Originally posted by leonheartmm
because he has often done hateful and egotistical things in the bible which not only take away COMPLETENESS of his claimed love, but also, make him a lot less than a REASONEABLY loving entity.
Hmm...are you sure you have the right definition of love? Or the accurate understanding of the nature of God?
yes i am sure i have the right definition of love. i CAN come up with very improbable explanations for god's deeds which can be interpreted as him being LOVE, but that wud contradict his omnipotence/omniscience and any other things in the bible.
as to his nature? i can not say, but i can say that the part of his nature which i am referring to certainly has been shown to exist, for whatever reason. and it is inconsistant with the ideology of god=love. i wish that such a god existed, but it isnt true and it almost certainly is not the god of any relegion that i am aware of.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
factually, i CAN well comment on the nature of CLAIMED beings whose traits, decisions and commandments are supposed to be written in impeccible books. as long as we assume that what those books say is all true, then we can well set up a hypothetical argument which can FACTUALLY, prove or disprove things about the nature of said hypothetical being. {e.g. the bible says[just an example] that a square circle exists in this universe. now irrespective of whether it is REALLY true or not, we can use our intellect to see if a FACTUAL contradiction exists inside the claim. and since it does[square and circle being two different shapes] then we can say for a certainty that the claim is factually false or self contradictory. }
Oh. Thanks for the insight. What hypothetical argument?
Originally posted by leonheartmm
yes i am sure i have the right definition of love. i CAN come up with very improbable explanations for god's deeds which can be interpreted as him being LOVE, but that wud contradict his omnipotence/omniscience and any other things in the bible.as to his nature? i can not say, but i can say that the part of his nature which i am referring to certainly has been shown to exist, for whatever reason. and it is inconsistant with the ideology of god=love. i wish that such a god existed, but it isnt true and it almost certainly is not the god of any relegion that i am aware of.
Well, can we have examples of where you don't think God is acting out of love?
Please remember that even if a person commits a grave sin they are forgiven...thats quite allot of love.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Well, can we have examples of where you don't think God is acting out of love?
Kill the Cannanites
Hey Noah I'm about to drown everyone
Lets burn Sodom and Gomorrah
Lot, I dare you not to turn around
Abraham, kill the kid! Nah just kidding.
So son you've got 33 years and then you die in the most painful way possible
I think those are the most commonly cited examples.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Kill the Cannanites
Hey Noah I'm about to drown everyone
Lets burn Sodom and Gomorrah
Lot, I dare you not to turn around
Abraham, kill the kid! Nah just kidding.
So son you've got 33 years and then you die in the most painful way possibleI think those are the most commonly cited examples.
Very poor examples indeed...we totally missed out Job...which I think is the only example which has any real credence.
Kill the Cannanites
Hey Noah I'm about to drown everyone
Lets burn Sodom and Gomorrah
Lot, I dare you not to turn around
All these events involve people who had "lost their way" or gone down on paths that were not just according to God, now lets not forget God has rules- and if you don't follow them punishment is necessary surely? I think so, after all God has to hold up divine justice as it is ofcourse, part of his personage. However even though all these people forfieted their earthly lives they were actually rescued- for by being taken away from the reach of Satan they were being taken away from the temptation to sin. After a short spell in purgatory they would gain access to Heaven- Jesus after all died for their sins...even if it was a few thousand years later. This is love surely?
Abraham, kill the kid! Nah just kidding.
God gave Abraham his son, he gave Abe allot as he was very special however lets not forget Abraham had already flouted God's orders once, he had to prove himself- ofcourse he didn't need to prove his dedication for God's sake as God would be aware that Abe was on the right track- but Abe had to prove it to himself. By going to sacrifice his son he knew to himself that he was able to work for the Lord completely and since the Lord spared his sons life he could learn this moral. Obey your God and you will be rewarded. An interesting way to learn a lesson? Lets remember Abraham was no normal guy, religions would be built on his shoulders, so lessons have to be taught in special ways...does this suggest God doesn't love Abe? No.
So son you've got 33 years and then you die in the most painful way possible
An interesting example lets remember that God the Father is Jesus the Son...they are the same person in the holy trinity but also separate people...its quite complicated at first...anyway the God took human form to save man from sin and Satan. He was betrayed, beaten and killed for mankind...truly the ultimate act of love for a loving God.
^rationalisations. god is not living up to his lovely nature in those examples. you can twist and turn it all you wanr but fact remains that an omnipotent and omnibenevolant entity is not BOUND by things to stop it to making things right.
the fact that god created hell is a good enough example to realise that he isnt all acting out of love. plus the fact that he lets satan run free.
Your wrong, you don't understand what hell is 😐
Originally posted by leonheartmm
^rationalisations. god is not living up to his lovely nature in those examples. you can twist and turn it all you wanr but fact remains that an omnipotent and omnibenevolant entity is not BOUND by things to stop it to making things right.the fact that god created hell is a good enough example to realise that he isnt all acting out of love. plus the fact that he lets satan run free.
I think your imposing limits on God...if hes omnipotent he has ultimate restraint...your argument fails because your subjecting God to limitations of man.
^not really. omnipotence =/= trancendance. it is a well known, self contradictory property.
making god trancendant is an easy way of saying "any and all arguments you make fail because god is beyond them and beyond human reasoning so everything he does is right" . it doesnt work. plus, god showing preference and very petty egotistical qualities, as he does in the bible, make him FAR less than the omnipotent or trancendant being that sume make him out to be.
yes i do understand the concepts of hell and some vague interpretations made by some christians{stating that hell is just the absence of god and whatnot} based on no solid scriptural evidence does nothing to take away form it. if anything, i can say that you dont understand the concept of hell that you yourself seem to beleive in. simply because it is contradictory to god's own claimed nature.
anyhow, what did all that have to do with what i posted? examples have already been given where god isnt acting out of love.
no he wasnt. those were hateful/egotistical acts. and you forget, that a "person" who is "loving" is not COMPLETELY loving, but is also hating etc. many things make up even the best of humans. either way the claim was that god=love which doesnt hold up in the second situation and CERTAINLY not in the first one. i didnt have to accept anything which is illogical.
what does rapping my children in cotton wool have to do with anything?
^inappropriate parallel. the parent is never omniscient, nor omnipotent. if the parent was llike that, then the harm wud never exist for the child.
also, that example is a far cry from the types of punishment that one wud have to undergo in hell{which god himself created} and the criteria for hell which is illogical and trivial{also created needlessly by a LOVING god}. the appropriate example wud be letting the child fall endlessly into an oblivion of unbearable hurt.
Not quite, the parent has the ability to not allow the child to go out and play...and thus get hurt...in its youth the parent is quite all powerful over the child...
God vs Humanity
Parent vs Child
Its a fair parallel.
Why is the existence of hell needless, what do you believe hell to be...what makes you think people will not eventually be reconciled?
Note an all loving God is also all powerful and all-just he has the ability to punish people even if he loves them.
untrue. you fail to understand that parents do not CREATE the dangers chidlren have to face{because they only have power over the child and not the WORLD around it} , while god created all human and everything in the world includig the challenges and dangers facing humans to begin with. therefore the paralles is completely illogical. parents dont go around digging holes for chidlren to fall into and then only warn them to stay away.
the existance of hell wud be needless because an omnibenevolant god wud be incapable of producing a world with hate in it or suffering or negetivity. also, all hell serves to do is male people suffer further, it doesnt RIGHT any wrong. plus, most of the criteria for entering have nothing to do with goodness but god's egotism and accepting CHRIST as saviour which wud have no significance to an omnibenevolant god.
note that an all loving god can not create a hating/suffering world to begin with, nor create the CONCEPT of suffering itself{i.e. today's world}, also note that all loving is inconsistant with all just. you can not have both at the same time just like you can have omnipotence and omniscience at the same time. it is contradictory.
It isn't your just twisting the ideals...how can a non-omnipotent, non omniscient, non-omnipresent being say how a being of those features could act? Answer, they cant...
Anyway just for you I've dug out a book on Christian Theology by a man called Alister E. McGrath...it has a chapter on the Doctrine of God so I'll give that a read. 🙂
^hehe, wrong argument. you are again trying to use obscurity and incomprehensibility as defenses. well they can justify ANYTHING cant they. anyhow, first youd have to prove to me that god can be all those things. furthermore, i can think about what such a being wud do because, hard to comprehend{IN THE "COMPLETENESS"} as these qualities may be, they are NOT completely incomprehencsible, which is why the words{omniscience etc} EXIST and make sense to us. looking from those, it is clearly seen that the two are contradictory and hence you dont NEED to understand the concept in its completeness.
i mean, the example your using is like this.
a. a square circle can not exist as the two shapes are unique and sumthing can not be both at the same time and from the same perspective
b. but then how can a being who ISNT a square circle or hasnt ever SEEN a square circle say anything about the nature of a square circle?
hence a square circle exists! naah, not really, that is a fallacy.
Mohammad who encouraged and promoted death, war, rape and robbery and said it was A'ok i'm God's prophet and contary to what God supposedly told the other prophets i'm right. Then their's the sketchy business of him marrying a six year old and having sex with her when she was 9 and he was 54 and the unclear business of what exacatly he did with the goat and the dead woman 👀