If you had God's powers, how would you communicate with people?

[dlamberth]

(b) find other ways to reach out to people?

I'd totally focus on teaching Love, Compassion, Empathy and Service to those in need.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I apologize for the comment re snark. I did overstep, and even as I clicked Post Reply I was regretting it. Perhaps it was from looking at your picture, lol. I have bad eyesight, and I had to look close to be sure it was not Mr. Bean!

Please don't worry about it. That person you see is not Mr. Bean, by the way. It's Edmund Blackadder, a character played by Rowan Atkinson who is famed for his role as being treacherous, witty and sarcastic. Rowan Atkinson is a very versatile actor, and his Blackadder series are hilarious. Think of him as House in a comedy (by the way, Hugh Laurie and Stephen Fry also starred in Blackadder).

No, That's pretty much the opposite of what I'm saying --making me think you are pretending to misunderstand me.

No, I'm not deliberately misunderstanding you. I hope I'm not misunderstanding you at all. What I am doing is attempting to point out the inconsistencies in what you are saying.

I don't think he plans to save any but those he has "chosen" from the very beginning. Many Bible versions use the word, "Elect", there. And lest you take that somewhere I had not meant, they are chosen for his own purposes, though for their own good too, but also he chose them because of no intrinsic worthiness or anything else better about them than anyone else.

I think that the salient point you are making is that God does not wish for everyone to be saved. Very well, if that is what you believe, I have no objection to your doing so, though other Christians might.
But consider: if God is planning to only save some, then it follows logically that he is planning - that he intends - that others should be damned. And that is a - well, there's no nice way to say it, a bad thing for Him to do.
So in order to rescue your image of God's consistency - in order to justify the clear fact that not everyone is going to be saved - you are forced to sacrifice the view of Him as being good.

But no, it is not a failing plan. He has not planned for all mankind to be saved.

This seems very much at odds with the Bible, with the beliefs of other Christians, and with the view of God as being a moral creature.

Logically, First Cause is incapable of mistakes.

Logically, then, if you find that He has made a mistake, you must conclude that there is something wrong with your view of reality. The obvious solution is that you are wrong about God existing at all. Accepting this would certainly solve the problem.

In the Potter and Clay discourse (Jeremiah 18 and a couple others) referenced in Romans 9, Paul points out that the condemnation of the lost is (not at all denying that the Creator has the absolute right to do as he wishes with any of us) for the demonstrating (to the objects of his mercy) of his power and glory (not to mention his justice and purity).

How horrible. How morally abhorrent.

I don't know of any Atheists that don't think that Omnipotence and Omnibenevolence are incompatible in the supreme being.

Fine by me. But the logical consequences of this are incompatible with the Christian religion. An entity that cared for everything would use its power to make sure that all was cared for. Since God doesn't, we can see another logical inconsistency here. This brings us on to the Problem of Evil, which is rather too big to be explored here, however.

The problem with the Atheistic POV, I think, is that they assume an intrinsic value of the creature at nearly the same as their Creator. To me, God is necessarily that much above us, that we cannot know enough to criticize him. It is ludicrous to do so.

When you say that someone is a good person, you are making a judgement of them - an assessment of how you see their character. If you are unable to criticise God - that is, to judge Him as being bad - then you are also unable to judge Him as being good. Because to have an opinion on something is to make a judgement.

Logically, since God is First Cause (or he is not God), I CAN be sure he is doing right, even if I am not privy to all his plans, nor his methods. He would have no reason to create, if he was not both capable and just. I can trust him completely --much more than I can trust myself.

I'm afraid that doesn't logically follow. What makes you say God would have no reason to create if He were not just? Why would an evil, or morally neutral, or morally complex entity lack the capability to create?

Just for one, when I said that God had not planned to save everyone, you turned it around somehow to make it sound like you thought I believe God would save everyone. I really don't know how you got that.

Looking back at it, it seems I may have misunderstood you after all.
In Post 49, you said:

What is the Lord's promise --to save as many as possible? No, according to the context, he, not being willing to lose even one of those he had chosen, will keep his promise, but it will take some time. God is not a victim of time and circumstance --he causes them.

I may indeed have misunderstood that. When you said God was "not willing to lose even one of those He had chosen," you were referring to the relatively small number of souls God has determined should be saved?
Alright. If you like. But, as I said earlier, if God has decided not to try to save some souls then (a) this goes against what most Christians believe (that there can be salvation for any who repent) and (b) it makes God into an immoral entity.

I also believe you are confused about exactly who God is. Most true Christian believers posit something, but will admit they have much to learn. Those who have given it a lot of thought, generally, will admit to him being the theoretical "First Cause with Purpose (or "intent")", and gladly admit to his being immeasurably beyond their understanding.

And yet they claim to understand Him. If God were really beyond their understanding, they would be unable to say that He was good.

I do agree with you that what is generally taught nowadays has gaps in logic, which many will simply regard as "tensions" or paradoxes. I personally don't see anything (that I can think of) about God that way.

So you're saying that what most people think about God is illogical - or at least has some illogical ideas - but that your own beliefs about God are logical and make sense?

I thought I had answered quite at length. Maybe you didn't consider what I said in light of your question, or perhaps, I was not plain enough.

You've discuss a range of interesting subjects at length. But as to answering the question in this thread - no, I wouldn't say you've addressed it at all. An honest answer to "If you had God's powers, how would you communicate with people?" would be: "If I had God's powers, I would..." and then continue to answer the question. Now, in your next paragraph you attempt to do this, and immediately try to dodge the question.

If I had God's powers, I would necessarily be God. But to your point (in your question), I am not God, so how I would communicate is irrelevant. Your question, as you have shown, is for the purpose of pointing out inconsistencies in Christian dogma, as though, since we would communicate this way or that demonstrates that God should not communicate as he is said to do.

See? You didn't answer the question at all.
Look, no thought experiment is perfect, but this one is worth trying. Just imagine God popped up next to you, said "Mark, you shall have all of my powers. Go and sort it out down there," and then tell us what you'd do. It may not be an exact analogy, but you seem much more interested in evading it than answering it.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

They look like direct answers to me.

I don't think so. A direct answer to "How would you do something" is "I would do it like this," followed by a list of actions.

Let's make it a thought experiment, and hope nobody...objects to that, if you know what I mean.
Let's say you were an angel, tasked by God to carry out His wishes that the gospel should be spread. Say God granted you miraculous powers, and told you to arrange matters in any way you pleased, and that He would leave it all up to you.
What would you do, under those conditions?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

well, th red part is speculation.

In point of fact, it's logically inevitable. If a communication is changed, the response will have to be changed. A different cause will have a different effect. The answer may be similar, it may even use identical words, but it is impossible for one communication to produce exactly the same response as another communication, even if the difference is only in the way that the person being asked perceives the question.

... So God changed his mode of communication all the time.
No popularity, though.

You're just making my argument for me. God keeps trying different ways of persuading people, but they don't work.
He's obviously not very good at it.

God wants everybody to be saved... but the moment they don't want to he might change his mind. Who would save someone unwilling to be saved?

Let's look at @Larnievc 's excellent question to answer you.
A child runs into a burning building to rescue her teddy bear.
Would you stop her? Or would you refuse to interfere with her will?
Think about it. That's not an impossible situation. If it happened, what would you really do?

Why did (my) #5 not address the issue of the op, IA?

Well, it was two lines long, and had no attached explanation. On top of that, I had some difficulty understanding exactly what it meant, and another Christian poster had to ask you to clarify.
I wouldn't really consider that to be addressing the question in a very satisfactory way.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Please don't worry about it. That person you see is not Mr. Bean, by the way..

Rowan Atkinson also played a character called Mr Bean.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Rowan Atkinson also played a character called Mr Bean.

I've never been a big fan of Mr. Bean myself. But Rowan Atkinson is a very funny and talented actor, and has played many other roles, including the devious Blackadder. He's also well-known for playing the devil, welcoming customers to hell.

 

[thomas_t]

You're just making my argument for me. God keeps trying different ways of persuading people, but they don't work.
He's obviously not very good at it.

this is the topic of popularity. You admitted in post #45 that popularity is no measure of quality. Therefore you can't infer from God's lack of popularity that his efforts were bad.

In my opinion, it's still speculation to say that God would have been more popular if he changed his style of communication (one more time).
In music, we see that some musicians try everything... but still don't hit 1 billion views on Youtube. Mankind is 7+ billions. However, you can't say their music is bad.

Well, it was two lines long, and had no attached explanation. On top of that, I had some difficulty understanding exactly what it meant,

ok. It meant that - just the way God proceded in my interpretation - I would first communicate directly with people. Then I would tell them to write down a Bible. And then you have it.

A child runs into a burning building to rescue her teddy bear.
Would you stop her? Or would you refuse to interfere with her will?
Think about it. That's not an impossible situation. If it happened, what would you really do?

Knowing that the child would later take it for granted that being saved was a better option, I would save it if I had the powers to do so. But note we are talking about children, here.
If an adult person says no, it's no.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Just imagine God popped up next to you, said "Mark, you shall have all of my powers. Go and sort it out down there,"

No, sorry, this presumes something needs to be sorted out.

It is a very simple point you are making, you appear to be saying "Life is not perfect, so there must be a fault with God or it is wrong to have belief in God."

This CF Statement of Faith | Christian Forums is not a declaration that life is fair or just or perfect, so you are making an invalid point.

 

[MrsFoundit]

But note we are talking about children, here. If an adult person says no, it's no.

Exactly.

 

[thomas_t]

Well, funny how this only works one way. If, for example, after I die, and I find that there is a Hell and I don't want to go there, would God let me in heaven? Or would he say.. too bad, you've made your choice while you were living?

One comparison: would you let a rapist into your house? To live there?
When it's clear that he didn't have a problem with raping women in the past and never repented?
Isn't letting rapists in a bit too dangerous? Wouldn't you endanger your othere housemates in letting him in? And what would the other people say if your house is a shelter for rapists who apparently don't have a problem raping people.
I've chosen this rather drastic example to bring my point across that letting people in can present a danger.
I don't want to insinuate anyone here is a rapist, though...

 

[MrsFoundit]

And what would the other people say if your house is a shelter for rapists who apparently don't have a problem raping people.

This is a valid point. No means no.

It is just not realistic for people to posit arguments that everyone who rejects God is equivalent to a toddler in mortal danger. It is not a viable depiction of most actual real life choices. Planet earth is not a giant kindergarten.

 

[thomas_t]

Planet earth is not a giant kindergarten.

Very well put.
Let me encourage you to go on posting here.
Look, at Worthychristianforums they don't even allow atheists and non-believers to join the debate, if I'm well informed. While Christians continue to talk about them, atheists can't answer posts about them in the main sections - this is the information I have.
At Worthychristianforums, nonbelilevers are referred to some invisible secret section when they want to say something.

In my opinion Christians shouldn't act as if the "chosen ones" is a elitist closed club.
Everyone is allowed to accept the invitation of Jesus Christ.

So it's good to have you here.

real life choices

Decisions do matter, for God and for us.

So let's keep on encouraging people to join the Christian family to meet in heaven.

Thomas

 

[InterestedAtheist]

this is the topic of popularity. You admitted in post #45 that popularity is no measure of quality. Therefore you can't infer from God's lack of popularity that his efforts were bad.

You're confusing quality with effectiveness.
If God's message was unpopular, that does not necessarily mean that it was poor quality. But it does very necessarily mean that it was ineffective, because people who encountered it didn't want to listen to it.
Have you ever heard the saying, "The meaning of any communication is the response we get"?
God desired to inform people of the means to be a good person, of the importance of being a Christian, of the whole nature of the Christian religion. He wanted that to happen.
And, as we can see demonstrated throughout history up to the present day, He failed.

In my opinion, it's still speculation to say that God would have been more popular if he changed his style of communication (one more time).

That wasn't what I was saying. Perhaps you should read a little more carefully.
I said that a different type of communication will necessarily engender a different response. Even if it's still the same ideas and words by the same people, it cannot be exactly the same, because it is in response to something different. If you can't grasp this, I'm not sure how I can explain it any better. But then I'm not an all-knowing entity of infinite wisdom. If I was, I'm sure I'd be able to think of the right way to put it.

In music, we see that some musicians try everything... but still don't hit 1 billion views on Youtube. Mankind is 7+ billions. However, you can't say their music is bad.

But God isn't "some musicians". He has access to infinite wisdom - and He wasn't able to persuade people to His way of thinking.
You assume that, since it's impossible for God to fail, this must have been His intention. But there's a much simpler answer. There is no God.

ok. It meant that - just the way God proceeded in my interpretation - I would first communicate directly with people. Then I would tell them to write down a Bible. And then you have it.

I see. And why would you do this? What is your aim in so doing? What are you intending, or hoping, or planning to happen?

Knowing that the child would later take it for granted that being saved was a better option, I would save it if I had the powers to do so. But note we are talking about children, here.
If an adult person says no, it's no.

Is it really?
Let's imagine ourselves back in that situation. A fully-grown adult is trying to rush into an inferno. You know that if they do they will surely die. You can easily stop them if you try. But you'd respect their free will and let them do it?
A little reflection on the lives we live on Earth will show you that this is not how it works at all. If you see a person about to commit suicide, the moral person does not say "Oh well, their choice." The moral person recognises that this person is not in their right mind, and would not want to kill themselves under normal circumstances, and so does their best to stop them, whether by persuasion or physical force if need be.
Now let's take another look at the burning building. Supposing that you grab the person, but they try to persuade you to let them go. "The flames aren't real," they explain earnestly. "I won't get burned. I need to get the teddy!"
Would you respect their free will and let them go to their death?

It is just not realistic for people to posit arguments that everyone who rejects God is equivalent to a toddler in mortal danger. It is not a viable depiction of most actual real life choices. Planet earth is not a giant kindergarten.

Is it not? Are you saying that we are as wise as God, as farseeing as He is, that we know as much as He does? Or at least almost as much?
I don't think you would say that. I don't think any Christian would. And they'd be right. When thinking of God, as portrayed in the Christian religion, calling us children would be a very good analogy.

 

[Larniavc]

You are talking about protection, not avoidance of force.

So what action would you take to prevent the child running into the burning building?

 

[thomas_t]

But God isn't "some musicians". He has access to infinite wisdom - and He wasn't able to persuade people to His way of thinking.
You assume that, since it's impossible for God to fail, this must have been His intention. But there's a much simpler answer. There is no God.

There is a God. He is just not popular.
The music example shows, good "ineffective" stuff might not be most popular - but still good stuff.

I see. And why would you do this? What is your aim in so doing? What are you intending, or hoping, or planning to happen?

The aim is issueing an invitation for anyone reading the book. Luke 14:23

Suicidal persons? If it's a friend, I think I would thoroughly talk to them first.
But the decision is theirs. Even if I prevented them from running into the burning building... they would run into the next burning one.

Supposing that you grab the person, but they try to persuade you to let them go. "The flames aren't real," they explain earnestly. "I won't get burned. I need to get the teddy!"
Would you respect their free will and let them go to their death?

this, I suppose, is surely hypothetical... and I don't want to think about it.

 

[Larniavc]

Exactly.

One would stop a child running into a building because as an adult one knows better than a child.

God knows better than a person. Yet he does not stop the adult from running into Hell.

 

[MrsFoundit]

But God isn't "some musicians". He has access to infinite wisdom - and He wasn't able to persuade people to His way of thinking.

This is not what we believe. You assume it is.

You assume that, since it's impossible for God to fail, this must have been His intention.

No we do not assume it is impossible for God to fail in this application, we believe effectively the opposite. That because people will use their free choice to avoid listening, as the Bible depicts people will not all know God. The current situation on earth is not a surprise or unexplained difficulty for Christians. We do not need to assume His intention, we know His desire and respect for free choice.

But there's a much simpler answer. There is no God.

Since your reasoning is dependent on assumptions and misrepresentations your conclusion is unsound.

 

[MrsFoundit]

Yet he does not stop the adult from running into Hell.

It is hardly running, it is not a toddler, opportunities to change direction are abundant, your direction is your choice. You go whatever way you want.

Your depiction of His respect for our preference is otherwise quite accurate.

 

[Larniavc]

It is hardly running, your direction is your choice.

In the same way into the fire is the child’s direction of choice.

I would forcibly protect a child from running into a fire: I’m sure you would too.

Would God?

 

[InterestedAtheist]

One would stop a child running into a building because as an adult one knows better than a child.

God knows better than a person. Yet he does not stop the adult from running into Hell.

Precisely!