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

thomas_t said:

I'm against all comparison between Hitler and God. So I permit myself to leave your question open.

Click to expand...

Considering that, in the Old Testament, God killed countless thousands of people, often including women, children and other noncombatants, you might have difficulties on this forum. The question "how can God be good if he commits genocide?" is a theologically relevant one, and comes up fairly often around here.

MrsFoundit said:

Reported.

Click to expand...

How strange.

thomas_t said:

So you say they were all decent people. @InterestedAtheist says a loving God must not send people to hell... everyone is supposed to go to heaven instead if I get him right.

Click to expand...

The problem is with the oversimplified view of heaven and hell.
I am an innocent person. Do I deserve to be roasted in hell for eternity? Most certainly not.
On the other hand, do I deserve to go to heaven, by definition the most wonderful place imaginable? I would hesitate to say so. But if that's the only alternative to hell, then what else is a just God going to do with my soul?
The fact that I cannot imagine a solution to this dilemma is not my problem. It's yours. I'm happy just to say, "Well, you can see, Christianity just doesn't make sense."

thomas_t said:

Insinuating that they must share the same heaven, if I get you right, would mean heaven for the perpetrators and hell for the victims, I think. That's not fair and that's not a concludent theology, as I see it.

Click to expand...

Again, this is oversimplifying a complex situation. Glossing over it like this disguises the fact that, if we follow your logic, the whole heaven-and-hell idea becomes incoherent.
So you're saying that criminals who repent shouldn't be allowed into heaven? But they are. Heaven is full of criminals who repented. That's what it's all about, isn't it? The Christian religion is quite clear upon this. It doesn't matter what bad things you did, just so long as you sincerely repent and accept Jesus Christ as your saviour, you will go to heaven.
Second, you say that it would not be fair to the victims of crimes if the perpetrators were allowed to go to heaven. But surely everyone in the world has been wrong by multiple people. Where do you draw the line? A little thought will show that if we follow your argument, nobody would be allowed to go to heaven.

InterestedAtheist said:

"Billions and billions" is stretching it a bit. Considering that there are about two billion Christians in the world (most of whom disagree with each other about just about everything) it would be more accurate to say "there are hundreds of millions of Christians." Or, if you like, there are a billion and a billion.
Besides, many people would say that most of these aren't true Christians.

Click to expand...

When looking at all of the various spiritual traditions around the glove, there truly are billions and billions who have God in their lives in some form. If anything, I'm grossly understating the count. But the point is, contrary to what your wrote, within humanity God truly is very popular. The Divine has been a part of the Human experience for most of Human existence.

dlamberth said:

When looking at all of the various spiritual traditions around the glove, there truly are billions and billions who have God in their lives in some form. If anything, I'm grossly understating the count. But the point is, contrary to what your wrote, within humanity God truly is very popular. The Divine has been a part of the Human experience for most of Human existence.

Click to expand...

Oh yes. But I thought we were talking about Christians. In which case, the answer is two billion.
After all, when @thomas_t said "There is a God" I have a feeling he had a specific one in mind. And when you say "there are billions and billions of us who have found God," you mean a god. Or, in many cases, multiple gods.

Also, it is true that the vast majority of humanity believes in some sort of God. But since they all disagree with each other, even the ones who believe in the same God (Christianity has literally thousands of different denominations) the most likely explanation is they're all just imagining their own gods.

They can't all be right, can they? But they can all be wrong.

InterestedAtheist said:

They can't all be right, can they? But they can all be wrong.

Click to expand...

If God is brought into a persons heart, ya, they all can be right.

Your arguments seems to be focused on the outer form of belief and not at all on what goes on inside of a Lover of God's Heart.

dlamberth said:

If God is brought into a persons heart, ya, they all can be right.

Your arguments seems to be focused on the outer form of belief and not at all on what goes on inside of a Lover of God's Heart.

Click to expand...

Interesting! So Allah, Yahweh, Jupiter, Vishnu and the other 3, 000 + gods of humanity are all real? I have a feeling that the Christian God wouldn't like that. Didn't He make a commandment about it once?

InterestedAtheist said:

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 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.

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, 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.

How horrible. How morally abhorrent.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Click to expand...

Since I have done what I can to answer your thought experiment in other posts I have written since yours I am answering now, I will try to deal here with the other questions you ask; if I may summarize/ categorize them:
1. Is it not morally abhorrent for God to create most people ultimately for the purpose of destruction?
2. 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?

And so:
1. As First Cause is necessarily the only source of absolutes, including moral, how can it be called "bad" even if bad people are created for the purpose of destruction? But I don't say they are --I say they are created for the use of First Cause. In Christian terminology, GOD made all of us for his own purposes, which we may or may not understand to any significant degree. That is just a fact, and not a cop-out, since I intend to answer you more specifically.

I often say, "this life is not for this life". I expect it is pretty nearly impossible for one who doesn't believe in God to see that as meaningful. But this life is a vapor compared with with next. What we take as importance during this life is barely significant. Our pain and suffering, anguish, even our madness, our destruction, death, in this life is by comparison of little significance in the life to come. But it is not by comparison that I like to consider it, but by the manner of that life to come. Our sin against one another is more sin against God, than against our fellow man. Infinitely more, actually, since it is against God.

So why would God make them, anyway? For his own glory, according to Romans 9, to show his power and justice to the objects of his mercy --the rest of us, those he has chosen to show this to. He is that much above us that this motivation on his part is unassailable. You might not see that, and so rail against it, but it is impossible to hold him accountable to our silly concepts.

(For what comfort it may bring against the abhorrence of the idea of God punishing those who were not even able to choose right (as Reformed Doctrine has it), I don't think of the being, soul, whatever, that ends up in eternal condemnation as even human anymore. It is stripped of all virtue, abandoned by God, hardly what anyone would recognize in this temporal existence, unless, as CS Lewis says, perhaps in a nightmare. They are wraiths, all regret, pain, despair, hate, baseless direction devoid of satisfaction. Nothing you would pity in this life. Nor are these innocent victims; they willingly participate in their own wrongdoing, and receive according to their sin, which is primarily against God. --more on that perhaps in another post)

You say, "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 say: (a) so who is it that repents, but the ones God has chosen for himself, and in fact to whom he grants the ability to repent, since they are without him no more inclined to do so than anyone else?
(b) answered above and below here, I hope understandably, though probably not sufficiently.

You also said, "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 say: That claim to me is a bit disingenuous. God can both be understandable (to some degree or in some ways or concerning certain things) yet on the whole be considerably beyond our comprehension (or understanding).

2. I do not say that a morally evil, neutral or complex First Cause would lack the capability to create, but would lack the motivation. By comparison, the creation is insignificant if he did not create something particular about it for his own pleasure. The thing the Bible talks about --the Elect, the Church, the Bride of Christ, the Body of Christ, etc --all names for the same thing-- are that particular creation. The rest of his creation was made for the purpose of glorifying himself, and specifically to these objects of his mercy (See Romans 9). For First Cause to create simply for the purpose of destruction is to gain nothing. To squelch the insignificant beneath his feet would be no accomplishment, no pleasure in itself.

Also, for what it is worth, and I find it fitting perfectly into "First Cause" theory that, the human is in itself of little more significance to God than anything else in his creation. It is only in that we made by him and more, that we are made in his image that we are barely even worthy of his concern, and it is only in that we are made FOR him that he takes more than a little notice (of course, those two ideas are inseparable). We are not even complete beings apart from unity with God. Certainly he does not take us as seriously as we take ourselves, except in ways that we cannot assess well, and do not take seriously.

Reading through your post again, I see the same thing I see in every objection I hear concerning predetermination or even simple predestination, or even when I hear the reasoning by anyone concerning the impossibility of God existing, by virtue of the ugliness of this life. This is what I see --the attributing of substance to this veil of existence, this temporal, passing life. Oh, it has its eternal effects --I don't mean to disparage that-- but relative to the solid existence from which God operates, this is next to nothing. Some have conjectured that this is only the imagination of God, and I have to say, that doesn't sound so far off base.

Mark Quayle said:

Since I have done what I can to answer your thought experiment

Click to expand...

If you say so.

Mark Quayle said:

I often say, "this life is not for this life". I expect it is pretty nearly impossible for one who doesn't believe in God to see that as meaningful. But this life is a vapor compared with with next.

Click to expand...

Why on earth would you say that? Of course I understand it. I agree with it. I don't believe it myself, of course, because I don't believe that there is a life beyond this one. But I can quite see that for someone who does believe in an eternal life beyond this temporary one, this is the only sensible attitude to take.
But if that is the case - and logically, nothing that takes place in a finite time can mean anything at all when compared to an infinite experience - then the consequence must be that what we do in this life, for good or for ill, has no meaning. Compared to the infinite afterlife we have, whether we spend it in heaven or hell, our finite time, whether it was six years or a hundred and six years did not happen, for all intents and purposes. Any finite number compared to infinity is infinitely small; and therefore, effectively, does not exist.
So to say that an entity that exists for an infinite amount of time should spend that infinite amount of time in either heaven or hell for something that it did in a fragment of time so tiny it cannot be measured or perceived, is absurd.

Mark Quayle said:

So why would God make them, anyway? For his own glory, according to Romans 9, to show his power and justice to the objects of his mercy --the rest of us, those he has chosen to show this to. He is that much above us that this motivation on his part is unassailable. You might not see that, and so rail against it, but it is impossible to hold him accountable to our silly concepts.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry; but this is nothing but an empty assertion on your part. You say that God is "that much above us", but He could equally be that much below us (ie, infinitely evil). You don't understand God, so you are in no position to say.

Mark Quayle said:

I don't think of the being, soul, whatever, that ends up in eternal condemnation as even human anymore. It is stripped of all virtue, abandoned by God, hardly what anyone would recognize in this temporal existence, unless, as CS Lewis says, perhaps in a nightmare.

Click to expand...

Mark Quayle said:

They are wraiths, all regret, pain, despair, hate, baseless direction devoid of satisfaction. Nothing you would pity in this life. Nor are these innocent victims; they willingly participate in their own wrongdoing, and receive according to their sin, which is primarily against God.

Click to expand...

What an appalling thing to say. Are these wraiths in hell self-conscious and aware of their torments? If so, then their situation is a horrendous crime.
Furthermore, I would pity Hitler if I saw him punished in hell. I would pity the worst human who has ever lived.
Tell me, if you saw an utterly evil human - let's say, a person who tortured children for fun - tied down and burned with red-hot irons, would you feel pity for him? I be would be so tortured for a year? A million years? Of course you would. That would be "cruel and unusual punishment", and therefore wrong.

Mark Quayle said:

I say: (a) so who is it that repents, but the ones God has chosen for himself, and in fact to whom he grants the ability to repent, since they are without him no more inclined to do so than anyone else?

Click to expand...

In that case, you are denying the existence of free will. And that means that any person who goes to hell is innocent, since they were created without the option to free themselves. In essence, they were created to be punished.

Mark Quayle said:

I say: That claim to me is a bit disingenuous. God can both be understandable (to some degree or in some ways or concerning certain things) yet on the whole be considerably beyond our comprehension (or understanding).

Click to expand...

It is true that some things are understandable on some levels but not others. But in this case, we see Christians, when their backs are pressed to the wall, saying "God is beyond our understanding." And that means they do not know why He does what He does. Therefore, their saying that God is good is nothing more than their opinion, preferences, hope or intuition.

Mark Quayle said:

2. I do not say that a morally evil, neutral or complex First Cause would lack the capability to create, but would lack the motivation.

Click to expand...

You, I'm afraid, are not competent on the characters of First Causes to be be able to pronounce on this issue. What you feel is not evidence.

Mark Quayle said:

For First Cause to create simply for the purpose of destruction is to gain nothing. To squelch the insignificant beneath his feet would be no accomplishment, no pleasure in itself.

Click to expand...

That's just your opinion. Maybe an evil First Cause would enjoy doing this. It would, after all, be so far beyond you in every way that you would be incapable of commenting on it.

Mark Quayle said:

This is what I see --the attributing of substance to this veil of existence, this temporal, passing life. Oh, it has its eternal effects --I don't mean to disparage that-- but relative to the solid existence from which God operates, this is next to nothing.

Click to expand...

In fact, as I have said, the finite compared to the infinite, is effectively nothing. And therefore these pre-civilised views of hell and heaven, dreamt up by savages who imagined God as a big king on a throne in the sky, and imagined hell as a red-hot torture chamber under the ground, make no sense at all.

InterestedAtheist said:

I have a feeling that the Christian God wouldn't like that. Didn't He make a commandment about it once?

Click to expand...

InterestedAtheist said:

I'm sorry, but what you feel to be true just doesn't count.

Click to expand...

Since you do not accept the Bible as true, unless you can prove it is, you cannot cite a commandment that is only real if the Bible is true. You also state that what "you feel" does not count. That is all you have got there.

MrsFoundit said:

Now, since you do not accept the Bible as true, unless you can prove it is, you cannot cite a commandment that is only real if the Bible is true.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can. It would just be a case of reminding Christians of the tenets of their own religion.
Of course, I understand that dlamberth is not a Christian. But I trust you'll agree with me when I say that if Christianity is true, the other religions can't be, because Christianity affirms that there is only one God.

dlamberth said:

I take issue with this statement.
As I look around the world, there are billions and billions of us who have found God.

Click to expand...

More than 2 billions - that would include Muslims in my opinion.
Let me warn against Abrahamite econumenism with these posts:
Iran's Evin Prison: Church leader asks, 'Remember me in your prayers always' - Open Doors USA
Open Doors USA
Christians should think of their brothers and sisters who are getting persecuted because of faith.
Noone should play this down, please.
Thomas

thomas_t said:

More than 2 billions - that would include Muslims in my opinion.
Let me warn against Abrahamite econumenism with these posts:
Iran's Evin Prison: Church leader asks, 'Remember me in your prayers always' - Open Doors USA
Open Doors USA
Christians should think of their brothers and sisters who are getting persecuted because of faith.
Noone should play this down, please.
Thomas

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Sounds like you and dlamberth have differing views about how good it is that so many people have found a god.

InterestedAtheist said:

I'm sorry, but what you feel to be true just doesn't count.

Click to expand...

Should I post another landscape? One that's really beautiful for you?
You know a landscape that you like. Infer from that it must stem from a good origin. As opposed to Jupiter. God is good.

InterestedAtheist said:

I think that your question about whether I would help the boy is, at best, a distraction from our debate here, and I don't feel like following a red herring.

Click to expand...

I don't think so. You say, since there is a suffering boy God can't exist - this is how I understand you and also Attenborough.
So why should Attenborough say that you exist? - In case you didn't help this boy although you could have...

InterestedAtheist said:

I am an innocent person.

Click to expand...

You keep pleading innocent... but who would judge from an internet board if that is the truely the case?
You never lied nor committed a theft nor adultery? Maybe. But let's leave the decision up to Jesus, I suggest.

InterestedAtheist said:

But if that's the only alternative to hell, then what else is a just God going to do with my soul?

Click to expand...

I'm not God.
But I trust him that his judgements are coherent.

InterestedAtheist said:

Where do you draw the line? A little thought will show that if we follow your argument, nobody would be allowed to go to heaven.

Click to expand...

The Bible draws the line exactly where people repent or not. This is my interpretation of Matthew 3:2.
Repented people should be allowed to enter heaven.

For me, the Bible makes great sense.
Repented criminals can go to heaven. They called Jesus' name and he was there to help. That's love. They did all they could after they had sinned.
Since they repented they don't represent a danger for their former victims anymore. That's the point.
God has to protect the fomer victims in my opinion, I stay with it here.

Thomas

thomas_t said:

For me, the Bible makes great sense.
Repented criminals can go to heaven. They called Jesus' name and he was there to help. That's love. They did all they could after they had sinned.
Since they repented they don't represent a danger for their former victims anymore. That's the point.
God has to protect the fomer victims in my opinion, I stay with it here.

Click to expand...

I am just going to add a reminder here, these people are not two years old.