Chili

It is called 'venting.'

Johnny Skeptic

My comments are pertinent because like the topic of this thread, they deal with the nature of God.

You are quite naive. Just like in politics, religious hardliners on both sides seldom change their minds. A sizeable majority of the people who visit the IIDB do not make posts. My intention is mainly to appeal to the undecided crowd, not to Christians. For some strange reason you mostly take issue with the writings of skeptics. Why is that? What I would like to see is your own refutation of Christianity. How about it? What are your main reasons for opposing Christianity?

luminous

If God sent someone to rape your parents and slash their throats just because He would have fun watching, would that be righteous?

WILLOWTREE

The ***reason for being*** of God producing the 66 Books and the Apocrapha is to demonstrate: good or bad whatever He says WILL COME TO PASS.

When an objective mind ascertains the above faithfulness by studying the Bible it is INTENDED to create a basis for trust/faith, that, we can apprehend promises that fit our needs and circumstances, that is have faith in these promises, that God, if He keeps His word in the "bad": then how much more the good ?

Johnny: Your quote above; what is your source about God that caused the question above ?

I made no such assumption.

The passage you cite says it is possible, that the elect are eligible to be deceived. Would you rather have the Holy Spirit speaking through Mark tell you that if you ascend to the rank of the elect that you are thus eternally secure when you are not ?

The point is WE are on trial until the day we die. God is not on trial. Mark is warning the elect that you cannot drop your guard at a certain point and coast into heaven. The context of the passage is the New Testament, which is the gospel, which is the new way of relating to God by faith. Mark is saying IN CONTEXT that everyone must endure in faith - the way you started, and do not go chasing some gnostic around who has a new revelation, that the gospel and only the gospel/way of faith ensures salvation.

Now with this said you can see how important my first reply above is, that we have a basis to trust God, that we have a basis to continue in the gospel/way of faith and not get deceived by some travelling televangelist who has a son that can see out of a glass eye.



The context above is the same as the preceding: the gospel/way of faith. Paul warns us that even if someone appears righteous in all traditional aspects, if their message is not the gospel then it is Satan dressed as an angel of light.


What is your source for an evil God ?

Your subjective bias wanting it so as to maintain a reason not to repent ?

The Bible says everyone has knowledge of God through one of two revelations:

1. Special

2. General

Special is Judaism and Christianity.

General is observed creation reflecting His invisible attributes.

Number #2 convicts everyone unless they credit Him AS Creator. In context the only vaild compliance is acknowledging Genesis special creation. This means ALL Darwinists are going to hell whether they think of themselves as a Theist or not.


I do not understand.

Bottom line:

You will never get anywhere with God until you come to Him on His terms. His terms are He is the Boss. Whatever He does or says IS righteous. If you don't like it or reject it then your lot is clearly spelled out in the Bible.

Innocent children killed by God ?

You and I are alive and we are evil.

This is why we praise God for His mercy.

Stop worrying about rhetorical questions that insulate your goal to roast God. You Johnny have been reading the Bible much too long to be making these silly rebellious points.

Ray Martinez

mdarus

A satisfying answer to your question should have the following characteristics:
1) It should be true to its presuppositions. A biblical answer should reflect a belief in what the Bible says about the issue.
2) A satisfying answer should be able to give a reasonable moral basis why the action should be considered moral. In this limited sense, the answer should give us a basis for evaluating the morality of God's action.
3) A good answer should reflect the progressive nature of morality revealed in the biblical narrative. This means it should not anachronistically impose a moral code that had not yet been developed.
4) However, the moral basis should reflect values that are timeless and affected by historical or social variables or advancements.
5) In the end, the answer should elicit the response, "He was right and given the same situation, he would be right to do it again."

However, asking the question by using the word, "why" makes it very difficult to answer with satisfaction.

1. The question is accusatory. It presupposes that any answer is an excuse.
2. The question is ambiguous. It does not indicate whether it is seeking to know motive, purpose, reason, outcome, or justification.
3. The question is limiting. It seeks a simple answer to what may be a complex question. It sets itself up to evaluate numerous reasons one by one without permitting the weight of all the factors to supply adequate justifcation.
4. The question may be impossible to answer. If the question is what motivated God, our knowledge of God's thoughts is limited to what God has told us about those thoughts. It God has not revealed his thoughts, we can only speculate.

Johnny Skeptic

But as evil God would masquerade as a good God.

What is your source for a good God? Your subjective bias that is entirely the result of desiring a comfortable eternal life? Of course, you don’t really care who provides you with a comfortable eternal life as long as one is available. My position is not that God is evil, but that if he is, it would be impossible for us to know that. Why can’t God be immoral? If he is amoral, he might send everyone to hell.

Since I am an agnostic, that argument does not apply to me.

John 2:23 says “Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.� John 3:2 says “The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.� John 10:37-38 say “If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.� If those events actually happened, then given human nature being what it is, if a being claiming to be Jesus came to earth and demonstrated that he had abilities that were far beyond those of humans, and assuming that he actually was Jesus, surely some people who were not previously convinced would become Christians, and those people most certainly cannot be held accountable for rejecting God.

Claiming that God is good is a rhetorical and unanswerable question.

But I don’t actually need to roast God. I am willing to agree that we do not know what his true nature is one way or the other, but why aren’t you? As I said previously, “If God is evil, and if he is omnipotent and omniscient, he could easily duplicate anything that is attributed to the God of the Bible.� Any competent person would prefer that God is good, but any rational minded person knows that we can’t reasonably prove what God’s nature actually is one way or the other.

While God wouldn’t have anything whatsoever to lose by clearing revealing himself to everyone, skeptics who would accept him if he clearly revealed himself to everyone would have everything to gain if he did so. If no God exists, then it is to be expected that none would ever show up. If a loving God exists, and if he is willing to clearly reveal himself to some people, then it is to be expected that he would be willing to clearly reveal himself to everyone.

noah

WillowTree wrote:
That's B.S. Don't make claims you can not support.

sharon45

That is god's real trouble, I do judge him on his terms. God's supposed lot is easily spelled out in the bible.

This really isn't supported by the bible.

Or more correctly, you reveal you haven't read the bible long enough to understand these presented points.

luminous

WILLOWTREE,

I ask again: If God sent someone to rape your parents and slash their throats just because He would have fun watching, would that be righteous?

p.s. This is not a personal attack nor does it represent malicious intent towards you. I just want to see if you really believe that righteousness is whatever God does or says. Please answer the question.

WILLOWTREE

God ordered the children of Israel to kill every man, woman, and child in the promise land/Palestine.

Whatever God does or says is righteous.

Do you know why He did this ?

(I do)

Ray Martinez