> Why should we respect a judge who sends criminals to jail?
A judge doesn't send someone to jail just because that person wasn't aware of the judge's existence. That would be nonsense.
> also recognizes and punishes criminals
God is wrong about who is and isn't a criminal.
> If there's no hell, there's no accountability and no punishment for wrong.
I'm fine with that. I do not actually want people to be punished, I just don't want them to do wrong again. The purpose of jail, to me, shouldn't be to punish people. It should be to remove people who will cause harm to others. But I have no problem with those people living a peaceful, healthy life. I'm okay with them getting counseling and helping them improve their lives.
Notice how we don't torture prisoners? Why is that?
> If God stopped all evil and suffering, he would have to take control of everything and everybody.
How about eliminating birth defects and earthquakes and tsunamis, just those? Those aren't caused by us being immoral. He could easily eliminate those and still preserve our free will.
> There would be no such thing as science, because in an earthquake or a tsunami, no one would get hurt, especially innocent children.
What? You do know we do science on things that don't kill people, right? Science would not stop just because there were no more earthquakes. That makes no sense.
If science is motivated by the death of people, specially innocent children, then why do we study things scientifically that are not related to that?
> No child would ever get a disease. Science would be meaningless.
This simply isn't true. We can still study physics without trying to use it to save lives.
So you're saying the only motivation we have to do any science whatsoever is dying children? That's just not true.
How many children died in order to motivate Newton to discover the law of gravity?
> If a volcano happens in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it's an interesting phenomenon. If it happens in civilization, now either it's evil or God is?
Yes. What is the problem here?
If I hold a knife when I'm alone and move it forward quickly, its fine.
If I do it and there's a person in front of me, I'm a murderer? What gives?
> God made volcanoes to relieve pressure on the earth's surface, or we would explode.
I thought god was omnipotent. I bet he could have found a way to make the earth such that it wouldn't explode due to lack of volcanoes. Is he omnipotent, or not?
> Natural cataclysms are necessary for environmental balance.
No, they aren't. Not if there's a god who is all powerful. If such a god exists, then they are not necessary. He could have made everything without that.
> But you want God to intervene every time, so someone could stand in the path of a tornado and, what, no effect on them?
... or maybe not create tornadoes in the first place.
> People could walk into the lava of that volcano in Hawaii a few months back and not get hurt?
I honestly would not mind if that was the case.
Also, just as a heads up, what you're saying sounds like Bond Villain type stuff. I'll release a disease into the world so that the world feels urgency in curing the disease! The science that will be discovered will be pretty interesting. I'll be a hero!
No. You'd be a monster for doing that.
Board index ‹ God
36 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Re: Why should we worship God?
by jimwalton » Wed Nov 14, 2018 12:57 pm
> A judge doesn't send someone to jail just because that person wasn't aware of the judge's existence. That would be nonsense.
I agree, but since you and everyone else on this forum has at least had opportunity to evaluate the evidences and claims for the judge's (God's) existence, then you won't be punished for unawareness, but only for rejection.
> God is wrong about who is and isn't a criminal.
In that case we have to examine and evaluate definitions and be able to critique all pertinent components such as motive, extraneous causal factors, behavior, and even mitigating circumstances. I'm confident that you're making an assessment about God without the qualifying data to render a reliable decision.
> I do not actually want people to be punished, I just don't want them to do wrong again.
The first half of your sentence is noble, and the second half is unrealistic without accountability. Humans, as I'm sure you know, have an amazing capacity for nobility and cruelty, for right and for wrong, for beneficent as well as detriment. Accountability is a motivator for the noble, the right, and the beneficent.
> I'm okay with them getting counseling and helping them improve their lives.
My mention of prison was not to equate hell with prison, but only to use a common analogy to illustrate the concept of justice. Forget about the "prison" part of what I said and focus on the "justice" part. But, to address your concern, it would be nice if prison were rehabilitative. For some it is, and for others it isn't. Perhaps hell will be the same way, for the little we know about it.
> How about eliminating birth defects and earthquakes and tsunamis, just those?
You're pretty cavalier about putting yourself in a position to decide. Have you seen "Bruce Almighty"? I know it's just comedic fiction, but possibly it's just not as simple as you think.
> You do know we do science on things that don't kill people, right?
Please read all of what I was saying, and don't just create a little straw man.
> So you're saying the only motivation we have to do any science whatsoever is dying children?
Of course I'm not saying that. Please read all of what I was saying, and don't just create a little straw man.
> Yes. What is the problem here?
The problem is that God didn't cause the volcano. You're attributing to God an evil in which He was not involved.
> I thought god was omnipotent.
Omnipotence doesn’t mean there are no limits to what God can do (Mk. 6.5). It means God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power. It is no contradiction that God is able to bring about whatever is possible, no matter how many possibilities there are. The omnipotence of God is all-sufficient power. He can never be overwhelmed, exhausted, or contained. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature, though often he lets nature take its course, because that’s what He created it to do. He has power over the course of history, though he chooses to use that power only as he wills . He has the power to change human personality, but only as individuals allow, since He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. He has the power to conquer death and sin, and to save a human soul for eternity. He has power over the spiritual realm.
What omnipotence means is that God’s will is never frustrated. What he chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it.
There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. God can't just "do anything." That's not what omnipotence is. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatever we may conceive of in our imagination.
* He can’t do what is logically absurd or contradictory (like make a square circle or a married bachelor)
* He can’t act contrary to his nature. Self-contradiction is not possible. He can only be self-consistent, and not self-contradictory.
* He cannot fail to do what he has promised. That would mean God is flawed.
* He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. If God can override human free will, then we are not free at all.
* He cannot change the past. Time by definition is linear in one direction only.
Leibniz & Ross philosophically state omnipotence in what’s called a “result” theory: theories that analyze omnipotence in terms of the results an omnipotent being would be able to bring about. These results are usually thought of as states of affairs or possible worlds: a way the world could be. A possible world is a maximally consistent state of affairs, a complete way the world could be. The simplest way to state it may be, “for any comprehensive way the world could be, an omnipotent being could bring it about that the world was that way.” Ross formulated it as “Since every state of affairs must either obtain or not, and since two contradictory states of affairs cannot both obtain, an omnipotent being would have to will some maximal consistent set of contingent states of affairs, that is, some one possible world.”
> I honestly would not mind if that was the case.
Of course, you think would be most cool. But it's a denial of the nature of reality. I was rather hoping that we could have a more realistic conversation.
> Also, just as a heads up, what you're saying sounds like Bond Villain type stuff. I'll release a disease into the world so that the world feels urgency in curing the disease! The science that will be discovered will be pretty interesting. I'll be a hero!
No. You'd be a monster for doing that.
Nah, I'm not suggesting "Bond Villain type stuff." I'm not advocating or suggesting releasing a disease, etc. so as to be the hero. That's a completely different picture than the Bible's revelation of God or anything I was saying. I agree that you'd be a monster for doing that. I totally agree.
I agree, but since you and everyone else on this forum has at least had opportunity to evaluate the evidences and claims for the judge's (God's) existence, then you won't be punished for unawareness, but only for rejection.
> God is wrong about who is and isn't a criminal.
In that case we have to examine and evaluate definitions and be able to critique all pertinent components such as motive, extraneous causal factors, behavior, and even mitigating circumstances. I'm confident that you're making an assessment about God without the qualifying data to render a reliable decision.
> I do not actually want people to be punished, I just don't want them to do wrong again.
The first half of your sentence is noble, and the second half is unrealistic without accountability. Humans, as I'm sure you know, have an amazing capacity for nobility and cruelty, for right and for wrong, for beneficent as well as detriment. Accountability is a motivator for the noble, the right, and the beneficent.
> I'm okay with them getting counseling and helping them improve their lives.
My mention of prison was not to equate hell with prison, but only to use a common analogy to illustrate the concept of justice. Forget about the "prison" part of what I said and focus on the "justice" part. But, to address your concern, it would be nice if prison were rehabilitative. For some it is, and for others it isn't. Perhaps hell will be the same way, for the little we know about it.
> How about eliminating birth defects and earthquakes and tsunamis, just those?
You're pretty cavalier about putting yourself in a position to decide. Have you seen "Bruce Almighty"? I know it's just comedic fiction, but possibly it's just not as simple as you think.
> You do know we do science on things that don't kill people, right?
Please read all of what I was saying, and don't just create a little straw man.
> So you're saying the only motivation we have to do any science whatsoever is dying children?
Of course I'm not saying that. Please read all of what I was saying, and don't just create a little straw man.
> Yes. What is the problem here?
The problem is that God didn't cause the volcano. You're attributing to God an evil in which He was not involved.
> I thought god was omnipotent.
Omnipotence doesn’t mean there are no limits to what God can do (Mk. 6.5). It means God is able to do all things that are proper objects of his power. It is no contradiction that God is able to bring about whatever is possible, no matter how many possibilities there are. The omnipotence of God is all-sufficient power. He can never be overwhelmed, exhausted, or contained. He is able to overcome apparently insurmountable problems. He has complete power over nature, though often he lets nature take its course, because that’s what He created it to do. He has power over the course of history, though he chooses to use that power only as he wills . He has the power to change human personality, but only as individuals allow, since He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. He has the power to conquer death and sin, and to save a human soul for eternity. He has power over the spiritual realm.
What omnipotence means is that God’s will is never frustrated. What he chooses to do, he accomplishes, for he has the ability to do it.
There are, however, certain qualifications of this all-powerful character of God. God can't just "do anything." That's not what omnipotence is. He cannot arbitrarily do anything whatever we may conceive of in our imagination.
* He can’t do what is logically absurd or contradictory (like make a square circle or a married bachelor)
* He can’t act contrary to his nature. Self-contradiction is not possible. He can only be self-consistent, and not self-contradictory.
* He cannot fail to do what he has promised. That would mean God is flawed.
* He cannot interfere with the freedom of man. If God can override human free will, then we are not free at all.
* He cannot change the past. Time by definition is linear in one direction only.
Leibniz & Ross philosophically state omnipotence in what’s called a “result” theory: theories that analyze omnipotence in terms of the results an omnipotent being would be able to bring about. These results are usually thought of as states of affairs or possible worlds: a way the world could be. A possible world is a maximally consistent state of affairs, a complete way the world could be. The simplest way to state it may be, “for any comprehensive way the world could be, an omnipotent being could bring it about that the world was that way.” Ross formulated it as “Since every state of affairs must either obtain or not, and since two contradictory states of affairs cannot both obtain, an omnipotent being would have to will some maximal consistent set of contingent states of affairs, that is, some one possible world.”
> I honestly would not mind if that was the case.
Of course, you think would be most cool. But it's a denial of the nature of reality. I was rather hoping that we could have a more realistic conversation.
> Also, just as a heads up, what you're saying sounds like Bond Villain type stuff. I'll release a disease into the world so that the world feels urgency in curing the disease! The science that will be discovered will be pretty interesting. I'll be a hero!
No. You'd be a monster for doing that.
Nah, I'm not suggesting "Bond Villain type stuff." I'm not advocating or suggesting releasing a disease, etc. so as to be the hero. That's a completely different picture than the Bible's revelation of God or anything I was saying. I agree that you'd be a monster for doing that. I totally agree.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why should we worship God?
by Kayo » Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:07 pm
> If there's no hell, there's no accountability and no punishment for wrong.
I'd like to mention that there would be no heaven as well. No accountability or reward for good.
But is that really why we behave morally? To be viewed as moral by some divine power? To escape the punishment we're to receive should we not comply? I don't believe so.
You mentioned Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Idi Amin. If the harm they caused to people is what makes them deserving of punishment, why is additional harm the solution? I agree that their choices were deplorable however, to suppose that eternal suffering is any solution is to act immorally. If we're to accept that inflicting harm upon people is immoral then all people are included.
I'd like to mention that there would be no heaven as well. No accountability or reward for good.
But is that really why we behave morally? To be viewed as moral by some divine power? To escape the punishment we're to receive should we not comply? I don't believe so.
You mentioned Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Idi Amin. If the harm they caused to people is what makes them deserving of punishment, why is additional harm the solution? I agree that their choices were deplorable however, to suppose that eternal suffering is any solution is to act immorally. If we're to accept that inflicting harm upon people is immoral then all people are included.
- Kayo
Re: Why should we worship God?
by jimwalton » Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:20 pm
> But is that really why we behave morally? To be viewed as moral by some divine power? To escape the punishment we're to receive should we not comply? I don't believe so.
No, I don't believe so, either. The punishment or reward (the fear or pleasure) should not be the reason we behave morally. I think our motive for morality should be an intrinsic acknowledgment that it is right. Ideally, even if there were no heaven or hell, I should be godly and good anyway, because it is the right thing to do in recognition of (1) who God is, and (2) how I am most whole and fulfilling my raison d'être.
> You mentioned Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Idi Amin. If the harm they caused to people is what makes them deserving of punishment, why is additional harm the solution?
You're dipping into the philosophy of justice here, and possibly even a biblical worldview of justice. I believe that since we are one united humanity, sharing a common nature and presumably living for a common purpose, we are members of a global community and a shared nature as human beings. Therefore, what one does to one's fellow human necessarily reflects back on oneself. Injustice perpetrated ideally creates an infraction that must be righted, and the path to that equilibrium and balance is fair punishment to the perpetrator. We all seem to have an inherent sense of fairness and a consciousness that fairness should be the order of the day for humanity to be healthy and whole. We also all seem to have a conscience that trips a wire when wrong has been done and needs to be righted. If there is a standard by which we can define right and wrong, good and bad, then wrongs have to be righted for the standard to be fulfilled.
> to suppose that eternal suffering is any solution is to act immorally.
Not all Christians, you should know, believe in the traditional concept of hell (eternal punishment). And no Christian believes in unfair punishment. There are theories labelled reconcilationism, semi-restorationism, modified eternalism, and annihilationism, all with some kind of scriptural backing. In other words, hell isn't necessarily eternal for all who enter it. It may only be eternal for those who absolutely, stubbornly, and persistently refuse to be reconciled.
No, I don't believe so, either. The punishment or reward (the fear or pleasure) should not be the reason we behave morally. I think our motive for morality should be an intrinsic acknowledgment that it is right. Ideally, even if there were no heaven or hell, I should be godly and good anyway, because it is the right thing to do in recognition of (1) who God is, and (2) how I am most whole and fulfilling my raison d'être.
> You mentioned Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Idi Amin. If the harm they caused to people is what makes them deserving of punishment, why is additional harm the solution?
You're dipping into the philosophy of justice here, and possibly even a biblical worldview of justice. I believe that since we are one united humanity, sharing a common nature and presumably living for a common purpose, we are members of a global community and a shared nature as human beings. Therefore, what one does to one's fellow human necessarily reflects back on oneself. Injustice perpetrated ideally creates an infraction that must be righted, and the path to that equilibrium and balance is fair punishment to the perpetrator. We all seem to have an inherent sense of fairness and a consciousness that fairness should be the order of the day for humanity to be healthy and whole. We also all seem to have a conscience that trips a wire when wrong has been done and needs to be righted. If there is a standard by which we can define right and wrong, good and bad, then wrongs have to be righted for the standard to be fulfilled.
> to suppose that eternal suffering is any solution is to act immorally.
Not all Christians, you should know, believe in the traditional concept of hell (eternal punishment). And no Christian believes in unfair punishment. There are theories labelled reconcilationism, semi-restorationism, modified eternalism, and annihilationism, all with some kind of scriptural backing. In other words, hell isn't necessarily eternal for all who enter it. It may only be eternal for those who absolutely, stubbornly, and persistently refuse to be reconciled.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why should we worship God?
by Charro » Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:29 pm
> If you object to hell, you think guys like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, and Idi Amin should just get away with whatever they want to do.
It seems like an odd argument from a Christian. After all, if they accepted Jesus wouldn't they still get into heaven? I thought that was a central pillar of Christian belief.
It seems like an odd argument from a Christian. After all, if they accepted Jesus wouldn't they still get into heaven? I thought that was a central pillar of Christian belief.
- Charro
Re: Why should we worship God?
by jimwalton » Wed Nov 14, 2018 1:30 pm
Anyone can be forgiven, but there are degrees of reward in heaven just as there are degrees of punishment in hell. Even if these monsters managed somehow to truly repent and gain access to heaven, their experience there would surely be different from that of others. Everyone will get what they deserve.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why should we worship God?
by Boy Scout » Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:37 pm
> Why should we respect a judge who sends criminals to jail?
Horrible analogy.
Criminals undergo a trial, and consciously make choices in defiance of the well being of others.
Most religions say non-believers will not get into heaven. The choice to not believe is not at the expense of anybody else. It's not a "criminal" act (in most non-backwards countries).
Horrible analogy.
Criminals undergo a trial, and consciously make choices in defiance of the well being of others.
Most religions say non-believers will not get into heaven. The choice to not believe is not at the expense of anybody else. It's not a "criminal" act (in most non-backwards countries).
- Boy Scout
Re: Why should we worship God?
by jimwalton » Wed Nov 14, 2018 2:38 pm
> Horrible analogy.
The analogy is not that they go to jail but rather than the judge rewards and vindicates the good and punishes the bad. "Jail" is just our cultural expression of sentencing. Ignore the "jail" part and focus on the "justice" part: the judge exercising fair and proper justice.
> Criminals undergo a trial, and consciously make choices in defiance of the well being of others.
First of all, God holds a "trial" also. The courtroom is a common image in Scripture when it speaks of God as judge. Various books even portray prosecution and defense, advocates and mediators. The Bible speaks explicitly about each person being accountable before the judge for what they have done (2 Cor. 5.10; Rev. 21.13). Jesus is labelled as an advocate during the trial for those who belong to him (1 Jn. 2.1).
> make choices in defiance of the well being of others.
The wellbeing of others, though way up there, is not our final value. Ever since the 17th century philosophers and scientists have been trying to create arguments for morality based on wellbeing rather than God's nature, suggesting that "good" is what brings pleasure and works towards human wellbeing and "evil" is what produces pain and is detrimental to the wellbeing of humanity. It's a utilitarian approach: do whatever works.
The problem is that it doesn't work. The 20th century was one of the most horrific in history: 2 world wars, several national genocides, disease and terrorism. Perceiving morality as some kind of universal standard of what contributes to the wellbeing of others has been a resonant failure. Encouraging people to behave in a certain way because of a higher good has been disastrous because it deletes the thought of intrinsic human dignity that the Bible teaches. Without it, the "wellbeing of others" lacks a foundation and a definition.
> Most religions say non-believers will not get into heaven. The choice to not believe is not at the expense of anybody else. It's not a "criminal" act (in most non-backwards countries).
I wasn't claiming that to not believe was a criminal act. I only used the analogy of criminals and jails as illustrations of justice. The point is what I was saying about justice (the punishment should fit the crime), not the criminals themselves or where they spend their sentencing.
The analogy is not that they go to jail but rather than the judge rewards and vindicates the good and punishes the bad. "Jail" is just our cultural expression of sentencing. Ignore the "jail" part and focus on the "justice" part: the judge exercising fair and proper justice.
> Criminals undergo a trial, and consciously make choices in defiance of the well being of others.
First of all, God holds a "trial" also. The courtroom is a common image in Scripture when it speaks of God as judge. Various books even portray prosecution and defense, advocates and mediators. The Bible speaks explicitly about each person being accountable before the judge for what they have done (2 Cor. 5.10; Rev. 21.13). Jesus is labelled as an advocate during the trial for those who belong to him (1 Jn. 2.1).
> make choices in defiance of the well being of others.
The wellbeing of others, though way up there, is not our final value. Ever since the 17th century philosophers and scientists have been trying to create arguments for morality based on wellbeing rather than God's nature, suggesting that "good" is what brings pleasure and works towards human wellbeing and "evil" is what produces pain and is detrimental to the wellbeing of humanity. It's a utilitarian approach: do whatever works.
The problem is that it doesn't work. The 20th century was one of the most horrific in history: 2 world wars, several national genocides, disease and terrorism. Perceiving morality as some kind of universal standard of what contributes to the wellbeing of others has been a resonant failure. Encouraging people to behave in a certain way because of a higher good has been disastrous because it deletes the thought of intrinsic human dignity that the Bible teaches. Without it, the "wellbeing of others" lacks a foundation and a definition.
> Most religions say non-believers will not get into heaven. The choice to not believe is not at the expense of anybody else. It's not a "criminal" act (in most non-backwards countries).
I wasn't claiming that to not believe was a criminal act. I only used the analogy of criminals and jails as illustrations of justice. The point is what I was saying about justice (the punishment should fit the crime), not the criminals themselves or where they spend their sentencing.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Why should we worship God?
by Nuke-a-new » Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:43 pm
> The comparison was actually with just punishment. "Jail" was just the environmental context of our culture. The true point was that justice is not only fair but beneficial.
Its not justice and its not fair. ETERNAL punishment for finite crimes (especially ones as simple as not being gullible enough to join a religion without proof) is not anything you should be arguing in favor of.
> In other words, hell isn't necessarily eternal for all who enter it. It may only be eternal for those who absolutely, stubbornly, and persistently refuse to be reconciled.
Youll have to substantiate that possibility.
> Think about what would have to change for no one to get hurt or sick in any circumstance
He wouldn't need to change it, he simply did not need to design it this way. Each person who gets sick is literally part of his intention. He knew before he created the system who would get sick and die because of the illnesses HE created. Its intentional. So yes, if you get cancer, it was from god.
> Think about that such control of us would have to even enter our minds and affect the way we think, not just our bodies and what we do, and not just the natural world and physical realities
Not creating cancer cells or viruses that effect humans does not lead to a lack of choice, free will or impactful decisions or statements.
> A dynamic world is better than a static one, and even necessary for life as we know it
your god can't create a planet that is dynamic and does not kill millions of people? Is your god all knowing or not?
> If you have ever tried to balance something
god can dictate stability. He can literally will balance with no effort.
> I contend that God should not stop all that because a dynamic world in which free creatures can exercise genuine creativity
if you are only creative because of natural disasters and disease, thats your problem.
> Hopefully it’s obvious that while God might have created a static world, such a plan would have eliminated all reason, creativity, and scientific inquiry
again you are equating not creating tsunami's to a static and uninteresting world. You are making assertions without doing the footwork.
> Therefore, God should not have made a dynamical world in which natural evil can’t occur or where cause and effect are meaningless. It’s essentially self-contradictory, and ultimately intensely undesirable as a form of existence.
TO YOU, because you have not actually thought through your reply before typing it.
> Thanks for your concern, but I'm pretty sure I have.
You failed yet again.
Its not justice and its not fair. ETERNAL punishment for finite crimes (especially ones as simple as not being gullible enough to join a religion without proof) is not anything you should be arguing in favor of.
> In other words, hell isn't necessarily eternal for all who enter it. It may only be eternal for those who absolutely, stubbornly, and persistently refuse to be reconciled.
Youll have to substantiate that possibility.
> Think about what would have to change for no one to get hurt or sick in any circumstance
He wouldn't need to change it, he simply did not need to design it this way. Each person who gets sick is literally part of his intention. He knew before he created the system who would get sick and die because of the illnesses HE created. Its intentional. So yes, if you get cancer, it was from god.
> Think about that such control of us would have to even enter our minds and affect the way we think, not just our bodies and what we do, and not just the natural world and physical realities
Not creating cancer cells or viruses that effect humans does not lead to a lack of choice, free will or impactful decisions or statements.
> A dynamic world is better than a static one, and even necessary for life as we know it
your god can't create a planet that is dynamic and does not kill millions of people? Is your god all knowing or not?
> If you have ever tried to balance something
god can dictate stability. He can literally will balance with no effort.
> I contend that God should not stop all that because a dynamic world in which free creatures can exercise genuine creativity
if you are only creative because of natural disasters and disease, thats your problem.
> Hopefully it’s obvious that while God might have created a static world, such a plan would have eliminated all reason, creativity, and scientific inquiry
again you are equating not creating tsunami's to a static and uninteresting world. You are making assertions without doing the footwork.
> Therefore, God should not have made a dynamical world in which natural evil can’t occur or where cause and effect are meaningless. It’s essentially self-contradictory, and ultimately intensely undesirable as a form of existence.
TO YOU, because you have not actually thought through your reply before typing it.
> Thanks for your concern, but I'm pretty sure I have.
You failed yet again.
- Nuke-a-new
Re: Why should we worship God?
by jimwalton » Wed Nov 14, 2018 4:44 pm
> Its not justice and its not fair. ETERNAL punishment for finite crimes (especially ones as simple as not being gullible enough to join a religion without proof) is not anything you should be arguing in favor of.
I get the sense that you didn't read my post. I said that many Christians doubt the idea of eternal punishment for finite crimes, on a biblical basis. And I certainly did not argue in favor of eternal punishment for finite crimes. It was not a case I made.
> "hell isn't necessarily eternal for all who enter it." Youll have to substantiate that possibility.
The cases are actually quite involved, and a little beyond the confines of this forum. "Reconciliationism" is the position that somehow God will reconcile all things to himself as it says in Colossians 1.20. The scope of this presumably reaches even to the unbelievers and the rebellious. Believers will be reconciled to salvation, the cosmos will be reconciled to harmony, Satan will be reconciled by being forced to recognize God as God, and the unbelievers and rebellious will be reconciled by way of pacification for some and separation for others.
Semi-restorationism is where in eternal those in hell will continue to receive the revelation of God and his efforts to save them. Those who respond will be allowed to participate in heaven, but in a different way than if they had followed Christ. The unbelievers will endure a time of punishment in accord with their evil, then restored to a modified experience of heaven. The bitterly rebellious may spend eternity in hell. Some people may be annihilated and cease to exist.
Annihilationism teaches that the unbelievers of all stripes will cease to exist. There is no such thing as hell.
There. Very brief.
> Each person who gets sick is literally part of his intention.
There is nothing in the Bible or in logic that makes this so. Illness, in the Bible, is the result of human sin. It was God's intention that we be healthy and whole. Jesus's 3 years of ministry shows that very plainly.
> Not creating cancer cells or viruses that effect humans does not lead to a lack of choice, free will or impactful decisions or statements.
God didn't create cancer cells. Cancer cells are mutations and anomalies, not the design.
> Is your god all knowing or not?
Yes, he's all-knowing. Knowledge is not causative, however. His knowing things doesn't make them happen. If I could pop forward into the future and see what you were going to write in response to me doesn't mean that I controlled your mind and forced you to write it. It just means I could see it.
> if you are only creative because of natural disasters and disease, thats your problem.
I said that we are able to create because we live in a dynamic system, not because of natural disasters and disease.
I get the sense that you didn't read my post. I said that many Christians doubt the idea of eternal punishment for finite crimes, on a biblical basis. And I certainly did not argue in favor of eternal punishment for finite crimes. It was not a case I made.
> "hell isn't necessarily eternal for all who enter it." Youll have to substantiate that possibility.
The cases are actually quite involved, and a little beyond the confines of this forum. "Reconciliationism" is the position that somehow God will reconcile all things to himself as it says in Colossians 1.20. The scope of this presumably reaches even to the unbelievers and the rebellious. Believers will be reconciled to salvation, the cosmos will be reconciled to harmony, Satan will be reconciled by being forced to recognize God as God, and the unbelievers and rebellious will be reconciled by way of pacification for some and separation for others.
Semi-restorationism is where in eternal those in hell will continue to receive the revelation of God and his efforts to save them. Those who respond will be allowed to participate in heaven, but in a different way than if they had followed Christ. The unbelievers will endure a time of punishment in accord with their evil, then restored to a modified experience of heaven. The bitterly rebellious may spend eternity in hell. Some people may be annihilated and cease to exist.
Annihilationism teaches that the unbelievers of all stripes will cease to exist. There is no such thing as hell.
There. Very brief.
> Each person who gets sick is literally part of his intention.
There is nothing in the Bible or in logic that makes this so. Illness, in the Bible, is the result of human sin. It was God's intention that we be healthy and whole. Jesus's 3 years of ministry shows that very plainly.
> Not creating cancer cells or viruses that effect humans does not lead to a lack of choice, free will or impactful decisions or statements.
God didn't create cancer cells. Cancer cells are mutations and anomalies, not the design.
> Is your god all knowing or not?
Yes, he's all-knowing. Knowledge is not causative, however. His knowing things doesn't make them happen. If I could pop forward into the future and see what you were going to write in response to me doesn't mean that I controlled your mind and forced you to write it. It just means I could see it.
> if you are only creative because of natural disasters and disease, thats your problem.
I said that we are able to create because we live in a dynamic system, not because of natural disasters and disease.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9102
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
36 posts
• Page 2 of 4 • 1, 2, 3, 4
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest