Discuss difficult texts! learn, teach,and gain new insights!

[payattention]

I can't believe what I am reading! Just because God winks that doesn't lesson the severity of the sin! God forgive the sinner, but never the sin. God hates sin.

And no action that is contrary to the will of God is good.

Let's take a breath here to get our bearings. I said nothing about the severity of the sin. The act is still offensive to God but the individual is not held responsible for the act because of the state of his knowledge. This is why what is sin for me may not be sin for you. Only God knows. This is because sin is not an act; sin is an attitude.

This is a frightening thought, God is not good? That is contrary to what the Bible says, "And Jesus said to him, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Lk. 18:19

Again! God is absolute. God is good. Good is absolute.

Be careful when you philosophize!

This is no different from what you said earlier. We are caught here betwixt the already and the not yet. In the absence of sin God is. He is neither good nor evil. In the presence of sin, where a dividing line has been established He is good, compared to the other aspect -- the evil. Since we were speaking in absolute terms I reference the absolute experience.

 

[woobadooba]

This is no different from what you said earlier. We are caught here betwixt the already and the not yet.

This phraseology has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about! We aren't talking about space and time, we are talking about God's essence--good!

In the absence of sin God is.

Is this not the same thing as saying evil is the absence of God? According to Jesus God is good. Thus it necessarily follows that evil is the absence of good!

He is neither good nor evil.

Jesus said, "No one is good but God alone." Lk. 18:19

Now, after reading that, do you still deny that God is good?

In the presence of sin, where a dividing line has been established He is good,

So, according to your logic, what you are saying is that sin gives God's goodness meaning? In other words, if it weren't for sin we wouldn't know that God is good. Moreover, if it weren't for sin God wouldn't be good. Thus sin Gives God's goodness meaning.

This is so not true!

Since we were speaking in absolute terms I reference the absolute experience.

This makes absolutely no sense at all, and has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Existentialism is another topic friend.

 

[payattention]

Woobadooba, I will have to ask you to edit this last post of yours because you have misrepresented what I said, especially the part about calling Jesus a liar. Nor did I say our sin gives God meaning. After you have made this edit we can continue the discussion. I prefer that those who follow not be misled.

 

[woobadooba]

I will have to ask you to edit this last post of yours because you have misrepresented what I said,

I did not misrepresent what you said.

especially the part about calling Jesus a liar

I did not say you called Jesus a liar. I asked you if you were calling Jesus a liar because you said God isn't good and Jesus said God is good. So who are we to believe, Jesus or you?

A question is different from a statement.

Nor did I say our sin gives God meaning.

No, you didn't say that directly, but when one takes your logic to its final conclusion that is what you are saying. Any logician would agree that that is what your statement is really suggesting.

After you have made this edit we can continue the discussion. I prefer that those who follow not be misled.

Those who are following this dialogue will not be misled since the scriptural passage that I provided refutes your entire argument.

You need to understand something about forum debates/discussions: People are allowed to use logic to take your statements to their final conclusion. It doesn't mean they are saying you said what the conclusion comes to in the same exact words; rather, it is to state what you really don't realize about what you've said.

But, I will edit the question about Jesus. As for the rest, I won't, since
the logical conclusions that I've drawn from your statements are valid and not accusatory.

 

[payattention]

Since you insist on testing your logic this way, tell me this. If all the good in the universe is removed leaving all that is evil, on what basis will we be able to say that what is left is evil?

 

[woobadooba]

Since you insist on testing your logic this way, tell me this. If all the good in the universe is removed leaving all that is evil, on what basis will we be able to say that what is left is evil?

First of all it isn't a valid question because it isn't possible to remove all the good in the universe.

Secondly, even if one could remove all of the good in the universe evil couldn't exist, because it is only the mercy of God, which is good, that allows evil to take place to begin with! And if you remove all of the good you must remove God, since God is good!

Hence, you would have nothing left!

Would you like to test me further?

 

[payattention]

First of all it isn't a valid question because it isn't possible to remove all the good in the universe.

Secondly, even if one could remove all of the good in the universe evil couldn't exist, because it is only the mercy of God, which is good, that allows evil to take place to begin with! And if you remove all of the good you must remove God, since God is good!

Hence, you would have nothing left!

Would you like to test me further?

First, I was not testing you. I was testing your claim that you had carried my argument to its logical conclusion. The reply you just gave demonstrates that you did not.

 

[woobadooba]

First, I was not testing you. I was testing your claim that you had carried my argument to its logical conclusion. The reply you just gave demonstrates that you did not.

No what you missed was that I proved that your argument is not logical, so why worry about me taking it to its final conclusion?

The end will always be that which isn't logical!

I just want to add something...

I did take it to its logical conclusion.

The logical conclusion would be that nothing would be left!

Do away with what is good, and God is no more. If God is no more, then there is nothing!

 

[TrustAndObey]

Yikes, I'm steering clear of the conversations up there. Scary stuff. I thought the rule was to always remain respectful?

I do have a perplexing question.....

The Bible says that God is a spirit and we must worship Him in spirit. Christ said a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones, yet the Bible describes God as having a face, a finger, a hand, wings, etc.

Any ideas of what is meant by God being a spirit?

 

[payattention]

I do have a perplexing question.....

The Bible says that God is a spirit and we must worship Him in spirit. Christ said a spirit doesn't have flesh and bones, yet the Bible describes God as having a face, a finger, a hand, wings, etc.

Any ideas of what is meant by God being a spirit?

It means that he does not have a physical body. We are physical and He is spirit. There are two possibilities regarding the issue you raised. Consider the difference between canines and felines. These are two different species. They both have hearts but the feline heart is different from the canine heart.

The other possibility I remember from my childhood days when we thought of God as a vapor. Of course the problem was that we were thinking of the vapor we knew in the physical realm, but that is another story altogether. We thought that we were the only ones who had items associated with our bodies. If that were true Christ could have used those descripptions to provide a point of reference. I have often used this method to help someone understand something difficult. You move from the known to the unknown.

 

[TrustAndObey]

I wish I had a vapor finger right now, I'd poke you with it. LOL....just kidding.

I'll let what you said soak in.

 

[woobadooba]

Yikes, I'm steering clear of the conversations up there. Scary stuff. I thought the rule was to always remain respectful?

When Christians say God isn't good I get a little edgy.


Anyway, to answer your question, I believe when Jesus said this about God, He did so to make a point, not to describe God's being in that it became an issue of visibility VS invisibility, but to state that God has no limitations, but that He is infinite, and can be in all places at the same time, thus being omnipresent.

You see, the woman said, "Our fathers worshipped on this mountain; and you say that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship." v. 20

But Jesus didn't say that God must be worshiped in any specific place. To the contrary He said, "Woman, believe me, the hour is coming when neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem will you worship the father....the hour is coming and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth" vv.21; 23

In other words, Jesus was stating that we shouldn't place limits on God's ability to be with His people, nor should His people limit His access to His people, so as to say, we must worship Him there, or here, as if He can't be in both places at the same time, or as if He can't be worshipped in both places.

But Jesus hit to the heart of the issue in stating that God is Spirit, and that we should worship Him in spirit and truth, meaning worship is not something that we do in a specific place or at a designated time, it is a way of life. And true worshippers will worship God always, because God lives in their hearts!

So, Jesus isn't describing God's appearance by saying He is Spirit, but His ability to be omnipresent, to be in the hearts of His people no matter where they are.

 

[tall73]

Maybe we should go back to TEXTUAL questions for a bit, rather than philosophical ones. Those have proven to be a bit problematic.

 

[woobadooba]

Maybe we should go back to TEXTUAL questions for a bit, rather than philosophical ones. Those have proven to be a bit problematic.

The interesting thing is that such issues can give us great depth in understanding the nature of God Vs the nature of sin, hence giving us greater insights into pertinent scriptural passages.

Unfortunately, some people just can't seem to think clearly about these things and so they argue with you on points for which they have no scriptural foundation, like telling you God isn't good, but that God is relative.

How rediculous, and totally unbiblical!

 

[tall73]

totally not unbiblical...that is hard to parse

 

[woobadooba]

totally not unbiblical...that is hard to parse

ooops... I need to go back and edit that!

 

[payattention]

Unfortunately, some people just can't seem to think clearly about these things and so they argue with you on points for which they have no scriptural foundation, like telling you God isn't good, but that God is relative.

It is unfortunate that this is how you have chosen to summarize that discussion. Thankfully, anyone who is interested can read the entire exchange.

 

[woobadooba]

It is unfortunate that this is how you have chosen to summarize that discussion. Thankfully, anyone who is interested can read the entire exchange.

Yes, it is good that they can do that. And good that they can see the quotes too!