Charm

I've just read my last post and boy, can a lot change in a couple of weeks. I stopped 'messing about' and sitting on the fence, a few weeks ago and rededicated my life to Christ. I'm never going to understand things like 'evil' but I do have faith that 'the Judge of the Earth will do right' and that God is reconciling the world to Himself, so that one day, evil will no longer be 'made'.

God IS NOT evil, He IS love. If I have said or implied that God is in some way 'evil' because He creates 'evil', then I ask God's forgiveness for my ignorance in Jesus' name.

 

If God is subject to logic, then via logic we can disprove His existence. In fact, my arguments would remain: If God, although subject to logic, has the power to create Heaven free of suffering, then He can create our universe free of suffering. In fact, all He woudl have had to do is not create our universe at all.

 

And besides, if you use logic as applied to evidence, then God is not necessary and there is no evidence that He exists. But a God that wants us to believe in Him (so that we go to a place without suffering) would have to give us evidence of His existence.

 

The bible tells us of faith, but it doesn't state that the faith must be blind faith.

How can our LIMITED understanding of logic 'prove' God exists or doesn't exist? I don't think it can. God would have to be far more complex than us mere mortals who only have limited brain power. I am very wary of using logic to prove things about God, the way you are. I do think your reasoning is in many parts correct though and we should reason about these things. I agree that a God would want us to believe in Him and would give us evidence of His existence. It also says in the Bible that faith is a gift. I can't conjure up faith in God, anymore than I could decide to levitate off my chair.

As a God who forces unnecessary suffering on those it creates would be considered evil, then God must be evil.

This is where I give God the benefit of the doubt: if God can do anything, and knows everything, then suffering even if only temporary, must be necessary. Are we 'necessary'? Did God 'have' to make us? I don't know. It boggles the mind.

Even if God knows evil, He could still be Good by not acting evil. Knowing something does not make you that. I might know how to cook pasta, but I am not made of pasta (nor am I Italian ).

 

To be Good, you would have to know Evil. If you didn't know the difference between Good or Evil, then you can not be said to act with Evil (as evil is based on intent - that is why an accident is not an evil act).

 

This means that even now, evil is an idea. You can't just point to an action and say that it is evil. Imagine a far out scenario:

 

There is a self destruct button for a secret lair. If someone pressed the self destruct button out of ignorance (think of this guy as Homer Simpson) and blows up the base killing everyone, is that an evil act? No. It is an unfortunate act, and an act of ignorance, but it is not evil.

 

Now imagine the same base, but instead of someone pressing the button out of ignorance, they instead press the button with the intent to blow it up and kill everyone (call this guy Monty Burns). Is this an evil act? Yes, it is the intent, the idea that they are doing that act as deliberate attempt to kill.

 

So, Homer, although ignorant, could still be seen as a good person, but Monty, due to the idea of killing all the people in the base would be considered evil.

 

The same act, the same outcomes, but the only thing that is different is the intent, the idea of a deliberate act.

 

Therefore: Evil is only an idea.

If an action that we considered 'evil' (e.g you shoot someone in a fit of rage) could be 'reversed' as if it had never happened, then the evil would no longer 'exist'. So if Jesus is going to reconcile all creation to God, ie resurrect dead people, abolish death and suffering, then the 'evil' becomes an idea again. There are two 'stories' in the Bible that really disgust me: the one about a guy who was walking with the priests while they were carrying the ark of the covenant in the desert. The priests who were carrying the ark stumbled and it looked like the ark was going to fall, so the nice guy instinctively reached out to steady it. He gets struck down and killed by lightning or something like that, by God for touching His holy ark. How unfair is that? The biggest problem I have with the God of the Bible, is when He tells the Israelities to kill by the sword all the Caananite men, women and children and suckling babies. I thought His ways were meant to be 'higher' than our ways. If the Caananites were that depraved, then why not zap them out of existence peacefully and instantly, thus leaving the 'land' nice and empty for the Israelities? God ordered them to kill (murder) in a most violent way. This is a big stumbling block for me, that I can't reconcile with a God of love. However, if the claims of the Bible and Jesus are correct, then that poor guy who tried to stop the ark falling will be resurrected to eternal life, as will all people who have ever lived e.g the Caananites, regardless of how they died, or how 'good'or 'bad' they were. It sounds like a fantastical fairy tale. I don't know. The fact is: evil is a reality not just an idea so if there is an Intelligent Designer, then He knew that evil would be an 'ingredient' in His creation. As I believe there is sufficient 'evidence' to infer an Intelligent Designer, and since I believe this Designer would have 'contact' with His creation, of all the alleged claims of who God is, the God of the Bible and Jesus, make the most sense in my opinion. The bible describes God as creating evil and using it but also of a future time when He won't use evil anymore, because all things 'evil' will no longer be realities. I'm not completely convinced - some days I think 'what you see is what you get- there is nothing else'. Unless God 'zaps' me with a strong faith or experience like Saul on the road to Damascus, then I'll no doubt keep wondering til the day I die.

Sets can have infinite elements, so this isn't an issue, I don't think.

I wouldn't know, as maths is my weakest subject.

Another point would be to state God's infinite power this way: if you name any action, God has the power to do it. Hence God has the power to create matter, run the universe, and so on. However, you might say "make 2+2=5" or "make a burrito so spicy even He cannot eat it," and point to the fact that God cannot do those things -- but those are not descriptions of actions. They are statements which intrinsically describe nothing, because no action can satisfy their description. Hence they are not weaknesses of God.

 

Anselm would retort differently: to commit illogic is a weakness, not a strength. If God could break the laws of logic, it would detract from His power.

I agree that they are not descriptions of actions, hence why I quoted Lewis.

 

Think of it like this: If God is subject to logic, then God must have existed after logic. But if God was created, then He is not all powerful, nor is He eternal. Both of which are necessary for God to be the God of the bible.

 

However, if God existed before Logic, then God created logic (and if God didn't create logic, then who did?). This means that God can transcend logic.

 

This means that God can make 2+2=5. But, He chooses not to (just because God can do something does not me He will or has to do it).

Surely 'logic' only exists via a mind, and so God (if we assume He has a mind) would always have logic, ie logic is eternal, as God is. How could you create logic, without emplying logic in order to create it? I'm not going to go down that road. If there is a God, then I would argue that logic is an eternal part of His being, just as love, evil, power is.

Even if one takes this position, that God can do anything that makes sense. It still does not counter that argument that God can't make a universe without suffering.

 

If God made us, then He made us with the ability to suffer. There is nothing within the laws of physics that states that suffering is necessary. An electron can not be evil. Although it might be used for evil, it itself is not evil. Suffering is an emergent property of the universe. Thus it is has no necessary existence. If the rules governing the universe were different, then suffering could be eliminated.

The Bible claims, that God can make a universe that does not contain suffering (the new Heavens and Earth in Revelation) so the problem we have is why didn't He 'end up' with this evil free universe/creation in the first place?

As an example: One such could be a multi-world universe. In this, when someone were to cause suffering to another, they would be split off into their own universe and cause suffering to a fake (ie not real, but give the appearance of being real) victim.

 

Afterwards, the universe are joined back up (if so desired).

 

This way the person that would be trying to cause suffering does not have their free will broken, they can know that their act doesn't really occur (because the two universes would develop differently because of the act or it not happening) and the actual people would know upon seeing the disappearance and then reappearance of the person trying to cause suffering.

 

If God created the universe, then we know He has the power to create a universe. Thus this is not beyond the power of God to make 2 universes and have one of them filled with mindless "zombies" (as in the philosophical concept of a zombie) that are manipulated by Him to replicate the first universe as needed.

 

Not only that, this would show people that it is futile to try and cause suffering or to do evil as it would be utterly pointless.

 

As you can see, even a mere mortal like me, and only use the powers God has apparently used in the bible, I can conceive of a way to eliminate suffering and evil without removing free will.

This made me chuckle, not because I found it funny but because it's very interesting and 'way out', but then, so are many of the claims of the bible lol.

Now, imagine a Being with infinite power and knowledge doing this. This is what God could have done. But, if He could have done it and didn't then He chose to not do it and thus chose us to be subject to evil and to suffer, and as has been established, a God that chooses to do unnecessary evil, or to allow unnecessary suffering despite their ability to prevent it, is evil. But as an evil God is not the God of the Bible, we can conclude that if there is a God, it can not be the God of the bible.

The bible is clear about God's dealings in evil: 'the man has become like one of us, knowing good and EVIL', gen 3:22 and 'The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating calamity (Hebrew word for calamity is 'ra' evil); I am the LORD who does all these.' Isaiah 45:7 just to quote two examples. So a universe containing evil is not inconsistent with the Bible.

Evil exists and must have always existed and will always exist, if God is eternal and 'knows good and evil' then He has always known about evil. I get the impression from the Bible, that evil will become an idea (again??) not a reality (being acted out) like it is now. That sounds like a long shot though, a fairy tale.

As interesting as these arguments in logic are, I will give God the benefit of the doubt (it doesn't have to be the God of the bible) . We have to learn about evil via experiences, just as we learn about goodness.

There is a saying: There are none so deaf as those that refuse to listen. So listen:

I am listening. I don't refuse to listen, so if I am 'deaf' then it's because I don't understand your reasoning.

You are defining 'infinite power' by using 'set theory'? So something that has no beginning and no end (the word used with God's power is 'eternal') can be 'contained' within a mathematical structure ie 'set'? My brain is not computing this idea at all. I'm going to check what words have been translated in the Hebrew and Greek for 'infinite'. I didn't find a verse reference to God's power using the word 'infinite' when I quickly checked just now. Let me re-read your post. It contains some very interesting points, but they require a good amount of brain power and it's a bit noisy here at the minute, so I'll come back to you.

Edtharan, a cornerstone to your arguments is your assertion that: 'if God has Infinite power, then He has the power to break the laws of logic'. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you arrive at this conclusion because if it can be said 'God cannot do.......' then He can't be infinitely powerful. So for example, if I say 'God cannot make 2+2=5, then God, not being able to alter the laws of mathematics etc, cannot be infinitely powerful. You mention infinity as the reason why God can break the laws of logic, although I don't quite follow how that would make it possible?? Are you saying there are infinite scenarios therefore the 'breaking logic' one must be possible? Can you expand on this?

I share C.S Lewis' view on this:

Yes, God would be able to do that and if I had magic powers, I could do it (I'd use my magic to make the man grow hair and then pull him by it - or there is hair on other places, you could pull him by a beard).

I maintain that we can't know for sure what terms like 'eternal power' mean. Because I don't know, I can't form arguments about how or why God made the universe the way He did.

Notice I use the term "Unnecessary" evil/suffering. If a suffering is necessary, then it is not unnecessary. If God created necessary suffering then that is right (that is it has nothing to do with good or evil).

 

If God causes unnecesary suffering, then He is evil. As God is all powerful, then He could have created a universe with free will and no suffering or sin. The fact that we live in a universe with suffering means that it is unnecessary and therefore if God exists (and therefore created the universe) He must be evil.

 

 

A single unnecessary evil act in the universe means that God is not all powerful, or is evil. If you can think of a single act of evil or a single instance of suffering that did not have to be (and with an all powerful God any act of evil and any instance of suffering is unnecessary) then we can conclude that if God exists He must be evil.

I understand why you reason like this. It seems to make sense. I too sometimes conclude that God must be 'evil' as well as 'good', if I reason along those lines. However, it is possible that our limited perspective of the universe, from it's beginning up to it's end, prevents us from knowing why there is evil and why God allows it and 'creates' it. The only clue I can find, that helps me to conclude that God is not evil, is realising that evil acts don't occur 'on their own' so to speak. They're part of many inter-twined actions that are part of this universe from beginning to end. If the processes (of good and evil) are working to form only good eventually, then once that is the reality and we are 'freed' from groaning creation and enter into the freedom of the children of God, ie we become resurrected spirit beings who operate in many more dimensions, (I'm getting into biblical language here, so apologies if you don't know what I'm talking about) then maybe we will understand, why evil had to be tolerated and used, to achieve lasting good.

It doesn't matter if God is subject to logic or not, only that we are. If God exists, then He created us subject to logic. This means that either God is subject to logic, and therefore we can apply logic to Him, or He wanted us to live according to logic, which means He wanted us to understand Him through logic and thus we can apply logic to our understanding of God.

 

 

But God would have then made us where that is necessary. Being all powerful, He could have made it otherwise. Therefore the only reason we suffer is that God made us to suffer. And I would consider that evil.

There's a verse in the Bible that has always appealed to me: 'Come, let us reason together.....' Isaiah 1:18 God is asking the Israelites to reason with Him. Surely God, if having given us our reasoning abilities, expects us to use reason. But I am aware that for all my reasoning abilities, I can't fathom questions like 'why is their evil' or 'why does God allow/use evil'?

Anyway, let's suppose you are right, and God is evil. Why should that have any bearing on belief that God exists?

Irriducable Complexity can be caused without the need of a creator. See here: http://www.youtube.c.../16/LZdCxk0CnN4

 

Also, I have not heard about any digital code in DNA, and by definition there can't be. Digital code has only 2 states (1 or 0), where as DNA has 4 codes (A, T, G, and C). It is possible to map these codes together (represent a DNA code by 1 digital bits (00, 10, 01 or 11). But his does not mean that DNA has a digital code, only that we can use symbols to represent things symbolically.

 

Actually, because we can represent things symbolically, then we can translate any set of symbols onto any other set of symbols. This means that if I used the right translation I could make the letters of your DNA spell out the works of Shakespeare.

 

So when someone shows you some set of "messages" from some source (like with the Bible Code stuff or a sequence of DNA spelling out a message), all they have done is been fooled by a cleaver translation system. the message was not in the original source, but encoded into the translation (either knowingly or unknowingly) by the designer of the translation sequence. Often the people who come up with these translation sequences try many translation sequences at random, or by carefully crafting them until they hit on the one that show the message they wanted.

 

I have seen a code that when used in one part of the bible it spells out a message3 that seems to prove the existence of God, but then used elsewhere it says that the bible was all a joke (it was designed to give those messages - as a joke).

 

The result of this is that any messages you get out of these things is very much likely to be complete rubbish and not any actual "evidence" at all.

Forge Bible Code rubbish. The coded information in DNA can be described as 'digital'. Digital doesn't have to only consist of 2 'states' as you put it, but rather it's about 'discrete values'. DNA uses 4 discrete values and is therefore 'digital' in that sense. Here's an interesting article : http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v421/n6921/full/nature01410.html

Irreducible Complexity is a hotly debated topic. I've 'studied' it for a few years, and have listened to both sides of the argument. My position is that certain biological structures certainly seem irreducibly complex e.g the flagellar motor. I've listend to Miller's rebutals and I've listened to the likes of Minnoch and Meyers. I think science will reveal these things in the near future.

I am not aware of any scientifically verified evidence of V-shaped gravity able to cause invisibility or confirmed observations of dwarf stars with temps just above absolute zero.

I don't understand 'normal' gravity, nevermind 'v-shaped'. I think if there was anything in the claims that Elenin isn't a comet etc, then I'm sure astro-physicists, astronomers, cosmologists etc, would have voiced their concerns by now. The only 'scientist', I've come across supporting these claims, is Mensur Omerbashich who is mentioned in the Youtube video I linked to. Wiki call him a 'crank scientist'.

I'll continue to be interested until the dates they've set, come and go. Not long to wait. lol.

Strangers on Internet and comments on YouTube does NOT carry the same reliability as NASA experts.

Absolutely.

I included the 'comments' as they contained 'claims' that can surely be verified scientifically.

Thanks again Spyman.

I found this comment about Dwarf stars on another Youtube video:

''If this is indeed a Dwarf Star with orbiting satellites why is it not visible? It is pretty close now.''

''The first dwarf star was discovered officially in 1995, because this classification of star is very difficult to see. ELE is releasing a photon cloud that keeps the star at temps just above absolute zero. The dwarf star is sitting inside a V-shaped gravity trough that creates the gravitational lensing effect that allows you to see the stars in the distance, but not the dwarf star. A dwarf with half Sun mass is only 50 percent larger than Earth; small but very powerful indeed ...''

Anyhow, considering we don't have to wait long before these aledged polar shifts etc, we shall soon know......

Link to full article: http://www.jpl.nasa....elease=2011-255

Thanks for that link Spyman. I did watch a Nasa video that said a similar thing. The video I linked to, suggests that Elenin is NOT a comet and so whilst the nasa information is true of comets, maybe it won't apply to Elenin. If Elenin is a dwarf star, then would that make any difference?

I'm hoping some of you who understand subjects like astronomical alignments, magnetic portals and pole shifts, can help me. I've noticed a lot of interest around the 'comet' Elenin and lots of 'end of the word' nonsense that seems to be associated with this 'comet'. I had some spare time today and came across this short video about Elenin and it aroused my interest:

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=MqV0StQbJQs

I don't know if this guy is a quack or what. I'm hoping someone here will watch the video (it's not too long) and be able to explain to me in layman's terms, if he is talking sense or rubbish. According to a programme you can download from Nasa (Jet propulsion Lab?), Elenin will aligning with the sun and earth on Sep 26th. Elenin will be 0.396 AU from the earth. This closeness and alignment will supposedly cause a pole shift (according to the maker of the video, not Nasa). Then on Nov 22nd there will be another alignment, with Elenin being 0.58 AU from the earth and this will cause a pole shift reversal.

So! Is it all rubbish? Can an 'object' assume polarity control of the Earth from the Sun?

......An interesting problem of infinity is that God should have the power to make a rock that He could not lift. However, when you actually apply infinity to it, God can make that rock, but then He has the power to lift it. Infinite power must contain the power to do both.

 

Thus, if God has Infinite power, then He has the power to break the laws of logic. If He has the power to break logic, then it is possible for God to create a universe where it is perfect, without suffering and without evil, even when those are necessary.

 

If God does not have the power to break logic, then He is not all powerful, nor is he a supernatural being. And, this would mean that logically He is not a God. And, since in this argument, He couldn't break logic, God could not exist, there for if God exists at all, He must be all powerful.

 

But, if God is all powerful, then Evil, Suffering and Sacrifice are unnecessary (and any God that created them must therefore be evil themselves - as you have agreed).

I am wary of using logic like this. You make some good points which I've considered myself, but I don't know what 'infinite power' means, or it you can put the two together. Maybe your logic is similar to someone saying, 'if God can do anything, then let him pull that bald man by the hair'. Of course that is nonense to us, and maybe too, because we don't understand what God is, we measure Him by our limited perspective and understanding.

Right and Wrong are not the same as Good and Evil. One can say it is wrong to lie, but is it evil to do so if it prevents a greater suffering? This means that Good and Evil are a separate concept to Right and Wrong.

 

In the context of this debate, Right and Wrong can be taken as necessary and unnecessary. Is it necessary for suffering and evil to exist in a material universe? Probably. Is suffering and evil, evil? certainly.

I agree. Right and wrong is different to good and evil, but all these concepts are not black and white, so do we really understand what is good, right, wrong and evil? Again, if we try to be absolute in our 'equations' of logic, then we may end up with the wrong answer e.g all suffering is evil. Is it? God allows suffering and causes suffering so He is evil. Is He?

Is it an evil act to create unnecessary evil and suffering? Yes.

Is the act 'evil' and is it necessary or unnecessary? Maybe we can't know for sure.

Therefore, if God exists, He must not be subject to logic, and therefore nothing is necessary to Him. If that God creates a universe with Suffering and Evil, then that suffering and evil must be unnecessary. And, as you agreed, any God that creates unnecessary suffering and Evil must be considered evil.

 

 

If God could not make the universe otherwise, then He is not all powerful. As one of the attributes of the God of the Bible is that He is all powerful, then the bible can not be describe the actual God and therefore any belief in the God of the bible is a belief in a false God.

 

So, either God has the power to make the universe otherwise and instead deliberately created evil and chose us to suffer unnecessarily, or God (as of the bible) does not exist.

I don't understand logic so I wouldn't begin to presume in what way God is 'subject'? to it. Maybe nothing is necessary in itself. I don't know and will never know in this life.

No. I mean sacrifice of any kind (even the "sacrifice" of asking for forgiveness). If God exists, He is all powerful, and therefore does not need us to sacrifice. Therefore any sacrifice must be deliberately caused by God for no reason that He wants us to do it for His own pleasure.

 

However, if God is not all powerful (and therefore not the God of the Bible), then Sacrifice might be necessary.

 

 

As you are not all powerful, then sacrifice and suffering is the result. And this is my point. An all powerful being does not require them and makes all suffering, evil and sacrifice unnecessary. However a finitely powered being (such as a human) can not eliminate them.

 

But as the God of the Bible is supposed to be all powerful, then either He has caused unnecessary suffering and evil, or He does not exist.

 

 

Thus, if the God of the bible exists, then He is evil. If the God of the bible is not evil, then He not all powerful (and thus can not be the God of the bible) and therefore does not exist.

Maybe 'sacrifice' is necessary for us, not God. Food is necessary to us but not God. Learning about the consequences of actions is part of the sacrifice/forgiveness process which is for our benefit not God's.

But, if God can give us direct knowledge, then He could give us the knowledge to understand that knowledge too. And, He could do it instantly (or better yet, let us be born with it). However He doesn't, so either He want us to suffer and be subject to evil (and then punish us for it) or He is not really the God of the bible (and therefore we have to reject the bible and all the religions based on it).

Then you might as well say, 'don't bother creating anything. You know how it's going to pan out. It's all determined anyway. You don't need anything, so why bother? I don't know why we have to learn gradually, and why we were even created at all. Not knowing these things, doesn't cause me to not believe in a god.

I can understand someone rejecting the God of the bible and other similar religions. I 'reject' Him myself at least twice a week. The arguments you present may convince someone that the biblical God is not real but I don't think they address problems for someone like me, who does believe there is a Creator, due to the 'evidence' that science is discovering (irreducible complexity, digital code in dna).

But, if God is perfect, and infinity powerful, then why would He have had to create an imperfect system?

I suspect we don't understand the idea of 'perfect'and God being 'infinitely powerful'. That may sound like a cop out, but if I begin with the premise that there is a Designer, then I can only form a rudimentary understanding of Him from the universe that we live in. We live in a dangerous universe, and our lives are a mixture of pain and happiness. Why is it necessarily 'wrong' that the universe is like this?

So, if you believe this, then you have to explain why God deliberately and unnecessarily created suffering and evil. And, reconcile this with a God that is absolutely good and wishes us to not have to suffer or be subject to evil.

Suffering and therefore 'evil' must be necessary, or certainly in a material universe. If we take an example 'pain'- without pain we wouldn't live very long. Pain is horrible but necessary. If we take the law of cause and effect, then God certainly must have known that a material universe would 'involve' evil so yes, He deliberately (but I would say it was necessary) created suffering and evil.

Because God is supposed to be all powerful and infinitely good and knowledgeable, then He could have made the universe otherwise. Because God is supposed to be infinitely powerful and merciful He could forgive without the need of sacrifice (and the bible even states that He can and does), then it appears that the sacrifice of Jesus is unnecessary.

I don't think He 'could' make the universe otherwise. I have wondered about these very points you make, and if I believe that there is a Creator who has brought everything into being, then I come to a 'dead end' so to speak - I don't understand how the universe works and so I accept that what we have is 'what we have' and we live with it.

From my understanding of the Bible, God does 'forgive' without someone having given a sacrifice, if by sacrifice you mean the killing of an animal and ultimately Jesus allowing himself to be killed. 'Sacrifice' doesn't always involve 'blood'. I think the 'shedding of blood' is symbolic rather than it literally appeasing God. This is a big subject that I don't really understand myself. As I am a parent and had to 'punish' my child when they did something that was wrong, it was because I loved them that I didn't just say 'oh, nevermind, you did wrong, but I forgive you'. Their 'pain' at being punished was a temporary state that in the long run lead to them understanding their actions and helping them to not do that thing again.

So if I cam up to you and said to worship my god, one that created unnecessary suffering, unnecessary evil and required unnecessary sacrifice, would you think of him as a good god, or an evil one.

I would think of Him as evil. I often don't understand or 'accept' why we suffer and so I often shout at God and tell Him I'm not going to bother with Him anymore.

No. God has the power to give us knowledge without such learning (there are passages in the bible where God give people knowledge directly). And, as God is all powerful, He has to have the power to do that or He is not all powerful.

I don't think that can be right. Those that God gave 'direct knowledge' to, already understood enough other things, to make sense of what they were 'given'. We have to learn and grow in our understanding of things and we have to experience things before we can understand them.

This is a form of Retrospective Determinism: http://en.wikipedia....ive_determinism . You are saying that whatever happens, happens and then afterwards stating that it was Gods plan all along.

 

This means that every evil perpetrated by humans and every moment of suffering has been ultimatly caused by God as it was His intention for that to occur, and because He is all powerful and could achieve the same ends without all that, it means that the evil and suffering are completely unnecesary.

 

In other words, you have just given the ultimate argument for God being evil.

 

However, if it has gone off the rails, then God can still be good, but just incompetent (or if you want not all powerful - but then is He god then).

Advances in Science, seem to be showing that things are determined. I watched a programme the other night called 'Are you good or evil?' and it showed how Psychopaths have abnormal brains and an abnormal gene. It discussed how our emotions are 'caused' by chemicals. It would seem that science is discovering that we don't have 'free wills'. So it seems to 'make sense' that everything must be determined. Does God determine everything? I don't know. HE must know how things will pan out, due to 'cause and effect'. That makes Him responsible for evil. Does that make God evil as well as good? It seems to imply that.

I know that men have been refered to as 'gods' or 'mighty ones'. Flesh and blood 'mighty ones' are not the same as Elohim surely? Elohim (whether that is one or more?) is eternal and is spirit. You quoted Jesus saying 'ye are gods' to support your view, so I also cite the bible where it talks of God not being a man, being eternal and being spirit.

I will admit that the morals of the God of the Bible don't seem to be consistent. On the one hand He says 'do not murder' and then orders the Israelites to perform genocide on the Caananites. Can I 'love' or believe in this God? It's very hard to. God admits He creates evil as well as good. Do you believe God does not creat evil? If you don't, where does it come from?

Less preaching please. It is annoying for you to speak as if you fathom the unfathomable. You just end up sounding stupid as you speak for God.

 

All you have to go by is hear say so act like it and not like a fool who will believe what ancients wrote in a book that begins with a talking snake. And is real.

 

I agree that any God would maintain control.

 

FYPOV, God sat there waiting for what he knew would happen and then pounced to punish.

Not much in the way of morals there and you follow that a hole.

 

Sigh.

 

And you believe that fool of a God when he tells you blood is required.

 

Back to your hole cave man.

 

Regards

 

 

DL

 

 

I certainly don't mean to 'preach' but rather convey some of my 'understanding' of these issues we are discussing, and I may very well be wrong in what I 'believe' hence why I'm asking you questions. Your irritation at my response suggests you will not have the patience or good will to be of much help to me. If I'm wrong then let's carry on with this discussion.

I don't believe in a literal talking snake, but maybe the Genesis account is figurative. Maybe it's a load of rubbish!

Why do you believe the God of the Bible is a fool to require the shedding of blood? We all die and therefore nature 'requires' the shedding of blood.

I'll go back to my cave for now.........

No. The Bible is a book of myths and should not be read literally.

The Bivble is a book of wisdom to me. Not a book that shows or directs one to a God.

 

 

Jesus is an archetypal good man that Christianity has literalized to use to create guilt.

More $$$ in guilt than without.

 

Think for just a moment. Would a God create a perfect system that included his having to have his son murdered in?

Is any God that stupid?

 

Regards

DL

It would seem from reading the Bible, but more so from what we are learning about the universe and life, that God did not create a perfect system. It may be a 'good' system, but not perfect, if by perfect you mean there would be no problems e.g death and suffering. Is God stupid to place us on a planet that is made up of plates that move and cause earthquakes? Is He stupid to create the sun that makes life possible on Earth, but will burn out one day so life won't be possible here? Obviously He is not stupid. Is He any more stupid to send the Word, into this finite set up, knowing he would be killed? No. Jesus said it is necessary to die. (unless a seed dies and is buried, it won't produce fruit).

Getting back to 'the perfect system', the whole 'message' of the Bible, is that God is in the process of transforming ALL His creation into a perfect system. At the moment all creation is groaning, because it is not perfect yet. The whole 'point' of Jesus, is that He is the key to perfection and immortality. We can't have 'perfect' to start with. That is a fact. Why can't we? I suspect it's to do with the knowledge of good and evil. You have to 'learn' both. The learning takes a lot of time - trial and error. Did God try to trick Adam and Eve with the trees? Of course not. He knew they would eat and He must have wanted them to eat, otherwise they could not know good, unless they knew evil. God is in full control of EVERYTHING. Nothing has gone 'off course' and is thwarting God's plan. God cannot be thwarted.

"Does it matter what God looks like?"

 

 

It seems to matter to other animals and I think we should take a lesson from them.

 

The God of ants is an ant.

 

The God of lions is a lion.

 

The God of man, has always been a man.

 

Who but a man van put voice to the will of God?

 

Even an imaginary God like bible God.

 

Man has always spoken for whatever the word God means.

 

My God is the same as your God. A man.

 

As to what Gnostic Christians are.

Basically a group with superior reading of scriptures that mostly go against the usual immoral Christian position.

 

Regards

 

DL

 

 

When you say God is a man, do you mean with a body like ours e.g flesh and blood etc?

I'd like to explore 'Gnostic Christianity'. Would you be interested in starting a thread regarding this? If your position is the right one, then I'd like to know why.

An all forgiving God would, by definition, never punish.

 

What definition?

.... What should our God look like if not a man?

Does it matter what God looks like?

That is all I need. As a Gnostic Christian, I can be ahead of their thinking.

What is a 'Gnostic Christian'?

I agree with you that hell is not supposed to be a good place.

That is one of my points.

God used it going against scripture.

 

God was overcome by evil.

'Hell' is the 'grave' where good and bad go. God does not punish people 'for ever'. God is not overcome by anything, or He wouldn't be God surely. Here's a funny short video to watch:

http://www.martinzender.com/crack_o_dawn/save_yourself_from_hell.htm

Scroll down to 'report 42'.

As a Gnostic Christian, I do not sympathy's

 

When you return to the real world and stop trying to profit from the murder of an innocent man, by his father, you might see in your own bible just what God has to say about blood sacrifices.

 

 

Regards

 

DL

I watched the above video. It makes some interesting points. Do you, as a gnostic Christian, accept the 'New Testament' books? Do you believe Jesus is the Saviour of the world ie the Messiah, and if you do, then in what way does He save us?

If there is a 'God', then of course it's silly to imagine we can 'bribe' Him or sway Him in any way. He would surely be in control of EVERYTHING. As a 'reluctant' Christian, (today I am!) I struggle to understand why Jesus had to die as an atoning sacrifice. It conjures up the points that you have made, which seem to be illogical. If we 'sin', then why doesn't God 'just forgive'? Why does He require the shedding of blood? I don't think I will ever understand, unless God 'zaps' me with the truth of it. The only thing that does make sense of it though, is that 'death' is temporary as is punishment. It serves a purpose (as does evil) and as terrible as Jesus' death was, it's HIs resurrection that is possible only because of His death and thereby everyone's future reurrection to eternal life. So love prevails and remains, whereas evil and death will be 'no more'.

Hi folks, good to be here. I hope to draw on your combined knowledge and understanding of various scientific topics. Bye for now......