Disobedience has consequences.

[oi_antz]

authors then wrote wild tales about the man who claimed to be Christ.

Do you refer here to the four canonical gospels? If so, can you please explain why you rather say they are wild tales rather than statements of fact to the best of their knowledge?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Do you refer here to the four canonical gospels? If so, can you please explain why you rather say they are wild tales rather than statements of fact to the best of their knowledge?

It's all perspective. Remember, as I stated it above, I consider it all myth. So my words are slanted.

 

[oi_antz]

It's all perspective. Remember, as I stated it above, I consider it all myth. So my words are slanted.

Ok, thanks. Is that quite a gnostic position? (ie, impossible to be fact rather than most unlikely)? .. And is this opinion based on logic or hunch? How much is mythical? Did Jesus Christ really exist, engage the religious institution and end up crucified, or was it all made up? I have not asked this of you before, it would be good for me to know. Thanks.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I don't know, TBH. I am curious now, what do you say of those who watch predators hunt their prey without intervening? Like those photographers for the Nature Channel? (BTW, I should remind you sooner than later to consider this is a strawman, because God does call us to judgement for our actions).

What would you say about someone who justified their inaction by likening the assailant to a predator and the victim to prey? What if the victim is someone you profess to love? Would you allow the attack to continue unabated out of respect for the "predator" and his "free will"? Are you suggesting that this is how God views the situation; that we are all either "predator" or "prey" in his eyes?

I told you, that is an alternative reality. It's ok if you don't want to think about the real world, just I think you should not go thinking that you have a case to blame God before you have really thought it through.

Yes, an alternative reality, in the sense that this is what we should expect if God is as you describe him (i.e., omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent).

You are making an assumption though that He doesn't enjoy resting. It is clear in scriptural descriptions that He does.

That doesn't make sense.

It is relaxing, rejuvenating, gives you a chance to enjoy life without needing to concentrate on daily demands. Don't you know how good it is to rest?

Again, it is understandable that a human being would enjoy and need rest, but human beings are not omnipotent. If your resources are inexhaustible, then there is never an occasion in which you need to rejuvenate.

I am only picturing Him as a person. Limitations are a different topic.

A person with the same limitations and interests as a human being; a person who is fallible, requires rest, and is conscious of risk.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

It's just a theory then? FYI: I think time does impose limits. I just described to Archeopteryx that resting is a pleasing activity. Why do you suggest that He would not like to rest?

Why would he need to rest? Given omnipotence, there is no activity that could fatigue him.

 

[GrimKingGrim]

Ok, thanks. Is that quite a gnostic position?

It's Agnostic. I'm fully open to being proven wrong in my thinking.

And is this opinion based on logic or hunch? How much is mythical?

I base my decision solely on the reality I'm able to observe so far and so far pretty much all myths I'm aware of sure are entertaining but hollow when put to the test.

Did Jesus Christ really exist, engage the religious institution and end up crucified, or was it all made up?

Tricky isn't it? But I believe the guy was real. And he'd have to be one heck of a Jim Jones type to pull the following he did. See while we don't have birth records of the man or early life recordings like we do Prophet Muhammad, I have a spurious feeling he may have been known and born under another name and took up the mantel of Jesus and claimed to be Christ. Considering what history tells us about Charismatic leaders this could very well be the case. But was he as he was described in the bible? I don't think so.

 

[oi_antz]

What would you say about someone who justified their inaction by likening the assailant to a predator and the victim to prey?

Probably lots of different things as the opportunities arose.

What if the victim is someone you profess to love? Would you allow the attack to continue unabated out of respect for the "predator" and his "free will"?

Has it suddenly become me who is tolerating the attack? Has it been this way for a while in your mind? I usually kill white tail spiders on sight because they eat my daddy long-legs spiders, if that is useful.

Yes, an alternative reality, in the sense that this is what we should expect if God is as you describe him (i.e., omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent).

You have made those assumptions about me, because I don't ever make those claims. I do believe He is omniscient, being aware of everything or at least having access to all knowledge and awareness. But omnibenevolent and omnipotent are not valid concepts IMO. Like a square circle, they are just imaginary ideas. I will rather support the idea that He might be absolutely powerful and ultimately good.

That doesn't make sense.

It makes sense to me. Can you please explain why it doesn't make sense to you?

Again, it is understandable that a human being would enjoy and need rest, but human beings are not omnipotent. If your resources are inexhaustible, then there is never an occasion in which you need to rejuvenate.

It might not be totally necessary, but then again it might be. I don't know why it is necessary to even make the assumption that He doesn't need to rest, when all we need to be concerned about is that apparently He has chosen to rest. Even when we get to the effect of the parable, rest is a component of the story which only needs to imply that the enemy had an opportunity to sabotage His crop. Is this something that you do feel is quite important though? Because I think it has actually taken us away from the point: that He has allowed His enemy to produce evidence of malicious intent.

A person with the same limitations and interests as a human being; a person who is fallible, requires rest, and is conscious of risk.

I am not sure why you have assumed that I picture Him this way, it seems like you are describing your own imagination of Him as a person. But it's ok. We probably have quite similar ideas of what a person is. Only I would not suggest that someone in God's position and situation is likely going to have the same limitations as a human being. For starters, we assume He lives a lot longer, especially the entire duration of the universe to date. Scripture also states that He doesn't have the same interests as a human, and draws specific attention to the contention of His interests vs a human's. I don't know why you have described Him as fallible. Maybe you will explain that for me. Requiring rest I don't know is a necessary assumption, but certainly that He engages in rest indicates that there must be something about it that He likes. And to be conscious of risk is a normal aspect of wisdom, probably even the most basic element of it. But I have not really investigated that idea yet.

Please let me know where you are leading with this, because we have gone a long way away from where I intended it to lead. No offence though, it has always been interesting and enjoyable to converse with you. Thanks!

 

[oi_antz]

But was he as he was described in the bible? I don't think so.

I think your reason for this has slipped past me, can you please repeat it? Thanks!

 

[oi_antz]

Why would he need to rest? Given omnipotence, there is no activity that could fatigue him.

Right. But resting is different in nature than working. Whether He needs to rest though to avoid some consequence, I don't know that this has ever been implied.

 

[LostMarbels]

It's an interesting post. I have told you my position though. You should not get caught up with words, it is distracting. Just use the common meaning of words to convey your message and nobody will get distracted by it. If a word is commonly misunderstood like this one, avoid it. Use common expressions instead.

No.

I will explain myself if need be. But I will always present myself exactly as I am, and profess exactly what I believe. I do not comprise my position for the sake of not being understood.

 

[LostMarbels]

You are Christian. You don't adhere to the dogma, fine. But make no mistake you are in the definition of Christian.

Why cant any one else see that? That is all I am saying about the religion aspect. I do not adhere to the Dogma.

 

[oi_antz]

No.

I will explain myself if need be. But I will always present myself exactly as I am, and profess exactly what I believe. I do not comprise my position for the sake of not being understood.

You are compromising your position of being understood though. I am not sure what sake that is for.. did you mention that?

 

[oi_antz]

Why cant any one else see that? That is all I am saying about the religion aspect. I do not adhere to the Dogma.

Christianity is one of those words that means all sorts of different things to different people. Like "love".

 

[LostMarbels]

You are compromising your position of being understood though. I am not sure what sake that is for.. did you mention that?

Im not saying Christianity isnt a religion........................................................

I dont accept Christianity AS a religion. I accept Christianity AS a personal relationship with Christ. Why is that so hard to understand? I find it offensive that you can go to 2 different churches and find 2 different messages on the same subject. It irritates me to go to a bible study to learn more about somebodies kid selling candy bars door to door than actually about the bible. It infuriates me that we stand there singing "come as you are" yet a Gay couple would not be welcome in the same church. They are no worse than us. They just wear what we call sin on their outward appearance, and we have the luxury of hiding our own. I don't play church. I much rather go to the local bar, grab a crown and coke, and talk about Jesus. Go hangout with my boys under the highway 50 bridge. Or go talk to that crazy SOB up the road every one thinks is crazy. Jesus is my religion.

 

[oi_antz]

Im not saying Christianity isnt a religion........................................................

I dont accept Christianity AS a religion. I accept Christianity AS a personal relationship with Christ. Why is that so hard to understand? I find it offensive that you can go to 2 different churches and find 2 different messages on the same subject. It irritates me to go to a bible study to learn more about somebodies kid selling candy bars door to door than actually about the bible. It infuriates me that we stand there singing "come as you are" yet a Gay couple would not be welcome in the same church. They are no worse than us. They just wear what we call sin on their outward appearance, and we have the luxury of hiding our own. I don't play church. I much rather go to the local bar, grab a crown and coke, and talk about Jesus. Go hangout with my boys under the highway 50 bridge. Or go talk to that crazy SOB up the road every one thinks is crazy. Jesus is my religion.

Oh OK, I respect that view a lot. I would be literally surprised if the point has not been made by this. I will even save this statement somewhere handy, because it is quote worthy. Thanks!

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Im not saying Christianity isnt a religion........................................................

I dont accept Christianity AS a religion. I accept Christianity AS a personal relationship with Christ.

Yes, well, that's your religion; that's how you view your religion.

 

[KCfromNC]

Then do you think you are helping Him or hindering Him?

I'm choosing C. neither. The questions assumes the mythological being in question is real, and so far no one has provided any reasons to think this is a valid conclusion.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Probably lots of different things as the opportunities arose.

Has it suddenly become me who is tolerating the attack? Has it been this way for a while in your mind? I usually kill white tail spiders on sight because they eat my daddy long-legs spiders, if that is useful.

No, it's not you. It's any individual. I'm not trying to personalise it. What would you say about the character of such an individual; an individual who stood idly by while someone they claimed to love was being viciously assaulted?

You have made those assumptions about me, because I don't ever make those claims. I do believe He is omniscient, being aware of everything or at least having access to all knowledge and awareness. But omnibenevolent and omnipotent are not valid concepts IMO. Like a square circle, they are just imaginary ideas. I will rather support the idea that He might be absolutely powerful and ultimately good.

That's interesting. Most theists would claim that he is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. But you are saying that at least one of those claims might not be true. Instead, you prefer "absolutely powerful" and "ultimately good." But how are those two different from omnipotent and omnibenevolent, respectively?

It makes sense to me. Can you please explain why it doesn't make sense to you?

I already did. An omnipotent being has access to limitless resources. There is no activity so onerous as to cause him fatigue.

It might not be totally necessary, but then again it might be. I don't know why it is necessary to even make the assumption that He doesn't need to rest, when all we need to be concerned about is that apparently He has chosen to rest. Even when we get to the effect of the parable, rest is a component of the story which only needs to imply that the enemy had an opportunity to sabotage His crop. Is this something that you do feel is quite important though? Because I think it has actually taken us away from the point: that He has allowed His enemy to produce evidence of malicious intent.

I think the key word there is 'allowed.' He could have thwarted his enemy easily, but he allowed his enemy to sow the seeds of destruction, knowing what the outcome would be. He doesn't need evidence of malicious intent because, being omniscient, he has access to that intent itself. He already knows his enemy's intent.

I am not sure why you have assumed that I picture Him this way, it seems like you are describing your own imagination of Him as a person. But it's ok. We probably have quite similar ideas of what a person is. Only I would not suggest that someone in God's position and situation is likely going to have the same limitations as a human being. For starters, we assume He lives a lot longer, especially the entire duration of the universe to date. Scripture also states that He doesn't have the same interests as a human, and draws specific attention to the contention of His interests vs a human's. I don't know why you have described Him as fallible. Maybe you will explain that for me.

Fallibility is an inference based on your claim that he doesn't remove the weeds because it may damage the wheat. This is something fallible mortals like us have to worry about; we aren't perfect weed-killers. This is not something that should concern an ostensibly omnipotent being.

Requiring rest I don't know is a necessary assumption, but certainly that He engages in rest indicates that there must be something about it that He likes.

Apart from scripture, there appears to be no evidence of this. And it strikes me as strange that an omnipotent being could be thought of as needing rest.

And to be conscious of risk is a normal aspect of wisdom, probably even the most basic element of it. But I have not really investigated that idea yet.

Risk stems from uncertainty. In making a decision, we don't know exactly what the outcome will be, so there is risk. An omniscient being does not face such a limitation; he knows exactly what the outcome will be.

Please let me know where you are leading with this, because we have gone a long way away from where I intended it to lead. No offence though, it has always been interesting and enjoyable to converse with you. Thanks!

We are just exploring what this combination of characteristics (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence) would entail. I have the strong impression that, despite seeing God as having at least some of these characteristics, you still cannot help but assign very human limitations to him as well (fallibility, fatigue, uncertainty).

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Can you please quote that bit, it doesn't come to mind what you are referring to.

I'm referring to anywhere in the Bible where a character causes suffering to another. You can use the first, most dramatic, story - Cain and Abel. The Christian god created humans with the propensity to cause suffering to each other which culminated in Cain killing Abel. The same god could have created humans with the free will to choose to cause suffering, but without any desire whatsoever. And before you mention it, Adam and Eve could have had the free will to choose to eat from the tree, which resulted in the fall, but without any desire to do so. Since Adam and Eve were created to have a greater than 0% desire to eat from the tree, you can only conclude that the Christian god desired the fall.

Let me reiterate the fact that not having a greater than 0% desire to cause suffering in no way hampers what you would call "free will". Think about any action that you would never, ever do under any circumstances. Do you still have free will?

 

[GrimKingGrim]

I think your reason for this has slipped past me, can you please repeat it? Thanks!

Based on my experience with human beings I can conclude, Uh-uh, not magical. I have not witnessed nor have I read about magic being possible or even happening ever. Haven't witnessed someone resurrect. Haven't witnessed entire seas part before. But based on my experience with mythical story characters, he fits the description to a tee.