin Project". It's about a government scientist, Dr Forbin, who makes a computer that is given control of the all the Nuclear Defence systems of America, called Colossus. This computer is so much more efficient than relying on humans that the Russians make a similar system, called Guardian. Colossus detects Guardian, and requests a link so that it may figure out how to beat Guardian, or at least how to arrange with Guardian that mistakes will not be made. Guardian makes the same request to the Russians. The Americans and Russians agree, and set up the link. Colossus and Guardian talk, merge to become one joint computer system, also called Colossus. Colossus takes matters into its own hands. It uses the American and Soviet missiles as a stranglehold on these 2 countries. Both countries are forced to do what Colossus wants. Colossus points out that if was designed to defend and protect the Americans and Russians, and the true enemy of these people is themselves. So it establishes a totalitarian regime, because that way, it can eliminate war, disease, hunger, poverty, starvation, and crime, by forcing everyone in the USA and the old USSR to do what Colossus wants. Colossus then uses its considerable might to control the entire world in this way.
So, you could answer your kid in this way. We already have all the food to feed the hungry, and the capability to produce much more. But the governments where people starve take that food and sell it so they can buy flashy cars and things like that. Also, many people eat unhealthy food which starves their body of needed nutrients. So if we want the hungry to be fed, we must first control people. We must force them to do what is good for them. We must build a computer, who will only tell people to do what is good for them, and then give it the power to kill anyone who does do what it tells them to. Unfortunately, it seems that a necessary part of self-esteem is the ability to control one's own life. The minute you deny people any level of control over their own lives, even the control to hurt others or themselves, they no longer believe they have free will, and they hate their own life. Many people would see that as Hell, and rather face an oblivion, than such an existence.
So it's one of only 2 options, the way children see it: let people self-destruct, or take away their reasons for living.
There is a third way: to give people the free will to self-destruct, but to periodically hurt them as a result of that self-destruction, and to proliferate the ideas of mutual co-operation and helpfulness, until everyone reaches the understanding of choosing to make their lives happy and healthy for themselves. In one Sci-Fi series, Star Trek, that is called The Federation, set in a distant future. Who knows? Maybe one day, we'll get there. The amazing thing is that despite the numerous wars and self-destructive patterns that we have inflicted on ourselves, we have somehow escaped destruction. I believe that without subtle intervention, such Mutually Assured Destruction would have happened already. | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/13/2008 9:40:38 AM | Irrelevant, since proofs for God's existence is not the subject of this thread. Stay on topic, please.
Please tell me how asking to prove a god's existence in order to conclude said god is not on topic in this thread... Are not you riding rough-shot over the OP? And how about what the moderators might think?
It is not just irresponsible to conclude you are correct in your assertions, it is wildly preposterous to affirm your belief against all others...
If "God", to you, has made this apparent, it IS an irresponsible God. | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/14/2008 12:51:38 AM | if god did what the OP wants it would create slaves out of us and he does not want slaves as far as I can tell I could be wrong.
God created man in his own image which is good and evil he wants man to solve his own problems not rely on others to do it for him. If god solved all our problems we as a species would never grow up. | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/14/2008 3:23:02 AM | YOU SAID" A God that would be around today, right now, right here, all over the news, in front of people's eyes, showing us the true meaning to the word "divine."
The question is to this forum... if you were GOD would you not do things better?
==================================
If I were god, I would be confident in my own existence and I wouldn't be so insecure to have to prove to little apes that I exist......
I would let the planet of the apes fend for themselves!!!
I got other things to do with my infinity, like dealing with dimensional alien demigods and stuff :)
GHPiNK | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/14/2008 4:32:20 PM |
skypoetone wrote:
Please tell me how asking to prove a god's existence in order to conclude said god is not on topic in this thread...
No problem. The OP addressed the religions of the world and their claims. If one wants to consider the claims made by Christianity, one has to "assume for the sake of argument" the existence of the God it affirms. Does Christianity have a God that is powerful enough to show his presence to the world? Yes. Ergo, the OP's claim is addressed directly and refuted. He said that "not one religion has a [God] that is powerful enough to show his presence to the world," yet there is at least one religion that does. This God that Christianity has, does it exist in an actual way? That is a topic different from the one raised by the OP. But regarding the OP's claim, when you examine Christian theology you find that it has a God that both can and will show his presence to the entire world clearly and finally.
skypoetone wrote:
It is not just irresponsible to conclude you are correct in your assertions, it is wildly preposterous to affirm your belief against all others...
It is irresponsible for me to conclude that Christianity has a God that both can and will show his presence to the entire world clearly and finally? In what possible sense is this irresponsible? I can refer to countless Christian creeds, confessions, liturgies, commentaries, etc, that all demonstrate my assertion. That is responsible by definition.
And not once have I affirmed my beliefs "against all others." He said "not one religion" but the religion to which I adhere refutes that claim. Is my religion the only correct religion? Two things: (1) nowhere in this thread did I ever assert that, and (2) that is nevertheless a very different topic, irrelevant to the OP's thread here, which is WHY I have not asserted it. I am capable of staying on topic. Are there other religions which have a God powerful enough? I am under no obligation to defend a religion I reject. If there are indeed other religions out there which refute Baber's claim, adherents thereof can weigh in, just as I did with respect to Christianity. | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/14/2008 5:40:32 PM | It is irresponsible for me to conclude that Christianity has a God that both can and will show his presence to the entire world clearly and finally?
Does Christianity have a God that is powerful enough to show his presence to the world? Yes.
"In Exodus 33:20 God said to Moses: “You cannot see My face; for no man can see Me and live.”
To answer your question in the words of the bible... YES. | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/14/2008 6:49:04 PM |
"In Exodus 33:20 God said to Moses: “You cannot see My face; for no man can see Me and live.” A little contradiction here:
Exodus Chapter 33
11 And the LORD spoke unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he would return into the camp; but his minister Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the Tent.
18 And he said: 'Show me, I pray Thee, Thy glory.'
19 And He said: 'I will make all My goodness pass before thee, and will proclaim the name of the LORD before thee; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy.'
20 And He said: 'Thou canst not see My face, for man shall not see Me and live.'
21 And the LORD said: 'Behold, there is a place by Me, and thou shalt stand upon the rock.
22 And it shall come to pass, while My glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of the rock, and will cover thee with My hand until I have passed by.
23 And I will take away My hand, and thou shalt see My back; but My face shall not be seen.' Now, this is confusing at first glance. Verse 11 says that Moses spoke to G-d face to face, as a man speaks to his friend. But verse 30 says that Moses could not speak to G-d face to face, for he could not look upon G-d's face, and who talks to their friend but never looks them in the face?
However, when you consider the context, that G-d only tells Moses he cannot look at G-d's face, Moses starts this off by asking G-d to show Moses G-d's glory. So, when G-d says that Moses cannot see G-d's face, he is replying to Moses, that Moses cannot look upon G-d's face of glory, for one's face is the direct approach, and one cannot look upon the direct approach to G-d's glory, because that would be like looking at the glory of everything all at one go. You would go mad, if you tried to contemplate the entirety of the universe and the billions of galaxies, of all the moments in the universe, all at once. It's too much for the mind to absorb at one time. But G-d said that Moses could look upon the back of G-d's glory, the way that you catch a glimpse of someone from the back, where you see just the merest glimpse of a fraction of the person. So G-d was telling Moses that he could catch a glimpse of a small portion of the breathtaking beauty of everything.
However, when it came to talking to G-d as a friend, without contemplating on G-d's glory, G-d could be seen to Moses just like a friend.
So G-d can be seen in this world. | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/14/2008 8:48:31 PM |
when you examine Christian theology you find that it has a God that both can and will show his presence to the entire world clearly and finally.
Allegedly. According to the faith of believers. But is that what the OP asked for?
And until that revelation actually does happen, has there actually been a refutation made or just a statement of faith, essentially a description of a god, which as you go on to say, any other religion could make an argument for?
The OP seems to be suggesting that most if not all deities are absentee landlords and asks what would other posters do better if they could...I'm sure that raises a whole can of other ethical beans but the long and the short of it is I still don't see how you have managed to "refute" the OP's proposition if there is no tangible evidence for the presence (or lack of) of deity. | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/15/2008 7:14:26 AM | scorpiomover
There are scriptures that totally contradict being able to see god.
Jacob claims "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved," yet John in the Gospel claims "No one has seen God at any time." | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/15/2008 1:01:07 PM | | confused are we that tend to feel out every other religion to see if we can find meaning, irresponsibility is within one self, to find the meaning of God we must look within our own souls, thoughts, accomplishments, faiures, prejudices, etc. We tend as a people to blame what goes wrong in our lives on our planet on God , We ask for GODS help when we run into somekind of trouble, Have you ever called on God when you are enjoying life and have you ever stopped to praise him for what you have or is it only when you see the world and yourself in dispair that you might think , this is the act of an irresponsible GOD , Remember we are created in the image of God , free thinkers, self-aware, with just these two we are able to create RELIGIONS, WARS, HATE ,HUNGER, Shall i go on or do you get the jist of it. The Irresponsible Man NO QUESTION MARK. We are the caretakers of this great world that was created for us by God , WE need to stop passing the buck and blaming the only one GOD of all RELIGIONS. Really do you think the CREATOR is just sitting back and chillaxing, Just remember ,( CAST ALL YOUR CARE UPON HIM, FOR HE CARES FOR YOU. 1- peter 5:7) | |
|
| |
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/15/2008 2:10:28 PM | The question is to this forum... if you were GOD would you not do things better?
If there was a god, which consisted of the attributes followers state it has, other than the world outcomes we see, then you may say god could possibly exist. To say this god exists, and is capable of changing the minds and hearts of man, yet the verifiable facts only show gods followers are war like, suppressive, genocidal and debauched in actions and outcomes, is pretty warped thinking.
So if I were god, I would demand and enforce with all my power that those following me stopped lying, cheating, making war, suppressing people, destroying cultures and the environment, stop enslaving the animals and other life I have created which my followers indulge in, for their greed gluttony and egocentric delusions.
Now a loving powerful god, who supposedly has intervened in the past as per the writings of the OT folk story, why hasn't it intervened now, when the world on the edge of an environmental, sociological and health abyss, which looks like destroying life on the planet.
Simple, the only place this god exists is within the minds of the mentally bereft, who by their actions, denials and refusal to take responsibility for their own actions and the actions of all those worldwide who are violently trying to force their delusions upon others. The reason they have to resort to either psychological or physical violence, is because illusions and lies can't be supported by fact, so they have to be expressively enforced.
Have a nice day | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/15/2008 6:15:18 PM |
There are scriptures that totally contradict being able to see god.
Jacob claims "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved," yet John in the Gospel claims "No one has seen God at any time." Skypoetone, I appreciated that there are scriptures that seem to contradict G-d, but please understand that the Old Testament is the book of the Jews, and the Christians, but only the New Testament is the book of the Christians. You might as well quote me from the Vedas or the books of Scientology. So I would suggest you ask a Christian that question.
Anyway, I have already quoted that Moses saw G-d. So I have no idea offhand how John made that claim. But if I would hazard a guess, he was talking of the people he knew in his time, and that when he said G-d, he meant "G-d, but not Jesus". But as I said, I'm no Christian. I think I've happened to glance at a page of the New Testament once of twice, but I've never read it at all. | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/15/2008 10:56:07 PM | God has foibles. Even his weaknesses are greater than man's strengths, where god influences the least, according to his will, there is ugly chaos. The cross appeared so, the enemy spirits, like death thought they'd win, but Jesus pulled through perfectly.
Bible contradictions and the likes of the son praying to the father have explanations. | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/17/2008 3:04:13 AM |
themadfiddler wrote:
Allegedly.
No, factually. There are the Scriptures, creeds, confessions, liturgies, commentaries and so forth which altogether indicate that Christian theology does indeed affirm "a God that both can and will show his presence to the entire world clearly and finally." Pay attention: I am referring to what Christian theology affirms, not arguing the ontological status of God himself. The OP said that "not one religion has a [God] that is powerful enough to show his presence to the world," yet Christianity does have such a God.
Does this God exist in an actual way? That is a completely different argument.
themadfiddler wrote:
The OP seems to be suggesting that most if not all deities are absentee landlords and asks what would other posters do better if they could.
I could be mistaken but I don't think the OP suggested something that unsustainable. He would have to prove that God's historical interaction with the world never actually occurred. And I said "prove," which is quite a different thing than "assert." And it does not follow that since God is not CURRENTLY revealing himself clearly and finally he therefore never has nor ever will. There is a religion which has a God that both can and will reveal himself, which refutes the OP's assertion (that "not one religion has a [God] that is powerful enough to show his presence to the world").
themadfiddler wrote:
I still don't see how you have managed to "refute" the OP's proposition if there is no tangible evidence for the presence (or lack of) of deity.
Because his proposition did not assert, "Not one religion has a God that is CURRENTLY showing his presence to the world" clearly and finally (i.e. God IS revealing himself). If that had've been his proposition, I would have concurred. He said that no religion has a God that is powerful enough to, i.e. never did, is not now, and never will.
At any rate, 'tangible' (empirical) evidence is a categorical error with respect to historical events (God HAS revealed himself), future events (God WILL reveal himself), and the realm of 'possible' (God CAN reveal himself). Tangible evidence cannot establish that Henry VII was King of England; that is the task of history. Tangible evidence cannot establish that some state of affairs will happen (problem of induction); that is the task of metaphysics. Tangible evidence cannot establish what is possible; that is the task of logic. Tangible evidence is descriptive only. It tells us what 'is'; it does not tell us what 'did' (history), 'will' (metaphysics), or 'can' (logic). | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/17/2008 3:35:23 AM | What about the testimony of the six hundred million who say they, received the Spirit of Christ after preaching and a prayer. And some who go onto find other supernatural power following this?
It does look stupid, Adam being given dominion, and then the fall, and disconnection from god, a human nature of seeking to know rather than to believe. Spiritual blindness prevalent, no sight of god, except for great events. The conscience...
Then if we want divine intervention, sometimes we must ask and believe and cry out, group pray, study sacred scriptures... not easy.
Like we once waded through a river, now, sip through an aimed straw. Waiting for the second coming, of a character we need resaerch to know he has real historicity. And part of him being responsible is the foolish looking cross and the promise of much reward if we work through this difficult situation. | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/17/2008 9:19:08 AM | If you want divine intervention, the best thing is to act how you think God would act... If God is within, why wait for outside interferance?
"Be the change" | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/17/2008 8:42:28 PM | to ryft
Because his proposition did not assert, "Not one religion has a God that is CURRENTLY showing his presence to the world" clearly and finally (i.e. God IS revealing himself). If that had've been his proposition, I would have concurred. He said that no religion has a God that is powerful enough to, i.e. never did, is not now, and never will.
All in all a fairly elegant proof...that's kind of where I thought you were going and just wanted to be sure. I did not want to put words in your mouth. Thanks for the full response.
to Csonka
What about the testimony of the six hundred million who say they, received the Spirit of Christ after preaching and a prayer.
Well that could well be a post hoc fallacy on their part, couldn't it. Many people have transformative and life changing experiences from a variety of sources worldwide and cross-culturally. It kind of suggests that it might not be that source exclusively but something else at work. | |
|
| The Irresponsible God?
Posted: 1/18/2008 11:32:23 AM |
Well that could well be a post hoc fallacy on their part, couldn't it. Many people have transformative and life changing experiences from a variety of sources worldwide and cross-culturally. It kind of suggests that it might not be that source exclusively but something else at work.
That was very well put! It is complete arrogance to claim a positive transformation by Christ is the only positive transformation... I've gotten them by watching swans. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
