Does God make mistakes?

[(Q)]

you can not achieve a personal knowledge of the existence of god from simply reading a book, even if it's the bible, or hearing someone else's testimony regarding god.

Hence, the reason why you and so many other Christians use the bible when it suits your agenda and purposes.

but it's not going to answer the question "does god exist?".

And yet, that is the source of your religion. Nothing else.

you hear someone talk about skydiving and it sounds like fun. so you read some book about how it's done and think you might like to try it. so you go skydiving, and now you know what it's like to skydive. no person who's ever done it before and no book could ever describe skydiving well enough for you to know what it's like to actually do it.

Yet, I can go skydiving anytime I want. Big difference between that and your imaginary sky daddy making an appearance.

 

[Lori_7]

Hence, the reason why you and so many other Christians use the bible when it suits your agenda and purposes.

i use the bible when god tells me to pick it up and read it. when the agenda is to gain an understanding, the spirit relates scripture to my personal experience.

what do you use it for? to judge people? to attack people? pick it up and hurl it at their heads.

And yet, that is the source of your religion. Nothing else.

it's the source of a religion that teaches about having a personal relationship with god, and then often times interferes with, or substitutes, that relationship.

Yet, I can go skydiving anytime I want. Big difference between that and your imaginary sky daddy making an appearance.

you can meet god anytime you want.

 

[NMSquirrel]

It's not about judging God; it's about explaining and understanding the nature of God and man, and the relationship between them.

of which there will be no single answer..

 

[NMSquirrel]

i use the bible when god tells me to pick it up and read it. when the agenda is to gain an understanding, the spirit relates scripture to my personal experience.

what do you use it for? to judge people? to attack people? pick it up and hurl it at their heads.

do you see how both sides are guilty of that?

it's the source of a religion that teaches about having a personal relationship with god

through jesus..

and then often times interferes with, or substitutes, that relationship.

when others try to tell you what it is about, and try to indoctrinate you to their view, instead of understanding your experiances..

you can meet god anytime you want.

those who truly seek, will find

 

[Jan Ardena]

The OP provided only biblical resources, suggesting a Christianity-centred discussion of the topic.




Okay. Where do you get the confidence to rule out the KJV and fire and brimstone Christianity?

Sorry, I meant thread title.

I don't wish to rule out the bible, but that's not the only scripture.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Since the subject of the thread (as indicated by the title) is GOD's Mistakes (see that three-letter word in there? Take another look) then it makes makes no sense to introduce strawmen by suggesting looking at the topic from a non-religious POV.

As we're discussing "God", and whether or not He makes mistakes, it would be
dishonest to look at it purely from a religious perspective.
There's probably more unreligious people who are interested in the subject of God, than religious people. So it should be looked at from every perspective.

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

As we're discussing "God", and whether or not He makes mistakes, it would be dishonest to look at it purely from a religious perspective.

Really?
You don't consider that with "god" being in the question it sort of limits it to a religious question?

There's probably more unreligious people who are interested in the subject of God, than religious people. So it should be looked at from every perspective.

Those statements would, respectively, incorrect and bull.

 

[Lori_7]

do you see how both sides are guilty of that?


through jesus..

when others try to tell you what it is about, and try to indoctrinate you to their view, instead of understanding your experiances..



those who truly seek, will find

yes, yes, yes, yes.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

Really?
You don't consider that with "god" being in the question it sort of limits it to a religious question?

No.

Those statements would, respectively, incorrect and bull.

Really?
Why?

jan.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Really? Why?

It's quite simple.
Non-believers tend not be interested in god half so much as they're interested in why believers believe. Don't confuse the two.
And since we're not interested in god, but rather the believer's reasoning then a non-religious aspect adds nothing since the answer from non-believers to "Does god make mistakes?" would be "How can something that doesn't exist make mistakes?"
It's like asking if snails paint poor portraits. Snails don't paint at all so the question is null and void.

 

[lightgigantic]

It's quite simple.
Non-believers tend not be interested in god half so much as they're interested in why believers believe. Don't confuse the two.
And since we're not interested in god, but rather the believer's reasoning then a non-religious aspect adds nothing since the answer from non-believers to "Does god make mistakes?" would be "How can something that doesn't exist make mistakes?"
It's like asking if snails paint poor portraits. Snails don't paint at all so the question is null and void.

incorrect

Just like the question "Do snails paint?" is made up of two categories ("snails" and "painting"), the question "Does god make mistakes?" is made up of two ("God" and "mistakes").

I think Jan's point is that if one is already running with a notion of "mistakes" (ie babies getting raped), one has to investigate it from that angle when incorporating it into a world view with or without god (Much like one can investigate painting with or without snails ) ... and then you can see what extra baggage the said world view brings to the picture.

For instance if it is considered a mistake on the basis of rape infringing on the bodily development (social, physical, emotional etc) of the other party, a world view that encompasses a grander picture of development (such as a development that occurs before the birth and after the death of the body) wouldn't necessarily be weighed down by being a "mistake".

Along similar lines, if one categorizes the act of painting as including an assessment in the eye of the beholder and not necessarily the artist, one could say there is an argument for snails being good at painting .... note however that if one categorizes the act of painting as requiring some sort of self critique of the artist, one could say there isn't an argument.

IOW in both cases, the assessment of what constitutes the boundaries a "mistake" or "painting" is what the argument pivots on.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Dywyddyr,

It's quite simple.
Non-believers tend not be interested in god half so much as they're interested in why believers believe. Don't confuse the two.

"Non believers", and non-religious are two different categories.
And as far as I'm concerned, folk like you are very interested in God, which
is how and why you come[quote to the conclusion that God does not exist.

It's like asking if snails paint poor portraits. Snails don't paint at all so the question is null and void.

So that means you know God doesn't exis.
Why doesn't He exist, despite billions of people believing the opposite, and the miles of scripture abound, some as old as 5000 years. Not to mention miles of commentary, temples, syagogues, mosques, ashrams, and churches etc.

Now I know that doesn't prove God to non-believers, and it wasn't intended to, but what is it that you know, that make all of that, and more, completely delusional, and wrong?

jan.

 

[Doreen]

Jan Ardena,

Okay. Where do you get the confidence to rule out the KJV and fire and brimstone Christianity?

I don't wish to rule out the bible, but that's not the only scripture.

jan.

Your response does not really address the question. If you look at this exchange, can you see how essentially - if Signal is still interested - Signal is being put in the position of having to repeat the question?

I am sure Signal knows the KJV is not the only scripture and also that you know this. This still leaves open the question as to why you are confident that what the KJV says which contradicts other scriptures - likely whatever the relevent one(s) is/are for you - regarding hell, etc., is not something you need to worry about.

 

[Doreen]

You're the one who is putting God in the position of "allowing" babies to be tortured.

I am in dialogue with someone who seems to believe this is the case. Or was in dialogue with that person. In fact she said it was OK because we, including babies, are all sinners. Or as she put it we all have sinner genes.

Have you considered that what happens in the material atmosphere is subject to cause and effect?

I think it is clearly an assumption we are all making.

And God only relates to those that relate to Him?

Lori seems to be a Christian. The souls of babies are being sent not by the babies themselves, but by God into certain homes. Are you saying that God is not relating to these babies because they are not relating to Him? Are you saying this from your own conception of God or are you saying this is how Lori and other Christians view the issue?

Should I take the way you phrase things in questions like that as being your beliefs? IOW do you believe that God is not in relation to these babies and this is why they are having the trouble - for example those that are sexually abused and killed by their parents? Should these babies have tried to focus more on God and pray in their preverbal ways?

Further, I find your response has little to do with what I said in my post to Signal. I described a phenomenon involving certain theists. You then tell me what I am doing, as if this justifies what some other theists do, or even relates to the criticism I was making. I responded to Signal's raising the Fideism issue by relating to the dialogue I was having with Lori. In that dialogue I was not putting God in some position, I was pointing out the justifications and interpretations and implications of Lori's beliefs.

 

[Doreen]

As the OP makes no such distinction, it should be looked at openly, and from
a non-religious POV, as well as a religious one.

This was also strange. I should have been looking at the issue in general. On what authority are you certain about what I should have been doing in my posts here? I think it is entirely OK to respond to specific versions of God and specific solutions to the problem of evil as they arise. I was certainly on topic.

If you want the discussion to be something else, you are free to post in ways that support this.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan Ardena,





Your response does not really address the question. If you look at this exchange, can you see how essentially - if Signal is still interested - Signal is being put in the position of having to repeat the question?

I am sure Signal knows the KJV is not the only scripture and also that you know this. This still leaves open the question as to why you are confident that what the KJV says which contradicts other scriptures - likely whatever the relevent one(s) is/are for you - regarding hell, etc., is not something you need to worry about.

My bad.
I said OP, instead of "title thread".

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Doreen,

I am in dialogue with someone who seems to believe this is the case. Or was in dialogue with that person. In fact she said it was OK because we, including babies, are all sinners. Or as she put it we all have sinner genes.

I don't mean to take any side in your discussion, but are really grasping what she's saying? Because it seems you are steadfast in the premise that God allows babies to get raped. If this is the case, then you have effectively rendered the discussion inarguable.

The souls of babies are being sent not by the babies themselves, but by God into certain homes. Are you saying that God is not relating to these babies because they are not relating to Him? Are you saying this from your own conception of God or are you saying this is how Lori and other Christians view the issue?

The subject of the soul is the way to go, to advance this discussion, simply because we are talking about God, the supreme soul. That being the case we should not discriminate between babies or adults, because the soul is no age.

My understanding of the transmigration of the soul is that as long as it remains in this conditioned state (identifying with matter as reality), it has to accept a body which is suited to its state of conscousness. As soon as it is introduced into the material atmosphere (in it's body), it is under the influence of material nature due to its not knowing better, and takes its chances with its new identity.

From God's perspective (scriptorally), these comings and goings of the conditioned soul is not reality, but the effect the illusion has on the soul, is real. So God tries to liberate the soul from illusion, according to the the conditioned souls ability to understand Him. If the conditioned soul chooses not become liberated, then it carries on taking chances.

So God relates to those who relate to Him. It is all based on relationships, which should be obvious to us, as everything in our life is based on relationships.

And in relationships, there has to be at least two parties involved, and for good relationships to develop there has to be input from both parties.
A relationship where one forces, or tricks the other, is doomed.

Should I take the way you phrase things in questions like that as being your beliefs?
IOW do you believe that God is not in relation to these babies and this is why they are having the trouble - for example those that are sexually abused and killed by their parents?

Ask yourself. Does God relate to the eternal soul, or the temporary body?
If you tried to save a drowing person, but managed to rescue his coat, would you feel that you saved a life?

Should these babies have tried to focus more on God and pray in their preverbal ways?

A baby, by dint of it's undevelopment, can't really do any of these things (at least in general). And it is most unfortunate to hear that babies, infants, and children, get treated in this way. I think most of us can relate to that.
But we shouldn't blindly attribute these acts to the unwillingness of God, or the pervertion of God, without trying to understand some aspect of God's perspective, which is there for all to hear, inquire, study, and practically take part in.

Further, I find your response has little to do with what I said in my post to Signal. I described a phenomenon involving certain theists. You then tell me what I am doing, as if this justifies what some other theists do, or even relates to the criticism I was making. I responded to Signal's raising the Fideism issue by relating to the dialogue I was having with Lori. In that dialogue I was not putting God in some position, I was pointing out the justifications and interpretations and implications of Lori's beliefs.

Your point stems from the premise that "god allows the rape of babies".
Everything else is just a consequence of this statement, and I just think this should be tackled, as the idea of a person or system which allows baby rape to occur, is repugnant and grotesque.

I basically think that accusation deserves more time.

jan.

 

[Jan Ardena]

This was also strange. I should have been looking at the issue in general. On what authority are you certain about what I should have been doing in my posts here? I think it is entirely OK to respond to specific versions of God and specific solutions to the problem of evil as they arise. I was certainly on topic.

If you want the discussion to be something else, you are free to post in ways that support this.

Obviously i'm not on any authority.
But the title asks; Does God Make Mistakes, not does the christian idea of God makes mistakes.

So while you may think you have a case based on the biblical scripture, which doesn't contain much (by comparison) about the nature of God, there are other scriptures which specifically give information of that kind, and as such is better suited to answering the question.

What does it say about someone, if they refuse to look at solutions, choosing to remain ignore-ant?

jan.

 

[wynn]

Obviously i'm not on any authority.

So you're just saying things, even in an authoritative/objective manner - and see what happens?

So while you may think you have a case based on the biblical scripture, which doesn't contain much (by comparison) about the nature of God, there are other scriptures which specifically give information of that kind, and as such is better suited to answering the question.

What does it say about someone, if they refuse to look at solutions, choosing to remain ignore-ant?

I feel like an idiot for repeating this over and over:

Where do you get the confidence for being choosy like that??


Do you think that eventually, "everything will be okay" or that God loves you - no matter what religious tradition and scripture you choose?

 

[Jan Ardena]

Siignal,

So you're just saying things, even in an authoritative/objective manner - and see what happens?

We're in a discussion, and I don't see any of the folk I'm discussing with holding back, or being subjective in their arguments.
Why should I?

Don't you think the statement "God ALLOWS babies to get raped" sounds "authoritative and objective"? Why don't you ask the same question to the authors of that statements?

I feel like an idiot for repeating this over and over:
Where do you get the confidence for being choosy like that??

What do you mean by choosy?
And why is choosing to argue from a scriptoral perspective, an act of confidence?

Do you think that eventually, "everything will be okay" or that God loves you - no matter what religious tradition and scripture you choose?

By "eventually" do you mean the next few month, years, decades?

Does God love me? I believe God loves every soul, as we are (by all scriptoral injunctions) connected to Him.
It simply doesn't make sense for Him not to.

Why do you think it matters what religous scripture, and tradition you choose, for God to determine whether He loves you or not?

jan.