• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

God is not evil

Discussion in 'Christianity and World Religion' started by CherubRam, Jun 30, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 46AND2

    46AND2 Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

    +1,705
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    So he can't lie or experience sinful thoughts, else he would not be omni-benevolent.
    He can't feel temporal emotions, else he would not be omniscient.
    And if he can't do those things, which are clearly not illogical in and of themselves, then he can't be omnipotent.

    The whole idea of omniscience/omnipotence/omnibenevolence is illogical. There are myriad ways to demonstrate this.

    BTW, I didn't ask you if he DOES lie, I asked if he CAN?
     
  2. 46AND2

    46AND2 Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

    +1,705
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    I don't have a problem with your definition of eternal, per se, I just don't hear from too many Christians who believe god had a beginning. Typically, when most Christians call god eternal, they mean no ending OR beginning.
     
  3. 46AND2

    46AND2 Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

    +1,705
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Although, I do find this interesting. If this is true, then how could god begin?
     
  4. CherubRam

    CherubRam Well-Known Member

    +743
    United States
    Oneness
    Private
    US-Others
    Heaven is not part of this universe. This universe was created by God. Things that have no beginning do not exist.
     
  5. now faith

    now faith Veteran Supporter

    +1,336
    Word of Faith
    Married
    I do not know if you are familiar with This.

     
  6. 46AND2

    46AND2 Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

    +1,705
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    I'm familiar with both Hovind and the argument. Many of his arguments against evolution are SO bad, it's a wonder he doesn't drive people away from creationism. Seriously, most of the time all you need to do is check his sources to see if they actually say what he claims they say.

    The argument, in one form or another, I used to make myself long before I ever heard of Hovind.

    Not sure how it relates to the question I asked, though. Hovind doesn't believe god "began" like Cherubram does.
     
  7. CherubRam

    CherubRam Well-Known Member

    +743
    United States
    Oneness
    Private
    US-Others
    [​IMG]
     
  8. now faith

    now faith Veteran Supporter

    +1,336
    Word of Faith
    Married
    Most of his arguments are so bad on evolution you state.
    Ok .
    You may want to check up on the most recent findings on D.N.A. research.
    I believe He answered the question in a very accurate manner, His explanation was logical and well presented.
    In my opinion I can understand your belief, if I did not have the spiritual gift from God who has reveled himself to me many times, I would look at the nonsense of religon in the same way.
    Religon is destroying itself by it's diverse range of of teaching.
    God is a Spirit those who worship him must worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
    Let's say forget the Churches who go out seeking people to bring in their Church .
    What is the reason for forgetting This?
    They seek to mold you into their image rather than introduction to God .
    God's will is no one is apart from him.
    Jesus said if any two or three are gathered in my name I am in their presence.
    There is a lot to be gained by knowing who God is , because He will tell you and guide you in all truth.
    Reserve judgment and seek for yourself .
    Or stay where your at , that's the beauty of it all.
    We are not obedient robots, we have a pure and free will.
     
  9. 46AND2

    46AND2 Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

    +1,705
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Which recent findings of DNA are you speaking of? And who are the people discovering it? Is it the scientists themselves who are finding things going against evolution, or is it apologists "interpreting" what the scientists are finding. Makes a big difference.

    Regardless of what the recent research says, it has no bearing on Hovind's arguments. Even if his conclusion is right, and evolution didn't occur, it isn't because of the reasons he presents in his videos. Cause those are just plain wrong; sometimes so wrong that he cites a paper that doesn't even have anything to do with what he claimed. Cause he knows his followers won't check his sources. His videos are only convincing to people who already don't need to be convinced.

    I remember vividly some of the arguments I made when defending creationism when I was younger. Some of them were very much like what Hovind says in the video you posted. It amounts to a special pleading fallacy. Basically, god is special, and is not limited by the things that EVERYTHING else is limited by. Ok, maybe it's even true, but as a mechanism to identify truth, it tells us nothing. It's just not useful information.

    For example, when I was presented with the question, "if god is omnipotent, can he create a rock that even he cannot lift." and I would respond with something like, "well, that's just arguing finite limitations for an infinite god, so the question is meaningless."

    But that doesn't address the question at all. The claim that he is special, and therefore the question doesn't apply, is just as ambiguous as the question about omnipotence that it purports to answer. I mean, ok, he is beyond time, and above physics, what does that even mean? How does it work? It's just as mysterious as the question, "where did god come from."

    The same tactics could be used to argue the existence of a magical, invisible elephant living in my bedroom. One could come up with literally any imaginable reason why someone else can't detect it. But, as I'm sure you will agree, those explanations for the magical elephant are utterly meaningless.
     
  10. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +15,889
    United States
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    I think one of the problems is with how the concept of omnipotence is used.

    Historically Christianity means omnipotence to speak of God as maximally powerful, not that God can do anything whatsoever. That is, the emphasis is on God being maximally potent; not on a blank check philosophical notion of "can do anything at all".

    But I think some of the problem(s) here has often come from how those of us who are Christians talk about God. Because of the infusion of philosophy into the Christian tradition throughout its history it has oftentimes become easier to talk about God in more philosophical abstracts, rather than what is more theologically appropriate. As the Christian tradition in its confessional, creedal, and theological language has always maintained that God is not known by Essence, but by grace, revelation, et al; so the starting point of the Christian confession about God is not (or rather should not be) a long list of philosophical ideas, but rather the Incarnate Person of Jesus.

    This is also more of a problem in the West than in the East; largely due to the massive influence of Western Scholasticism on the Western tradition in the high middle ages and early modern period. While Protestantism, today, has largely embraced this Scholastic model, in a very real way the Protestant Reformation was a kind of response, or even a reaction, to Medieval Scholasticism.

    Consider what Martin Luther writes in his 28 Theses of the Heidelberg Disputation (1518, about a year after the nailing of the infamous 95 Theses),

    "That person does not deserve to be called a theologian who looks upon the invisible things of God as though they were clearly perceptible in those things which have actually happened (Rom. 1:20; cf. 1 Cor 1:21-25).

    This is apparent in the example of those who were theologians and still were called fools by the Apostle in Rom. 1:22. Furthermore, the invisible things of God are virtue, godliness, wisdom, justice, goodness, and so forth. The recognition of all these things does not make one worthy or wise.

    He deserves to be called a theologian, however, who comprehends the visible and manifest things of God seen through suffering and the cross.

    The manifest and visible things of God are placed in opposition to the invisible, namely, his human nature, weakness, foolishness. The Apostle in 1 Cor. 1:25 calls them the weakness and folly of God.
    " - Heidelberg Disputation, Theses 19-20 (in part)

    Hence the Lutheran emphasis not on the Deus Absconditus (God hidden behind the veil of His bare glory, inscrutable, unapproachable, et al) but rather the Deus Revelatus (God revealed and manifest in Christ, especially the cross).

    -CryptoLutheran
     
  11. ViaCrucis

    ViaCrucis Evangelical Catholic of the Augsburg Confession

    +15,889
    United States
    Lutheran
    In Relationship
    US-Others
    You're being far more charitable to that remark than I would have been.

    -CryptoLutheran
     
  12. 46AND2

    46AND2 Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

    +1,705
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Indeed, and that is partially my point. Too frequently it seems that many Christians haven't put thought into what the term omnipotence means. I come across far more "he can do anything whatsoever" types than I do those who take a more reserved approach.

    I think that there are arguments that are obviously silly even to most Christians and atheists alike, such as: can god create a square triangle, or a married bachelor. So I don't think that absolute omnipotence, in that sense, is held by many (though I have seen some say that he can indeed do those things).

    However, I think that problems arise, when one delves deeper, even with the maximally great idea. And this is what I try to get to when I have discussions like these. But it's a process, because most people haven't pondered it much.

    At this point, I have learned it unwise to voice my opinion on "Deus Revelatus" as it tends to offend Christians (unintentionally, I would add)--far more so than even what I have written in this thread--rather than provide any productive discourse.
     
  13. 46AND2

    46AND2 Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

    +1,705
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    Avoiding a rabbit hole....:oldthumbsup:
     
  14. now faith

    now faith Veteran Supporter

    +1,336
    Word of Faith
    Married
    I have talked with Hovine , about a project.
    The project was a mass grave with bones from dinosaurs from what science claimed to be millions of years apart, yet they were together in one dig pit.
    I truthfully do not follow Him or know his teaching that well.
    The debate I posted was to me a good example of trying to understand how God does things.
    I detest debating atheist due to the lack of a open mind.
    They couch the debate by saying right off the bat , the Bible has no truth.
    Atheist make poor gamblers , Bible Prophecy and the time lines are pure supposition to ignore.
    The only elephant in the room is the one a natural man cannot see.
    So if a Atheist cannot touch or see somthing , they presume it must be untrue.
    For me the supernatural presence of God is undeniable, but a natural man will never see what God's truth is if He is unwilling to explore the idea of creation and higher power than our own comprehension.
    Truly if Scientists had the mentality of Atheist , they would never go beyond the realm of this earth.
    I believe in every man's D.N.A. sequencing is the knowlage of God.
    I also believe Atheism is a religon of its own, why else would a Atheist be drawn to Christians?
    One day the words and thoughts ,will make sense to you.
    I believe every man or woman is drawn by the Holy Spirit to the knowlage of Christ.
    I do not want to debate , or try to convert you.
    One day all things will be made clear.
     
  15. 46AND2

    46AND2 Forty six and two are just ahead of me...

    +1,705
    Atheist
    Single
    US-Others
    If I have a closed mind, how did I come to accept evolution after first being YEC?

    I don't reject the Bible off hand, I've spent a great deal of time considering possible interpretations, and continue to do so. I don't understand your comment about calling it a religion because we are drawn to Christians. If atheism was my religion, why would I explore Christianity? I'm drawn to Christianity because that is how I was raised. I have many friends and family who are Christians. Please don't presume to know my motivations. I fought for more than a decade to retain my faith, before finally admitting to myself that I could no longer believe.

    I don't even dismiss YEC without considering arguments, even though I am HIGHLY doubtful of it. The problem is that arguments against an old earth, once you've learned the science behind it, are extremely poor, and basically never takes more than a quick glance to find the error.

    I also don't treat all apologists with such disdain as I do Hovind. I think he is particularly atrocious, to the point that I put him in the same category as faith healers who are proven frauds. I think he knows what he is doing, and is in it for the moolah. Not to mention the fact that he is particularly arrogant and smug.

    I would have to see the details about the project in order to offer you a reason for their dating. I highly doubt it is as simple as you (or he) describe(s)


    I, too, am not here to "convert" anybody. It's not a pleasant experience. I'm here, primarily, to learn. So I ask hard questions; the ones I couldn't find answers to when I was a Christian. Secondarily, I'm here (on this forum, not this thread in particular) to try to help correct the misinformation presented by apologists about what science has to say about evolution and the age of the earth (and more recently, the shape of the earth).

    Are you open minded enough to consider that you might be wrong about a young earth?
     
  16. awitch

    awitch Well-Known Member

    +2,452
    United States
    Pagan
    Private
    US-Democrat
    Much like how many Christians say other religions don't have truth?

    People presume things to be untrue until they are provided sufficiently convincing evidence. And if you're the one making the positive assertion, the burden of proof lies on your shoulders.

    And what of those who are very open (like me) but arrive at a wildly different description of god?

    But I would argue that atheists and scientists (and many people are both) are MORE open. They follow the evidence to the conclusion while Christians start with the conclusion of their choice and dismiss any evidence that doesn't align with that conclusion without even trying to understand it.
     
  17. now faith

    now faith Veteran Supporter

    +1,336
    Word of Faith
    Married
    This is the result of religon, man fails but God never fails.
    Man fails to convey the Glory of God, He fails to spread the Good News, He fails and failed from the beginning.
    Life is in the Blood, it took God to redeem man from a failed system of law.
    If Christ had not came ,there would not have been sin over the Pharisees and keepers of the law.
    Nor would salvation have come to the Gentiles.
    God rent the skin of animals to cover Adam, and eves shame.
    Sin equals death.
    Christ was the last Adam for mankind, those who cannot see the sinless blood of Christ sprinkled on the mercy seat of the Father will perish in sin.
    Those who are in lack of God's Coveanut with Man look to the Church as their redemption, all they need do is seek the Grace of God and he will give them life.
    That is as open as I can get.
     
  18. now faith

    now faith Veteran Supporter

    +1,336
    Word of Faith
    Married
    Quote a Witch:
    And what of those who are very open (like me) but arrive at a wildly different description of god?
    Unquote.
    Why is your description of God wildly different?
    You know Spirits exist , you abide in them.
    Am I being a liar when I say there is a God?
    The Alpha and Omega the first and the last ,the ancient of days.
     
  19. awitch

    awitch Well-Known Member

    +2,452
    United States
    Pagan
    Private
    US-Democrat
    Because I believe in multiple deities, none of which are omnipotent or omniscient or omianything. I reject the Jesus narrative and the concepts of heaven and hell

    I don't know they exist (I tend not to think so; certainly not ghosts, anyway) so I don't see how I can abide by them.

    I'm sure you believe there is a god, but that doesn't make it so.
     
  20. Jane_the_Bane

    Jane_the_Bane Gaia's godchild

    +3,176
    Pagan
    Legal Union (Other)
    UK-Greens
    How do you define evil (and good)?
    I've seen theists argue that "good" is whatever the deity they believe in wants, thinks, and does, thereby opening the door for all sorts of atrocities like: "If my god says to slay children and drink their blood, I will obey without question, for whatever He commands is good."

    Personally, I'd say the terms only make sense in a relational context:
    Hyper-intelligent aliens who considered us a tasty food source (because we are about as intelligent as their pets) would certainly be evil-to-us, and our struggles would aim at saving ourselves from their horrible appetites.
    This is also why these moral qualities only apply to sapient, social beings. A falling rock is not evil or guilty of murder, even if it kills me. Nor would a person who runs me over with a car because he didn't see me be guilty in the same fashion as a person who plots my demise and sets out specifically to end my life.

    With that in mind, is the Biblical deity as described in that anthology good-to-us, or evil-to-us?
    First off, I'd say it depends on what particular book we are looking at. The canon does not paint a singular picture, but a multi-faceted one. Which is why each Christian can rationalise their own version of the deity, based on whatever verses speak the most to them and fit their personal vision of what a good-to-them god would look like.
    Thus, we get Biblegods who are like the most awesome parents you could ever imagine, side by side with bloodthirsty tyrants who just so happen to hate the very same people the believers in question can't stand (be they unkind neighbours or some minority group these people just hate as a matter of principle).

    However, considering the Big Picture, I'd say that theodicy cannot be resolved in a satisfying manner. No matter how many rationalisations you produce, at the end of the day we are still living in a world that is in many ways evil-to-us, through no fault of our own, and that reality is simply incompatible with the all-good, all-powerful divine being believers postulate.
    IF there was a deity like the one described in the Bible, it would be very clearly evil-to-us, no matter how many post-mortem recompensations He offers for those who wave the right membership card.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...