The bible

[PsychoSarah]

Incredibly short-sighted. What about being just? Truthful?

Since when is suffering needed for good things to exist?

 

[theophilus777]

You guys don't get to change the definition of a word just so you can keep applying it to god. If there is anything at all god cannot do, then it isn't omnipotent end of discussion.

No child, you do not get to come along many thousands of years later and impose your own subjective opinion on what everyone before you has meant.

But in any case, god never asked us if we would be ok with risking suffering in return for free will. I personally have no issue with a deity interfering with the wills of rapists and murderers to prevent suffering.

Then learn how to pray.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Obviously false, but go ahead and flesh out your idea here.

By the definition of omnipotence I am right, god could make the universe have free will without suffering, because if it couldn't, then it wouldn't be omnipotent.

 

[theophilus777]

I am stating that a being cannot be considered omnipotent if there is even a single thing it can't do, because that would not be infinite power but limited power, and would not be applicable given what omnipotence is. You can certainly have god be very powerful, to near omnipotence, but calling it omnipotent is not a legitimate use of the word unless god literally can do anything.

What does this have to do with anything? In a thread about the Bible, the Bible teaches God is MOST Powerful, not all Powerful. He gave us power; dominion. towards the end of the first chapter. That is power He does not have. That alone limits His Power.

Your argument here is truly un-founded.

 

[theophilus777]

You cannot be omnipotent in some areas and not in others, that is not what the word omnipotent means.

How long before someone understands my issue is the use of the word incorrectly?

You still need to understand what is being said by those who teach it. If you make stuff up out of whole cloth and argue against that, that is a strawman.

 

[PsychoSarah]

What does this have to do with anything? In a thread about the Bible, the Bible teaches God is MOST Powerful, not all Powerful. He gave us power; dominion. towards the end of the first chapter. That is power He does not have. That alone limits His Power.

Your argument here is truly un-founded.

Other people were asserting god is omnipotent, remember, I talk to multiple people at once and not everyone has the same views as you. I was arguing AGAINST their use of the word as they claimed that it means something different when applied to god, as if they can change the definition of the word so they can still label god with it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You still need to understand what is being said by those who teach it. If you make stuff up out of whole cloth and argue against that, that is a strawman.

Other. People. Claimed. God. Is. Omnipotent. I don't personally view omnipotence as even logically possible.

 

[Lollerskates]

Sarah, you have to admit that no matter a god's power, s/he has no obligation to its creation, its feelings, or its concerns. So, even God's omnipotence is a measure of His power - not His ability and capacity to love or care.

And, He certainly could do whatever - make suffering non existent and free will in tact. But, He is not a magician. He does things according to the natural order to which He set up. And, He knows what iteration of life will yield the most souls with Him, and least deaths. Making suffering void, and free will in tact may only yield 43% of souls brought to life. You dont know, but He does.

And, suffering has great purpose. It strengthens you when you overcome. No one respects royalty that has never had as much as a hangnail, yet claims to be great. How would they relate to the people? God is raising royalty; in order to be complete, we must experience a complete spectrum of life so we aren't lacking. Parents long for that for their children: not suffering, but completion.

At least the Most High allows you to question Him. What would Zeus/Baal/Ra/Diana/Athena/Cthulhu do? I dont think they would send their first born perfect son whom they love supremely to die for our perpetual sin, so we are redeemed. Most of Zeus' sons had daddy issues, and Horus/Osirus fought for their own lives against the sky lights.

 

[theophilus777]

I know that isn't a medical remedy, the sprinkling bird blood on a house Which Has Been Spared From Plague bugs me

Do you know why that was to be done? It certainly wasn;t any "medical practice."

, the "bitter water which has dirt from the floor" wife faithfulness test bothers me.

Yes, as it should. Even this was in no way connected to any sort of medical practice. It was purely the Power of God, working in their midst, in the STORY.

It is overall practices people get from the bible and decide must be safe that bug me, not just medical stuff, because unfortunately the bible advocates some actions which are dangerous.

I'm asking for specifics, and you have included NONE. "Overall practices" are not specific. I am accusing you of a very specific form of prejudice, which I hope would bother you. I truly do think that if you go through what your concerns are re: MEDICAL PRACTICES, with someone who is familiar with the Bible, you will realize your concern is misplaced.

Other actions you might consider dangerous I can only guess, and surmise they should not be addressed here: getting out of a boat in the middle of a storm like Peter did, hanging yourself like Judas did, etc. We are supposed to apply our own intelligence to what we read, and this is very directly related to the OP. The Bible is a manual for learning, and critical thought. It presents us with moral dilemmas so impossible there is no right answer.

I have never personally met a snake handler, no churches that do that in my area that I know of.

There are people in KY who shoot snakes with a pistol. Those would be my preferred folks to associate with over and above snake handlers.

 

[theophilus777]

That such a being would never need suffering to exist. It would have no use for suffering that couldn't be met in other, less agonizing ways.

That is still not a basis, but just your own subjective opinion. I'm going to point out this is not a mature position to hold. Theodicy is easily overcome, and it is what the story of Noah is about. You know, a whole 6 chapters in?

 

[theophilus777]

By the definition of omnipotence I am right, god could make the universe have free will without suffering, because if it couldn't, then it wouldn't be omnipotent.

This is not what omnipotence means. You are obsessing on one tiny aspect, and ignoring the larger whole of reality.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Sarah, you have to admit that no matter a god's power, s/he has no obligation to its creation, its feelings, or its concerns. So, even God's omnipotence is a measure of His power - not His ability and capacity to love or care.

And, He certainly could do whatever - make suffering non existent and free will in tact. But, He is not a magician. He does thijgs according to the natural order to which He set up. And, He knows what iteration of life will yield the most souls with Him, and least deaths. Making suffering void, and free will in tact may only yield 43% of souls brought to life. You dont know, but He does.

And, suffering has great purpose. It strengthens you when you overcome. No one respects royalty that has never had as much as a hangnail, yet claims to be great. How would they relate to the people? God is raising royalty; in order to be complete, we must experience a complete spectrum of life so we arent lacking. Parents long for that for their children: not suffering, but completion.

At least the Most High allows you to question Him. What would Zeus/Baal/Ra/Diana/Athena/Cthulhu do? I dont think they would send their first born perfect son whom they love supremely to die for our perpetual sin, so we are redeemed. Most of Zeus' sons had daddy issues, and Horus/Osirus fought for their own lives against the sky lights.

Greek gods openly have limits and don't care about people to the extent so many Christians claim their ideal of god does. Ra does his best, but he too is so much limited that occasionally he fails and temporarily dies. Cthulhu and Baal are openly malevolent beings who want to destroy life.

What you fail to understand is that these beings are never viewed as having the capacity to prevent suffering, and most of them wouldn't even if they could thanks to your choices of consisting of primarily selfish deities.

What of Norse gods, who suffer permanent injury, who die permanently, who have children die permanently, in the effort to protect humanity? And Norse gods know they will inevitably fail, but they try anyways. How can you possibly compare their suffering for humanity to that of the Christian god, whose suffering was so temporary? How can you possibly hold the deities of other religions to that of god when most of them have noted limits on their power, thus even the ones that would wish to prevent suffering clearly don't have the power to do it? The only gods I can think of with comparable power are Hindu gods, and they are busy holding everything in balance as there are both gods of creation and destruction who have equal power in that religion. And some of those gods die too, and suffer.

But yes, let's only mention the gods you think really wouldn't care.

 

[PsychoSarah]

This is not what omnipotence means. You are obsessing on one tiny aspect, and ignoring the larger whole of reality.

omnipotence literally means limitless power, can do anything and everything. No more, no less, and I wish I didn't have to repeat this so much.

 

[theophilus777]

Other. People. Claimed. God. Is. Omnipotent. I don't personally view omnipotence as even logically possible.

You're still not arguing against what they say, which means your argument is flawed right out of the box, being a strawman.

 

[PsychoSarah]

You're still not arguing against what they say, which means your argument is flawed right out of the box, being a strawman.

Look, I wasn't arguing against the omnipotence premise, I was arguing against the use of the word omnipotent incorrectly.

I could have never predicted a simple semantics issue and being concerned that people might do stuff they get from the bible that could hurt them would get me so much crap from other people. Only on Christian forums.

 

[theophilus777]

How can you possibly compare their suffering for humanity to that of the Christian god, whose suffering was so temporary?

This is to openly state you do not understand. Our sin causes Him suffering. there is no such thing as "temporary" to a Being outside of time.

 

[Lollerskates]

Greek gods openly have limits and don't care about people to the extent so many Christians claim their ideal of god does. Ra does his best, but he too is so much limited that occasionally he fails and temporarily dies. Cthulhu and Baal are openly malevolent beings who want to destroy life.

What you fail to understand is that these beings are never viewed as having the capacity to prevent suffering, and most of them wouldn't even if they could thanks to your choices of consisting of primarily selfish deities.

What of Norse gods, who suffer permanent injury, who die permanently, who have children die permanently, in the effort to protect humanity? And Norse gods know they will inevitably fail, but they try anyways. How can you possibly compare their suffering for humanity to that of the Christian god, whose suffering was so temporary? How can you possibly hold the deities of other religions to that of god when most of them have noted limits on their power, thus even the ones that would wish to prevent suffering clearly don't have the power to do it? The only gods I can think of with comparable power are Hindu gods, and they are busy holding everything in balance as there are both gods of creation and destruction who have equal power in that religion. And some of those gods die too, and suffer.

But yes, let's only mention the gods you think really wouldn't care.

I dont know where you have gotten that the Most High is obligated to prevent suffering. There is nothing in the word of God that says any point of life is to alleviate any suffering. If people are claiming that, then read the bible amd figure out if that is the truth.

And, why is suffering and not LOVE or LIFE your focus when dealing with God? At the end, He wipes away all tears, remember? Focus on what is actually relevant from the word of God: life. I agree with theo the obsession with suffering, and not the actual points of the Word of God is not a mature stance.

Repeat: The purpose of the relationship with the Most High is not about ending suffering. If you were told that, you were lied to. I cant continue to try to compare the points of Christianity with any analogy if your thinking is, with serious respect, myopic.

 

[theophilus777]

omnipotence literally means limitless power, can do anything and everything. No more, no less, and I wish I didn't have to repeat this so much.

Strawman. You have been shown dictionary definitions that disagree with you. You have been shown history that disagrees with you. Repeating yourself, or even maintaining your position, is nothing more than stubborness.

 

[theophilus777]

I could have never predicted a simple semantics issue and being concerned that people might do stuff they get from the bible that could hurt them would get me so much crap from other people. Only on Christian forums.

So go back to your point, which you have overlooked. Your concerned about "medical practices," apparently prescribed in the Bible, that will cause harm. Go ahead, air those out. I'm telling you openly I believe you will find it is nothing more than prejudice, if you have the courage to actually scrutinize your belief.

 

[PsychoSarah]

I dont know where you have gotten that the Most High is obligated to prevent suffering. There is nothing in the word of God that says any point of life is to alleviate any suffering. If people are claiming that, then read the bible amd figure out if that is the truth.

And, why is suffering and not LOVE or LIFE your focus when dealing with God? At the end, He wipes away all tears, remember? Focus on what is actually relevant from the word of God: life. I agree with theo the obsession with suffering, and not the actual points of the Word of God is not a mature stance.

Repeat: The purpose of the relationship with the Most High is not about ending suffering. If you were told that, you were lied to. I cant continue to try to compare the points of Christianity with any analogy if your thinking is, with serious respect, myopic.

Yes, at the end god rips out emotions like anger, fear, etc which are so important in being human that to do that would be to lose a great deal of what makes us who we are, rather than having us be born and develop without those feelings to begin with.

What love? Is millions of babies dying before they even speak their first word love? Countless rapes and murders all over the world love? War for the sake of religion and greed love? Us having the awareness that we inevitably die love? The fact that if we go by scripture the majority of people go to hell love?

Rather than state in spite of the suffering we all end happily ever after, I look to this life as the only one we have, and I wish people would treat it as more valuable than many do. Thus, the suffering and all other experiences in life are important, I value life, therefore I hate to see it wasted hoping some likely nonexistent deity will make it all better.

To be frankly honest the purpose of attempting to form a relationship with god has never been clearly addressed in a debate I have been in, nor do I think many people will find consistency in that matter. It actually isn't something I really think about as I don't think god exists to begin with, I would rather have that established before getting into such specifics.