Originally posted by TacDavey
He is. But God is also all just. By His very nature, hell must exist, but that doesn't mean He wants to send people there any more than cops want people to go to jail.
If there is a thing in the universe that he cannot change then he is not all powerful, by definition. I don't see how torturing people for arbitrary, unexplained offenses makes him just either.
II Kings 2:23-24.
- And he went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head.
- And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.
God is just 😛
Originally posted by Robtard
So by that rational, if in 3,000 years people no longer believe in the Judeo-Christan god and believe in something else, the Judeo-Christian God will therefore cease to exist and was just make believe all along.
No. I would say that if the God of the Bible was known to react to people ignoring Him, and we ignored Him for a while with nothing happening, then we could logically conclude that He does not exist. At least He does not exist in the way we thought He was.
Neither point is true, though. God doesn't react to people ignoring Him, and we haven't been ignoring Him anyway.
Originally posted by Robtard
So you don't bother with what's written in the bible, you listen to what others say about it. K. Sadly, this is very common among religious folk.
It's the same as someone with no background in biology or science believing in evolution. It's logical to believe in it because the experts in the field tell you that's how it is. Not everyone can be a Biblical Scholar any more than everyone can be a Biologist or Scientist. That doesn't mean that following what the experts tell you is irrational. They are the experts. You are not.
Originally posted by Robtard
I didn't say "God is evil", you implied that gods from older and defunct religions were evil and unjust by stating acts they supposedly performed (of which you have yet to show), I showed similar acts with the Judeo-Christian God.Seems your argument is basically: "these acts are evil, unless it's done by God, then it's not, cos God can't do evil, therefore any act done by God is just, even if said act would be evil if done by someone else or another god."
Yes, that's basically it. God is all just, which means He is incapable of performing an unjust action. I'm not saying that an evil action isn't evil when God performs it. I'm saying that God doesn't perform evil actions, so while some of His actions may SEEM evil to us, they cannot be so, since God is all just and all good.
To use the Bible to claim God is evil, yet ignore the parts that claim He cannot do evil, is cherry picking.
Originally posted by 0mega Spawn
no im just curious as how he doesn't want to but HAS to... as if its a rule that god cannot break.
In a way, yes. He is all Just, so to say that an all Just being can perform an unjust action is logically contradictory.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If there is a thing in the universe that he cannot change then he is not all powerful, by definition. I don't see how torturing people for arbitrary, unexplained offenses makes him just either.
He is all powerful within the realm of logic. It's the same as asking if God can make a stone so big He cannot lift it.
God is all Just, which means He cannot perform an unjust action or He wouldn't be all just, as He is by definition. To claim that an all just being can perform an unjust action is logically contradictory.
Another example. God cannot create a person who is sitting and not sitting at the same time. It's a logical contradiction. It does not exist in the realm of logic.
Couple quick points.
1. In Regards to God Killing cities of innocents. It states in the bible when Abraham asked God if he would spare Sodom and Gomorrah if their were 50 Innocents, God said yes. Abraham kept asking this question finally getting down to 10. And God said he will spare the righteous. This was also shown to be true when the Angels came and spoke to Lot telling him to take he, his wife and two daughters away or they will be wiped away with the city.
2. Also, when citing some of these killings, it is best to actually read the whole context of what is going on. For example when Joshua was ordered by God to wipe out every man, woman and child in Canaan. People will say how God wants to kill innocent people when if you read further, states that the people of Canaan where sacrificing their children by burning them for their own gods they believed in.
3. Another popular one is the whole bash babies heads against stones somehow equates to abortion. When in all reality it is a call for revenge from the Israelites. It was not coming from God.
4. In regards to Christianity. one of the points of Christianity is that Jesus gave his life to atone for the sins of man. All Men are created with sin. No one is truly innocent and if you accept Christ as the savior, you can be forgiven for your sins.
5. The Old Testament Law. Galatians 3:15-29 explains part of this. The gist is that The Law was put in place as a guide until the coming of Jesus that Abraham was told about. That once Faith came about that guidance under the law was no longer what was necessary to enter heaven. When Jesus speaks about not getting rid of the law but that he is here to fulfill it, I take that to mean that he is here to fulfill the prophecy of his coming and that the law was no longer the way into the kingdom of heaven . Also most of the old testament laws were actually laws of the land and culture of the time.
6. And my last point for now. What is logically wrong with a just and loving God. Can a parent be both just and loving? Can I love my child and still discipline them when necessary. Can God love his creation but also punish them when they disobey Gods law. If you notice that after Christ came that the Mass destruction of cities ended. I believe this to be because Jesus gave his life for the sin of man. That Christ would accept the responsibility for the sin of man if they would believe in him and believe in the word of God.
Like I stated before, i am a former atheist so i get why you have a lot of questions. I also get why it is hard to believe in a Creator God. Just because I do believe does not mean I believe in a young earth, that I deny evolution or totally disregard science.
I will try to come back and reply to more of the God killing sprees brought up on here. But keep in mind that whatever contradictions you may find in the Bible, koran, torah...etc... that still does not logically rule out the existence of a Creator.
I am not posting to try and convince anyone to believe in God. In my opinion that is for you to do for yourself. I just want to try and demonstrate that some people do put some time and effort into their belief. I still read Atheist books, magazines, articles as well as Religious books to try and get a better understanding of my faith. I still have plenty of questions and will continue to look for the answers.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Yes, by His nature. He is all just, thus, by that definition, He is incapable of doing something unjust. He is all good, and thus is incapable of doing evil.
1) You assume its a he.
2) You assume "he" is just, in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
3) You assume "he" has a definition. If you ask 100 people in isolation what God is, you'll get 100 different answers from 100 different people all convinced that their god is the right one.
4) You now question what just is, because you think that this evidently unjust God, is just, so it must be our perceptions that are somehow wrong. Dangerous thinking, if imaginary beings (or any other being you have zero evidence for can overide your perception and rules of morality at the drop of a hat...
Thats already a lot of assuming and accepting indeeeeeeeeeeeed.
Especially when compared witht he easier, more likely explanation that there's actually no god. (At least as defined by those old religions, written in times in history where we basically knew f**k all....)
Originally posted by Gibson714
Couple quick points.1. In Regards to God Killing cities of innocents. It states in the bible when Abraham asked God if he would spare Sodom and Gomorrah if their were 50 Innocents, God said yes. Abraham kept asking this question finally getting down to 10. And God said he will spare the righteous. This was also shown to be true when the Angels came and spoke to Lot telling him to take he, his wife and two daughters away or they will be wiped away with the city.
2. Also, when citing some of these killings, it is best to actually read the whole context of what is going on. For example when Joshua was ordered by God to wipe out every man, woman and child in Canaan. People will say how God wants to kill innocent people when if you read further, states that the people of Canaan where sacrificing their children by burning them for their own gods they believed in.
3. Another popular one is the whole bash babies heads against stones somehow equates to abortion. When in all reality it is a call for revenge from the Israelites. It was not coming from God.
4. In regards to Christianity. one of the points of Christianity is that Jesus gave his life to atone for the sins of man. All Men are created with sin. No one is truly innocent and if you accept Christ as the savior, you can be forgiven for your sins.
5. The Old Testament Law. Galatians 3:15-29 explains part of this. The gist is that The Law was put in place as a guide until the coming of Jesus that Abraham was told about. That once Faith came about that guidance under the law was no longer what was necessary to enter heaven. When Jesus speaks about not getting rid of the law but that he is here to fulfill it, I take that to mean that he is here to fulfill the prophecy of his coming and that the law was no longer the way into the kingdom of heaven . Also most of the old testament laws were actually laws of the land and culture of the time.
6. And my last point for now. What is logically wrong with a just and loving God. Can a parent be both just and loving? Can I love my child and still discipline them when necessary. Can God love his creation but also punish them when they disobey Gods law. If you notice that after Christ came that the Mass destruction of cities ended. I believe this to be because Jesus gave his life for the sin of man. That Christ would accept the responsibility for the sin of man if they would believe in him and believe in the word of God.
Like I stated before, i am a former atheist so i get why you have a lot of questions. I also get why it is hard to believe in a Creator God. Just because I do believe does not mean I believe in a young earth, that I deny evolution or totally disregard science.
I will try to come back and reply to more of the God killing sprees brought up on here. But keep in mind that whatever contradictions you may find in the Bible, koran, torah...etc... that still does not logically rule out the existence of a Creator.
I am not posting to try and convince anyone to believe in God. In my opinion that is for you to do for yourself. I just want to try and demonstrate that some people do put some time and effort into their belief. I still read Atheist books, magazines, articles as well as Religious books to try and get a better understanding of my faith. I still have plenty of questions and will continue to look for the answers.
👆
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
But even a deist god still requires a creator itself...now what is that..?
To ignore infinite regression would be non-logical/unscientific.So argueably, Logic itself rules out a creator.
Especially one there has never been a lick of proof for ever.
No, God does not require a creator. You really ARE ignoring my points aren't you? God is eternal. That means He has no beginning. Thus, He does not need a creator.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
1) You assume its a he.
I don't think God has a gender. He is referred to in a male fashion because He is known as the "father" of man. It is also likely because males were the head of the house back in the Biblical times.
Furthermore, it simply seems disrespectful to call God an "it".
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
2) You assume "he" is just, in the face of all evidence to the contrary.
What evidence? You mean the evidence from the Bible? The same book that says He is all just? That's Cherry picking Sadako.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
3) You assume "he" has a definition. If you ask 100 people in isolation what God is, you'll get 100 different answers from 100 different people all convinced that their god is the right one.
This is completely irrelevant. The simple fact that a lot of people have different beliefs has no bearing on any of my points at all.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
4) You now question what just is, because you think that this evidently unjust God, is just, so it must be our perceptions that are somehow wrong. Dangerous thinking, if imaginary beings (or any other being you have zero evidence for can overide your perception and rules of morality at the drop of a hat...
Like I said in my earlier point, the very same document you claim shows God is unjust also labels Him as all just. You can't cherry pick, Sadako.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
Especially when compared witht he easier, more likely explanation that there's actually no god. (At least as defined by those old religions, written in times in history where we basically knew f**k all....)
Incorrect. I have already given at least one major argument supporting the existence of God, which you have not refuted as of yet. I'm still waiting on that by the way.
Originally posted by TacDavey
Then it seems we disagree on what it means to be perfect. My points still stand. If I were a perfect being, does that automatically mean that the whole world would be at peace? Just because one person was "perfect"? No. Therefore, it's possible for me to WANT there to be peace, even if I'm a perfect being.In fact, I would say it is REQUIRED for a being to want things to be perfect. A perfect being would not be indifferent to people's suffering. So it should WANT there to not be people suffering.
If a perfect being is concerned with peace, then he would create it. He would not want for it.
Originally posted by Sadako of Girth
But even a deist god still requires a creator itself...now what is that..?
To ignore infinite regression would be non-logical/unscientific.So argueably, Logic itself rules out a creator.
Especially one there has never been a lick of proof for ever.
That's the problem though. It's not illogical. Logic does not rule out a creator. Science rule out certain creations, such as creationism, but not logic nor science rule out a creator 🙂
You say you have no proof of God.
Two thousand years ago you had no proof that God didn't exist.
A thousand years ago you had no proof that the sun revolved around Earth.
A hundred years ago you had no proof that you could walk on the moon.
Ten years ago you had no proof life could exist without phosphorous.
Today you have no proof that God doesn't exist.
History and therefore logic dictate that just because you don't have proof, doesn't mean it can't be so. Don't try to use logic to say that God doesn't exist. It's fallible and stupid 😛
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Which is why I said "IF a perfect being is concerned with peace," because a perfect being would either be unconcerned with peace
A being wouldn't be perfect if it did not care about the suffering of others.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
or would have created peace from the beginning. "Wanting" does not figure into it.
Let's hypothetically say that was true. The perfect being probably created peace because it wanted it, right? Why would ANY being create something it didn't want?
Originally posted by TacDavey
A being wouldn't be perfect if it did not care about the suffering of others.
Do you concern yourself with the suffering of insects?
Originally posted by TacDavey
Let's hypothetically say that was true. The perfect being probably created peace because it wanted it, right? Why would ANY being create something it didn't want?
Presuming that a perfect being would be concerned with peace for the sake of argument is not an affirmation that a perfect being would indeed be concerned with peace.