It's not about keeping up ....
Exactly.
God, as Supreme Arbiter of the Universe,
allows it to happen. Just as Doctors perform abortions, the
law in the US
allows it; so does Satan tempt, and, by the paradigm, God
allows it.
Let's put this into a more immediate context: Imagine that I have foreknowledge of a coming terrorist event. It will kill thousands. I, as a citizen, choose to not report what I know. Come Monday morning, Chicago is aflame and the death toll is climbing to staggering proportions.
But I'll sleep easy; it's not my fault. I didn't do it.
Now, let's take it a step further. Let's say that I'm a politician, oh, say, a Governor of a state. And one day my office receives a letter. This letter contains a confession to a murder. But I am not the DA, so I just pass it over and do nothing, despite the fact that I, as Governor, am currently holding another individual on Death Row for the crime and will warrant his execution.
I'll sleep easy. It's not my fault.
What if I knew that my best friend, who was about to take your sister out on a date, had obtained a quantity of "rape drugs" that he intended to employ? Come tomorrow morning, I'm fine with it. It's not like I actually did anything to her, right?
God, having responsibility over the methods and devices of the Universe, is also responsible for their outcome.
Sure, you were just digging a fencepost hole. It doesn't change the fact that you ruptured the gas line.
I'm not sure what else to say to make it clear to you.
Between threats, bribes, and hits, God's authority extends well into humanity's alleged free will.
And the problem with that is that as the prophets collapse under the weight of your assertion that God's authority finishes where human free will begins, so collapses part of Christ's claim to legitimacy, the fulfillment of prophecy.
Talk about the baby
and the bathwater ....
What that has to do with "pretty striaghforward"...?
You fail to realize that what you think of as pretty straightforward is highly subjective. It's one of the problems I've observed
and experienced running on faith; perspective tends to narrow until you expect people to all think and feel and perceive alike.
Love didn't fail the slaves, either.
Aparently it is you that is ignoring my posts...
You know ... coming from you, that's
almost offensive.
In the meantime, just because you say, "No, it is the exact opposite," does
not change the contents of the Bible. And when you think it's "pretty straightforward", it does make me wonder why someone who writes about the Bible so much hasn't taken the time to get to know it.
Well... it actually has everything to do with this...
You know what's real helpful about these silly answers of yours? Guessing what the hell you mean.
Your assertion that "God is here, within (you) and surrounding (you)" is tangential. It has
nothing to do with the topic.
Here ... let's take a look at this particular vein of the discussion:
- If the Lord is the ultimate arbiter, He cannot escape responsibility for the outcome of his workings.
God gives only life. Death never comes from Him. James 1:17
- Hello? Hello? You're fading out, Nelson.
God is here. Within me and surrounding me. Luke 17.21
- Tangential. This is not the kind of thing that compels me to respect your intellectual prowess. Proselytize your hopes if you must, but it has little to do with the issues at hand in this topic.
Well... it actually has everything to do with this...
When faced with a logical consideration, you have retreated into tangential faith assertions. Very well then:
How does it have everything to do with anything?
Then don't bother discussing the Bible! You show a scripture that YOU say it says something bad about God. I CLEARLY show that you are wrong. Then, you say that YOUR scripture is right and MY scripture is wrong. Really... do you want a real discussion or you just want to be "right" in the situation
Nelson, I'm wondering
what the difficulty is? Take, for instance, one of those red-letter Bibles. Now, let's just think about what
Jesus says and what
his followers say. For instance, when I hound Christians about their consistent disregard of Matthew 25 and Matthew 5, it's because no amount of rhetoric can change the fact that they're trying to find a way around what Jesus said.
In the present case, with your addiction to the opening passages of James, what you fail to realize is that you're trying to make a "gospel truth" out of something that an imperfect human chose to believe and express. If the passage had come from somewhere other than the sunshiney salutation of a bloody letter, you know, from, like, the substantial
body of the letter ... well, that would even be a step better.
But your inability to consider the context of what is written is frustrating; for as much as you talk about the Bible, I really do wonder why you don't seem to know what you're talking about.
I have few objections to an "all-is-love" mission, and none so vital as to necessitate protest. But it ain't Christianity except that you would insist.
That nothing that is bad comes from God. Pretty simple.
And it's nice to believe it, isn't it?
See, that's
exactly the point of limiting God. If God is truly as powerful as people like to assert and pretend to believe, they can't make heads or tails enough of it to feel secure in their faith; it makes faith too difficult for most. So they like to cram their ideas of God into a shoebox or a tuna can and pretend that what they acknowledge is all there is to it.
And so they excuse God from evil in order to make it easier on what's left of their brains.
But you seem to hold Catholics in derision, for instance.
Now, I'm going to ask you to read a couple of quotes written by Catholics. Please do your best, as I know how much it disturbs you to do so. (I hope you don't recite the Nicene or Apostolic Creeds.)
From the
Catholic Encyclopedia - omnipotence:
Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible. These last words of the definition do not imply any imperfection, since a power that extends to every possibility must be perfect. The universality of the object of the Divine power is not merely relative but absolute, so that the true nature of omnipotence is not clearly expressed by saying that God can do all things that are possible to Him; it requires the further statement that all things are possible to God . The intrinsically impossible is the self-contradictory, and its mutually exclusive elements could result only in nothingness ....
....As intrinsically impossible must be classed:
1. Any action on the part of God which would be out of harmony with His nature and attributes; ....
(a) It is impossible for God to sin
Man's power of preferring evil to good is a sign not of strength, but of infirmity, since it involves the liability to be overcome by unworthy motives; not the exercise but the restraint of that power adds to the freedom and vigour of the will. "To sin," says St. Thomas, "is to be capable of failure in one's actions, which is incompatible with omnipotence" (Summa, I, Q, xxv, a. 3).
(b) The decrees of God cannot be reversed
From eternity the production of creatures, their successive changes, and the manner in which these would occur were determined by God's free will. If these decrees were not irrevocable, it would follow either that God's wisdom was variable or that His decisions sprang from caprice. Hence theologians distinguish between the absolute and the ordinary , or regulated , power of God (potentia absoluta; potentia ordinaria ). The absolute power of God extends to all that is not intrinsically impossible, while the ordinary power is regulated by the Divine decrees. Thus by His absolute power God could preserve man from death; but in the present order this is impossible, since He has decreed otherwise ....
Now, take a look at that jumble. Is lying a sin if it contributes to the harm of others?
More importantly, it is an effort to separate God from evil. At least you agree with the Catholics on that point, but one of the reasons Catholicism seems so convoluted is that they really have, over the ages, tried their best to resolve all these little crises of faith. What people criticize Catholicism for is usually idolatry or humanity, but where people criticize Catholic doctrine is where Catholics attempt to understand their faith.
However, because of the nature of the Bible and because of human nature, this generally results in a massive number of contradictory assertions, wasted pages, and, at worst, lethal persecutions.
The point being, Nelson, that the Catholics suddenly find themselves buried amid all manner of rhetorical slop merely because they want to worship a God they like, not the God they pledge themselves to. But it's not just the Catholics; it's pretty much all of Christianity. I still have hope for the Society of Friends, but given my habit of overestimating the nobility of people ... I guess I need to be prepared to someday be disappointed by Quakers. :bugeye:
But I can't believe it's so important to people to believe that nothing bad comes from God. What, does it somehow hurt you to realize that the God you worship is capable of being a prig?
The problem is not with my point, but it is you that don't want to accept to be wrong.
Why don't we revisit that point, since you're reduced to one-liners?
- Even accounting for free will, it could be that, like Job, the temptation is of God's direct will.
No. The temptation is not from God, it is from Satan. God allowed Satan to tempt Job for a very good reason: (2 citations from James)
- Just like Eden. God was not strong enough to prevent temptation, or else willed that the temptation should occur. Life is difficult enough without God throwing satans about. Not all of us are as blessed as Balaam.
(James 1) It seems I'm becoming repetitive...
- That wouldn't be problematic if you had a valid point.
The problem is not with my point, but it is you that don't want to accept to be wrong.
You keep making faith statements based on various snippets of the Bible which contradict the nature and character of God expressed elsewhere. Again, when reading the Bible, you must learn to read in context. "The Bible says God ...," or, "The Bible says that James believes ..."? While God is clearly, in James belief, something sunshine and roses, the Bible is pretty clear that God has a thorny side.
I don't know what you mean by that. And... no. He didn't boast.
So ... God called Satan before him just to point out how faithful Job was for the hell of it?
Accusation? God blessed Job! Job followed the Law! He sowed what he reaped!!! He sowed good things, so he reaped good things!
And Satan accused God of fostering Job's faith with good fortune--essential bribery. And Satan pointed out that if God extended his hand and took it all away, Job would curse him. God did not have the cajones to extend his own hand unless we are prepared to acknowledge that Satan serves as a metaphorical hand of God. And, in the end, Job did curse God, and God threw a fit, and Job repented after the menacing tantrum But your inability to represent the Bible honestly ... well, I guess that's why it's a good thing that, like the bumper sticker says, "Christians aren't perfect, just forgiven."
Nelson, by your own disqualifications of people from Christianity, I am left to doubt your Christian faith.
No. God simply let Satan test Job's faith and Love for God.
So, if Satan hadn't said anything about it anyway, God would still have had him shake down Job?
I don't think so. God idn't ask Satan to do it, He allowed him to do it.
Which translation of the Bible would you like me to read? Which paraphrase would you like me to read? And why do you rewrite the circumstances? "God didn't ask Satan to do it" ...? No, God
ordered Satan to do it.
In every English-language translation of the Bible I can find, in Job 1.9-11, Satan proposes that if God extended his own hand and took away Job's favor and fortune, Job would curse him. God then commissions Satan to perform the task. There is no asking, letting, or allowing about it. At no point does Satan ask to be allowed to tempt Job. You cannot corroborate your assertion; the situation you describe does not exist in the Bible.
Because it is against God's nature to do something that is bad. God only gives life, he never brings death.
Hubris, then. And, of course, back to square zero ....
I've posted that somewhere... if you look at the original words in Hebrew, you will get a different view of the situation.
Well, that just invites a whole new set of f--king problems, doesn't it?
That nobody who reads the Bible in the English language is reading a proper Bible is not the fault of Satan, is not the fault of atheists, is not the fault of anyone but the Christians themselves. Looks like the Jews really
are God's favorites ....
That really hurts your standing, Nelson. Because the Serpent, by an act of free will, independent of God, told Eve the truth, whereas God had lied to his creations.
Allow me to restate the point; I must admit you picked the one response that could possibly point out the vagaries of my words.
-
Consider that not all Christians agree with your interpretations, Nelson. Should I, then, honor your policy and simply declare those people false Christians?
Yes, He does, not it is not God's will.
I
think I'm looking at an affrimative response.
Could Satan have told God to stuff it in Job 1? What would God have done, do you think?
He WAS honest about the trees!!
Really? Shall we look at the Book of Genesis?
The LORD God gave man this order: "You are free to eat from any of the trees of the garden except the tree of knowledge of good and bad. From that tree you shall not eat; the moment you eat from it you are surely doomed to die." (Genesis 2.16-17, NAB)
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." (Genesis 2.16-17, RSV)
And he commanded him, saying: Of every tree of paradise thou shalt eat: But of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. For in what day soever thou shalt eat of it, thou shalt die the death. (Genesis 2.16-17, Douay--Rheims)
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. (Genesis 2.16-17, KJV)
Also:
Genesis 2.17 translated from Hebrew. Go ahead; I'm inviting you to remind us once again that the Jews are the Chosen ones. Here's the Hebrew, have at it.
Because Adam lives a very long time. Now, I have heard many wonderful theories about this, including the "thousand year day" and so forth by which God delivers on his sentence.
But, of course, when we stop to consider Genesis 3, we wonder where the dying comes in:
Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever." (Genesis 3.22, NAB)
Now, I've found that this is a sticky issue with the faithful. I often ask who God was talking to in that passage, and I've heard everything from Angels to Jesus to Sophia, &c.
However, a non-Catholic (I know how important that is to you) professor writes in his Bible paraphrase:
But God didn't carry out their sentence that day. He told them He had a plan to save them. Adam must sacrifice a lamb as a symbol of their Savioor who would come and die in their place. God then took the lamb's skin to cover Adam and Eve's nakedness. God said to His Son, "Man was like us but he has changed. He now knows good and evil, so he's infected with sin. If we leave him in the garden and he continues to eat from the Tree of Life, he will never die, and he and his descendants will live in sin forever. We can't let this happen." (Genesis 3.21-23)
Regardless, I don't see Genesis 2.16-17 coming to fruition, if you'll pardon a sleight of pun. Show me God's honesty about the trees, please.
No. Satan has no authority. It is US that gives him authority by our own choice
That was almost unexpected. But I've been through this discussion too many times to not see it coming.
It seems that God gave Satan authority to tempt Job.
And it's at points like this that Christian faith gets sticky, for the Bible paraphrase I currently pick on is written by an SDA professor and pastor, Jack Blanco. I have, for the record, found an
odd review of the book that includes language calling it sacrilegious.
But it serves my point in two ways:
(1) It further establishes the idea that God willed man to a state of sin; the Son is present at creation, and God reveals that He has a Plan in Genesis 3.
(2) It further establishes an important aspect of diversity that you seem to be overlooking. Regardless of how you feel about this or that Christian, you cannot avoid the fact that these philosophies you decry often have strong representative voice among what is called Christianity.
And as relates that second point to the topic, part of the essential comparison which you are inherently, though perhaps not intentionally arguing against, is the idea of Islam as Terroism, Inc. The history of those who identify themselves as Christians is a harrowing tale. In terms of
this topic, the poor and violent representation of Christianity I offered serves as a reminder that any religion can breed violence among its ranks. And remembering this is important right now as the world approaches a possible cultural showdown. Ideas like "Terrorism, Inc" in this topic are part of what complicates the situation; such simplistic thinking can make a difficult situation bad, and a bad situation worse.
Sorry, but that sounds like an ignorant statement. Have you ever had any discussion with someone that you love? If both of you really love each other, you will forgive each other and never do that again. The same here.
That part about never doing it again is always the hitch. It's one of the reasons why I assert that
there is nothing to forgive.
However, shall we undertake another review?
- For instance, I recognize the possibility that Christ's compassion is derivative of God's learning something about human nature after the fact of Creation. God knows very well that He is responsible for the whole sorry lot. The condition of humanity is God's Will.
We made the wrong choices. It is our fault, not His.
- God knew that Adam and Eve would choose wrong. It was part of the plan. Now, I'll even take a moment to be specific here: Redemption reads like a racket to me: an all-seeing, all-powerful God creates a circumstance which requires redemption of humanity, yet it is somehow out of his power to do it otherwise ....
Satan made it, not God. God only allows Satan to tempt us so that we can have more. Without our Love for Him being tested, we would never really Love Him.
- That sounds like a jealous housewife.
Sorry, but that sounds like an ignorant statement. Have you ever had any discussion with someone that you love? If both of you really love each other, you will forgive each other and never do that again. The same here.
Not only is God
not the Supreme Arbiter of the Universe by your reasoning, it doesn't change the fact that yes, it did sound like a jealous housewife. Crap, I've had girlfriends before that used to put me through that, "I just need to know that you really love me," crap before.
Do you have siblings? Did you ever fight with them? Did you ever get bloody with each other to make sure you loved each other? Does love really require testing? I mean, if all is love, what is love without trust?
The only reason God does not trust humanity is because God willed humanity to be untrustworthy.
When you say God is something, what becomes of those things it is not?
Job 41, prophetic books ... there's some bad stuff coming from God. We are merely supposed to trust that it is good. This is why Christians sometimes comfort each other by responding that a tragedy is God's will. Of course, now that you've shown me the light ( :bugeye: ) I can see how pathetically wrong and false those people are.
Frankly I think it's a great philosophy, all-is-love. But it is not fully reflected in Christianity.
Hmph ... I need to check some other translations. Reading Job 41.25 (NAB), one might wonder who or what made God. But that's for another day.
Your position is insupportable in the simple fact that while you can cite some Biblical verses to support your position, you cannot cite the whole of the Bible. Bad stuff does come from God, and while "Love one another" is part of what Jesus taught, it is not the entire reality of God. Limiting God in this sense is fine, but it ain't Christianity.
Heck, my all-is-love phase developed out of Witchcraft.
It has nothing to do with that. God's Love basically says that if you Love someone, you will want the best for that person, even if it is not the best for you.
It has everything to do with fear of reprisal:
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, a stranger and you gave me no welcome, naked and you gave me no clothing, ill and in prison, and you did not care for me.' Then they will answer and say, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or ill or in prison, and not minister to your needs?' He will answer them, 'Amen, I say to you, what you did not do for one of these least ones, you did not do for me.' And these will go off to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." (Matthew, 25.41-ff)
I might also refer you to the above passage in light of this point:
We don't follow the Law because we need to, we follow the Law because we Love God.
In the ideal, yes, I can understand that. But life just ain't so.
WHAT!?!? Hello-o...! God told the Truth! Satan lied! Wake up!
Seriously, Nelson ... have you
read the Bible before? Look above. I touch on that part earlier in this post.
See above considerations regarding
that. I've also discussed this part earlier in this post.
However,
they were going to die, anyway, regardless. Read Genesis 3.23 again:
Then the LORD God said: "See! The man has become like one of us, knowing what is good and what is bad! Therefore, he must not be allowed to put out his hand to take fruit from the tree of life also, and thus eat of it and live forever."
You know, politicians occasionally tell me that they're winning the war on drugs.
In other words, it's probably nice to believe that, Nelson.
Please realize, where we're going is probably a better tack than the topic itself, but is it really that important to you to whitewash the human manifestation of the Christian spirit on Earth?
Do you realize that the occasion of your propaganda serves those who would posture the world for warfare? And all because it bugs you that people represent Christianity really poorly and you would like to snip them out of consideration?
Isn't that a little greedy? Isn't that a little dishonest? How loving is that, Nelson?
And believe me, it's not about keeping up. Writing words is one of the things that, as Christians would have it, "God put me on this Earth to do."
More than keeping up, sincerity would be helpful. You're right, you can't keep up; these short retorts really don't do much more than state your case in somewhat petulant tones.
So I would urge you to consider or, should it come to that, to pray about the idea of what is more important: Coming to God with an honest understanding of His will and way, or imagining God as you would like Him to be?
If I say I have yet to meet a true and real Christian, Nelson, please don't take that as a slam against your faith as much as you do an acknowledgment of the task. I much prefer your brand of all-is-love Christianity, but it's not really anything more than an interpretive affinity. Build it, make it a coherent and undeniable argument. Don't just put a quote and a quick retort out there and expect your point to be made.
If you love God, try honestly to slay God. And when you're done, one of two results will greet your honest efforts: you will either have slain God, or else hacked away a considerable portion of the stumbling blocks that stand between you and Him.
I'm always happy to acknowledge theoretic cores of Christianity, but I'm not about to elevate any one of them to represent the real condition.
:m:,
Tiassa
