Hypothetical Christian World

[Elioenai26]

If we were cared for by an omnipotent God

If by "cared for" you mean prevented from making decisions freely according to our desires, then yes, there would be nothing we could do to create famine if God prevented us from making decisions freely according to our desires. God would stop anybody from committing any act that would directly or indirectly lead to famine. But we would not be free moral agents. We would be robots that were stopped and started and stopped and started numerous times throughout the day. It would be akin to children playing red light green light on the schoolyard. One minute we are eating our dinner and the next, boom we are frozen by God in our places because we were about to throw our leftovers out in the trash. One minute we are about to go to the movies, then boom, we are frozen in our place because God decides the money we were going to spend on the movies should be sent to the starving children in Africa.

God could have created a world like that. A world where many of our thoughts and acts were never brought to fruition because they would directly or indirectly lead to human suffering. But would you really want to be a puppet on a string?

Are you saying that humans are so much more powerful than God that all it takes is a little selfishness on our part to overcome the power of God?

Not to overcome His power, but to spoil His creation. A little leaven leavens the whole lump. In the beginning everything God created was good. He can not do otherwise. One good thing He created was man and woman in His image with the ability to make choices. What we see in the world now is the result of the choices WE MAKE.

Maybe your parents raised you to blame others, or blame your genes, or nature, or God, or whatever else for your shortcomings and failings. I was raised to be accountable for my own actions. It is called responsibility and accountability. If I foul up, I am to blame, not someone else. If I do wrong, I must own up to it. If I complain about human suffering, and then turn a blind eye to it when I see it, I am a hypocrite.

The amount of complaining and crying that goes on here staggers me. Like you or anyone else is so concerned about people suffering. How is that the ratio of Christians to atheists is so staggeringly unbalanced when it comes to those in third world countries who are taking care of the needy?

 

[Loudmouth]

If by "cared for" you mean prevented from making decisions freely according to our desires, then yes, there would be nothing we could do to create famine if God prevented us from making decisions freely according to our desires.

So if we decide to take food away from another family we go ahead and take that food away. How is God stopping us? All God has to do afterwards is replace that food. No one's free will is taken away. Or does God run out of food to give to people?

Or he could create a world where a Pharoah wants to let the Hebrew people go, but then he takes away that free will. Would God do that?

 

[Loudmouth]

Why don't you tell us which is the better parent.

Parent A: This parent believes that they should protect their child. They tell their child that it is dangerous to play in the middle of a busy intersection. One day, that parent sees their child wandering off of the curb towards the middle of the intersection. That parent runs out, grabs their child, and takes the child back into the house.

Parent B: Like Parent A, Parent B believes that it is dangerous to play in the street. However, upon seeing their child wandering in to the middle of the intersection the parent just lets them play citing their right to free will. The child is struck by a car and dies.

Which is the better parent?

 

[Elioenai26]

Why don't you tell us which is the better parent.

Parent A: This parent believes that they should protect their child. They tell their child that it is dangerous to play in the middle of a busy intersection. One day, that parent sees their child wandering off of the curb towards the middle of the intersection. That parent runs out, grabs their child, and takes the child back into the house.

Parent B: Like Parent A, Parent B believes that it is dangerous to play in the street. However, upon seeing their child wandering in to the middle of the intersection the parent just lets them play citing their right to free will. The child is struck by a car and dies.

Which is the better parent?

I would say Parent A. Some would say parent B.

What is the point?

 

[HitchSlap]

I would say Parent A. Some would say parent B.

What is the point?

The bible paints your god as parent b.

 

[Elioenai26]

So if we decide to take food away from another family we go ahead and take that food away. How is God stopping us? All God has to do afterwards is replace that food. No one's free will is taken away. Or does God run out of food to give to people?

God could most certainly do that, if He was concerned about immediately amending every wrong that we humans perpetrate.

In brightlights' hypothetical world, God created people a certain way. They were created in God's image and likeness with authority having been given to them to have dominion over the earth. Like ambassadors if you will. God is not primarily concerned with us having a comfortable, pleasure filled life of ease. There is nothing inherently evil with any of the above, but to seek them as one's sole aim or end while neglecting the greater aspects is evil. Aspects such as love, humility, self sacrifice, integrity, self control, modesty, purity, righteousness, mercy, compassion, and numerous other virtues.

The main thing that convinced me in my search of truth was looking at Jesus. His life exemplifies everything a man or woman should be. Jesus showed me How God really thought, acted, and felt. How much God really loved me and what His plan was for me.

Jesus did'nt come on the scene and say: "Alright, its me, the King, im here, bow down and get to worshipping me while I chill over here and eat some grapes and have sex with whoever I want, whenever I want, however I want." He didnt run around cheating people and trying to get over on people. He hung out with the worst society had to offer, but not to be brought down by them, but rather, to lift them up. He loved people. He loved them enough to show them their faults, but not to condemn them for them. He was always about restoring people because He truly cared. He loved people so much that when they were sick, He healed them, when they were broken hearted, He cheered them up. When they were blind, He gave them sight. When they were outcasts, He welcomed them and made them fit to be called children of the King. For all these good things, He was condemned by the ones who thought He was an evil person. He was condemned by those who always thought they could have done it better. He was condemned by the same ones whom He taught in their synagogues. He was condemned because after raising people from the dead and causing the lame to walk and the blind to see, people still shouted: WHERES THE EVIDENCE! WHERES THE EVIDENCE! He rebuked them for their unbelief and for this, He was scourged and crucified as a criminal.

He was born where animals were kept. Raised in obscurity by a man who was a carpenter. He lived in obedience to His parents and became a man who worked with His own two hands at a less than desirable job. He didnt have the finest clothes, the best donkey on the block, nor did He think He had been done wrong when He suffered hardship, rejection, and a whole slew of evil thrown at Him from His very own people.

Whatever I have said on this forum, I will say this:

I have never been an atheist. I have not always been a Christian. I have always believed that there was something out there that was the explanation for the universe. But when I really came to see Christ for who He really was, and when I finally saw who I really was, Christ was everything He promised He would be to me and so much more.

If you sincerely have questions about whether or not God is really good, and whether or not He is real, just look at Jesus. He is all the evidence you need.

 

[Elioenai26]

The bible paints your god as parent b.

If Jesus was your parent, what would He do in this situation?

 

[HitchSlap]

God could most certainly do that, if He was concerned about immediately amending every wrong that we humans perpetrate.

In brightlights' hypothetical world, God created people a certain way. They were created in God's image and likeness with authority having been given to them to have dominion over the earth. Like ambassadors if you will. God is not primarily concerned with us having a comfortable, pleasure filled life of ease. There is nothing inherently evil with any of the above, but to seek them as one's sole aim or end while neglecting the greater aspects is evil. Aspects such as love, humility, self sacrifice, integrity, self control, modesty, purity, righteousness, mercy, compassion, and numerous other virtues.

The main thing that convinced me in my search of truth was looking at Jesus. His life exemplifies everything a man or woman should be. Jesus showed me How God really thought, acted, and felt. How much God really loved me and what His plan was for me.

Jesus did'nt come on the scene and say: "Alright, its me, the King, im here, bow down and get to worshipping me while I chill over here and eat some grapes and have sex with whoever I want, whenever I want, however I want." He didnt run around cheating people and trying to get over on people. He hung out with the worst society had to offer, but not to be brought down by them, but rather, to lift them up. He loved people. He loved them enough to show them their faults, but not to condemn them for them. He was always about restoring people because He truly cared. He loved people so much that when they were sick, He healed them, when they were broken hearted, He cheered them up. When they were blind, He gave them sight. When they were outcasts, He welcomed them and made them fit to be called children of the King. For all these good things, He was condemned by the ones who thought He was an evil person. He was condemned by those who always thought they could have done it better. He was condemned by the same ones whom He taught in their synagogues. He was condemned because after raising people from the dead and causing the lame to walk and the blind to see, people still shouted: WHERES THE EVIDENCE! WHERES THE EVIDENCE! He rebuked them for their unbelief and for this, He was scourged and crucified as a criminal.

He was born where animals were kept. Raised in obscurity by a man who was a carpenter. He lived in obedience to His parents and became a man who worked with His own two hands at a less than desirable job. He didnt have the finest clothes, the best donkey on the block, nor did He think He had been done wrong when He suffered hardship, rejection, and a whole slew of evil thrown at Him from His very own people.

Whatever I have said on this forum, I will say this:

I have never been an atheist. I have not always been a Christian. I have always believed that there was something out there that was the explanation for the universe. But when I really came to see Christ for who He really was, and when I finally saw who I really was, Christ was everything He promised He would be to me and so much more.

If you sincerely have questions about whether or not God is really good, and whether or not He is real, just look at Jesus. He is all the evidence you need.

That's all fine and dandy, but the truth is, we don't really know that much about Jesus. He never wrote anything down (at least that we know of), and the Gospels were written decades after Jesus died, by people he never met, in a language he never spoke, and were copied from each other.

So, you'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of your claim that you know very much, if anything, about a guy who supposedly died over two thousand years ago.

 

[Elioenai26]

That's all fine and dandy, but the truth is, we don't really know that much about Jesus.

That may indeed be true for you. You may know very little about Jesus. But just like any other person, Jesus is known primarily via communicating with Him within the confines of a relationship. For example, could you say you know your wife? If so, how?

I know quite a lot about Jesus actually, so your statement is untrue. Your statement also suggests to me that you know very little about the historicity of the gospel accounts.

He never wrote anything down (at least that we know of),

He dictated His words to His scribes (apostles) as was common in that time.

and the Gospels were written decades after Jesus died, by people he never met, in a language he never spoke, and were copied from each other.

Matthew and John were both disciples of Jesus. Mark was an associate of Peter, one of the three, and Luke was a physician and historian who was an associate of Paul.

Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD. The fact is that many Jews could not even read Hebrew so common was their usage of the Greek language. This disturbed the Jewish leaders of course and was the impetus behind the 300 BC translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek. It was completed around 200 BC. Gradually this Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was widely accepted and was even used in many synagogues.

So Jesus spoke Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and He may have even been fluent in Latin.

The synoptic gospels are similar in content with variations primarily due to their different authors recording things from their unique but not contradictory perspectives. John's is quite different than the synoptics and gives us a closer insight into the divine Christ.

So, you'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical of your claim that you know very much, if anything, about a guy who supposedly died over two thousand years ago.

Hey, no need to ask for forgiveness! Heck, we are all learning here!

 

[HitchSlap]

That may indeed be true for you. You may know very little about Jesus. But just like any other person, Jesus is known primarily via communicating with Him within the confines of a relationship. For example, could you say you know your wife? If so, how?

I know quite a lot about Jesus actually, so your statement is untrue. Your statement also suggests to me that you know very little about the historicity of the gospel accounts.



He dictated His words to His scribes (apostles) as was common in that time.



Matthew and John were both disciples of Jesus. Mark was an associate of Peter, one of the three, and Luke was a physician and historian who was an associate of Paul.

Greek was the language of scholarship during the years of the composition of the New Testament from 50 to 100 AD. The fact is that many Jews could not even read Hebrew so common was their usage of the Greek language. This disturbed the Jewish leaders of course and was the impetus behind the 300 BC translation of the Old Testament from Hebrew into Greek. It was completed around 200 BC. Gradually this Greek translation of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, was widely accepted and was even used in many synagogues.

So Jesus spoke Greek, Hebrew, Aramaic, and He may have even been fluent in Latin.

The synoptic gospels are similar in content with variations primarily due to their different authors recording things from their unique but not contradictory perspectives. John's is quite different than the synoptics and gives us a closer insight into the divine Christ.



Hey, no need to ask for forgiveness! Heck, we are all learning here!

I'm able to have real conversations with my wife, you know, the kind where they actually respond. I'm also able to hug my wife physically, something you've never done with Jesus.

If you claim to physically touch and communicate with Jesus on a verbal, audible basis, like I do with my wife? If so, then I would say you have a mental illness.

So, do you physically hug and verbally, communicate with Jesus, and he responds audibly? When I was a Christian, I never physically saw, touched or audibly communicated with Jesus.

As for the gospels, here's a few facts for you.

1. There are no existing original gospel mss.
2. The gospels were written decades after Jesus supposedly died.
3. There is no evidence to suggest that Jesus spoke anything other than Aramaic, with a probable understanding of Hebrew. (literacy rate for Jews in Palestine is estimated to be about ten percent at that time)
4. The only existing gospel mss are copies of copies.
5. Jesus never met the actual gospel writers.
6. The gospels are written as third person accounts.
7. Mark was likely written first, with Luke and Matthew borrowing heavily from Mark and theoretical Q.
8. The gospels are filled with discrenpencies and irreconcilable contradictions.
9. There is no extrabiblical records of the death of Jesus.
10. The gospels were most definitely not written in Palestine.

So, if you want me to believe that you have a real relationship with a guy who supposedly died over two thousand years ago -the kind of relationship I have with my wife- based on hear-say third person accounts written by people who never met Jesus, you'll have to do better than that!

 

[Elioenai26]

I'm able to have real conversations with my wife, you know, the kind where they actually respond.

I have these kind with my Lord just as you do with your wife, you know, the kind where they actually respond.

I'm also able to hug my wife physically, something you've never done with Jesus.

The embraces that Christ holds me tenderly in as I repose in His bosom are of a much deeper, more sublime and meaningful nature than even the ones I experience when in the arms of my girlfriend.

If you claim to physically touch and communicate with Jesus on a verbal, audible basis, like I do with my wife? If so, then I would say you have a mental illness.

I do not claim to physically touch Jesus or communicate with Him on a verbal audible basis. Our communication is in the Spirit and takes place deep within me, where Christ abides forevermore.

So, do you physically hug and verbally, communicate with Jesus, and he responds audibly?

Primarily not.

When I was a Christian, I never physically saw, touched or audibly communicated with Jesus.

You were not alone either.

1. There are no existing original gospel mss.

This is true. The original autographs were most likely written on a dried animal skin and have long since deteriorated.

2. The gospels were written decades after Jesus supposedly died.

Conservative dating of the gospels indicate that Mark was written sometime between 50 and 65 A.D. which is roughly 2-3 decades after Christ's death and resurrection.

3. There is no evidence to suggest that Jesus spoke anything other than Aramaic, with a probable understanding of Hebrew. (literacy rate for Jews in Palestine is estimated to be about ten percent at that time)

Jesus was a Jewish Rabbi who had a group of disciples under His authority whom He taught everyday for approximately three years from various sources i.e. the Torah (Hebrew), and the Septuagint (Greek). I assure you, He was well versed in all three languages.

4. The only existing gospel mss are copies of copies.

Ok.

5. Jesus never met the actual gospel writers.

How could He have not met two of His disciples whom He chose and taught for three years?

6. The gospels are written as third person accounts.

The gospels were written as gospels and all this entails goes along with it.

7. Mark was likely written first, with Luke and Matthew borrowing heavily from Mark and theoretical Q.

Theoretical Q.

8. The gospels are filled with discrenpencies and irreconcilable contradictions.

I challenge you to furnish one.

9. There is no extrabiblical records of the death of Jesus.

This is quite incorrect. Care for some sources and references?

10. The gospels were most definitely not written in Palestine.

Source for that?

So, if you want me to believe that you have a real relationship with a guy who supposedly died over two thousand years ago -the kind of relationship I have with my wife- based on hear-say third person accounts written by people who never met Jesus, you'll have to do better than that!

Ive never said Jesus was my wife.

________________________________________________________________________________________

When I Survey the Wondrous Cross, Isaac Watts, 1707


When I survey the wondrous cross
On which the Prince of glory died,
My richest gain I count but loss,
And pour contempt on all my pride.


Forbid it, Lord, that I should boast,
Save in the death of Christ my God!
All the vain things that charm me most,
I sacrifice them to His blood.


See from His head, His hands, His feet,
Sorrow and love flow mingled down!
Did e’er such love and sorrow meet,
Or thorns compose so rich a crown?


His dying crimson, like a robe,
Spreads o’er His body on the tree;
Then I am dead to all the globe,
And all the globe is dead to me.


Were the whole realm of nature mine,
That were a present far too small;
Love so amazing, so divine,
Demands my soul, my life, my all.

 

[HitchSlap]

You're not aware of any discrepancies or irreconcilable contradictions in the Gospels?
Really?

 

[JGG]

So, in this world where suffering makes better people, is inflicting suffering on others not then godly. Are the heroes of this world not the Stalins, Hitlers and Kims. Are they not ensuring a better class of people by causing godly suffering?

 

[Elioenai26]

You're not aware of any discrepancies or irreconcilable contradictions in the Gospels?
Really?

There are none.

 

[Elioenai26]

So, in this world where suffering makes better people, is inflicting suffering on others not then godly.

I have never said that suffering necessarily makes better people. I have said that suffering can make one better or bitter. It depends on the person. There are many who suffer much and are no better off for it. There are some who suffer and are. Therefore, no, inflicting suffering on others is not what God wants us to do. There is already enough suffering in the world. It seems to me that one look at the life of Jesus would prove my point.

Are the heroes of this world not the Stalins, Hitlers and Kims. Are they not ensuring a better class of people by causing godly suffering?

The heroes of this world are those like Jesus. The Mother Teresas, the Billy Grahams, the Corrie Ten Booms, the William Wilberforces, the humble, selfless, the self sacrificing, and the lowly in heart. The compassionate and loving souls. These are the heroes of this world.

 

[HitchSlap]

There are none.

Have you had any college or seminary Bible survey courses?

 

[JGG]

I have never said that suffering necessarily makes better people. I have said that suffering can make one better or bitter. It depends on the person. There are many who suffer much and are no better off for it. There are some who suffer and are.

Wouldn't this hypothetical God who is trying to woo the people then only inflict suffering on those who would come out the better for it, and spare those who would not? I believe you claimed:

But God is greater than you. He knows that a man who has endured suffering, pain, and affliction and has come through this furnace of trial is as gold refined in the fire. One who has exercised every virtue and has maintained his integrity and honor is greater than a lascivious, slothful, undisciplined marshmallow and sweet dream loving man.

Those who inflict suffering, and pain are refining people like gold. That's what you said, right? Or do you now know better than this hypothetical god?

Therefore, no, inflicting suffering on others is not what God wants us to do. There is already enough suffering in the world. It seems to me that one look at the life of Jesus would prove my point.

That was the point previously made. If there's already enough suffering in the world, why wouldn't this hypothetical God be rid of it?

The heroes of this world are those like Jesus. The Mother Teresas, the Billy Grahams, the Corrie Ten Booms, the William Wilberforces, the humble, selfless, the self sacrificing, and the lowly in heart. The compassionate and loving souls. These are the heroes of this world.

Okay, but if suffering creates better people, even if only 50% of the time, then how are these who inflict suffering, and creating better people not also heroes?

 

[Elioenai26]

Have you had any college or seminary Bible survey courses?

Yes.

 

[Davian]

I have never said that suffering necessarily makes better people. I have said that suffering can make one better or bitter. It depends on the person. There are many who suffer much and are no better off for it. There are some who suffer and are. Therefore, no, inflicting suffering on others is not what God wants us to do. There is already enough suffering in the world. It seems to me that one look at the life of Jesus would prove my point.

What did Jesus sacrifice, in the light that you claim that he is an eternal being that is still alive in some way?

The heroes of this world are those like Jesus. The Mother Teresas, the Billy Grahams, the Corrie Ten Booms, the William Wilberforces, the humble, selfless, the self sacrificing, and the lowly in heart. The compassionate and loving souls. These are the heroes of this world.

Mother Teresa?

"Fundamental to any understanding of the link for Sick and Suffering Co-Workers was an appreciation of the fact that it did not mean a desperate craving after healing but rather the constructive use of suffering. To Mother Teresa suffering was an essential part of the Christian way."

Mother Teresa: An Authorized Biography - Kathryn Spink - Google Books

And how did MT apply this "constructive use of suffering"?

"'In her home for the dying, no medication or painkillers are allowed even to terminally ill patients.'"

Christianity in a Different Light - Google Books

So much for 'compassionate'.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes.

And yet you're unaware of any contradictions in the Gospels.

At this point I'm not sure if you're trolling me or simply a Poe.