If god is everything, doesn't that make him evil as well as good?

[NikolaiI]

Yes, well, Paul is not author of ultimate truth. In fact, his opinion is just that, an opinion. *I* will tell you I have never seen God do anything for humans, good or bad. I do believe he exists as an infinite, but that's an infinite of infinite GOOD. He does not DO anything, if God works you will not know he did anything. And he would not do anything to hurt anyone. Further, Christianity has no more monopoly on aboslute truth than Paul. If Christ is at one with the infinite, good for him. There are many, many, saints, boddhisattvas, gods and demigods, written about in other religions. None of them are greater than the infinite, but absolute truth is universal.........I mean, it is not limited to Christians nor is it limited to not offending their sensibilities......as what good Christian would not be offended by the mentioning of demigods???? Yet what is an angel?????

[dzebra]

``He requires nothing.``


Then why demand so much praise???



``we have to accept that what might be bad for a human to do is not bad when God does it``

One last thought on this sentence = in it you have admitted that god is evil.

He wants the praise of humans because God is the only one who is worthy of that praise. Giving the praise to anyone else is like thanking your brother for your birthday gift when your brother didn't actually get you anything, your parents did.


And I don't understand why you think that sentence says that God is evil. Contrary to that, it sounds like it says God is good no matter what (which is the opposite of evil).

[mazHur]

there is a saying in the East which reflects on the situation,
''God doesn't beat you down with a baton, He simply inverts your senses''!!
Now, you have a reason to say evil is not brought about by God...

[hellsapoppin]

~~ god is not ''haughty'' ~~

His actions in killing all those millions {see link above} clearly prove the point that not only is he haughty, he's a murderer as well!

~~ always give us the complete rundown of all the facts behind His decisions ~~


To the dead abortion victim, no such chance is given.


~~ If He destroys, He has a reason that will be consistent with His character ~~

A point I agree with but for reasons that differ with yours: yes he kills but not out of justice or beneficence. He does so out of vengeance, hate, and malice. You already have several instances of homicidal actions consistent with this from the OT.


~~ there is also a big difference between a human father and an all-knowing, all-powerful being.~~

Jesus spoke of himself as a model. A model based upon his father. He never said ''worship me''. He only said ''follow me'' --- that is, do as I do, imitate me in every way. He made himself quite human didn't he? And he did so because his father is every bit as ''human'' as he. Well, at least in theory both are.

But because this god is greatly ''different'', this means that he is all the more accountable for his actions. In the legal world there is a concept called respondeat superior. This means that the boss is answerable for the misdeeds of his charges. A superior person answers for the weak. As a god he is morally and ethically responsible for all sins and all evils that are undertaken in his name. At least that's the way it is supposed to be. Your god simply has no excuse for the crimes, injustices, and evils that befall this troubled world. None whatsoever.

You can continue to make up every excuse in the world but you will never succeed in proving that this god is moral and just. If he was, then people like Alan Watts would not be pointing out that more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history.

Just as one last example (and not to get unnecessarily political about it), Bush has invaded an innocent country and killed over one million people in an unjust war with many tens of thousands injured. As you likely recall, this liar said he was ordered by the Bible's god to commit this atrocious act.

If your god is so just and he knows that his name has been so wantonly profaned by this evildoer Bush, why hasn't he stepped up and put a stop to those crimes? According to the Bible which you and others continually use, he is supposed to have stopped it all by now but he does nothing.

How then can belief in the Bible and its god be justified???

[hellsapoppin]

``God is the only one who is worthy of that praise``


I know of Odinists, Buddhists, animists, and others who say that their gods are worthier of that praise. However, none are willing to kill or to have anyone killed in the name of their divinities.

[Redzeppelin]

``He requires nothing.``


Then why demand so much praise???

I know you said it benefits people (your opinion but one that has no actual basis, in my opinion). But time can be better spent without such a useless waste of energy.

First, because you and I are starting from different foundations, of course you'll answer like you do. Nobody who actually believed in a supreme being capable of bringing the universe into existence through His spoken word would talk about "time better spent" doing something else. Here's a couple excerpts from bible-history.com that say it better than I:

The Grounds of Praise.
Sometimes God is praised for His inherent qualities. His majesty (Ps 104:1) or holiness (Isa 6:3) fills the mind, and He is "glorified as God" (Rom 1:21) in view of what He essentially is. More frequently He is praised for His works in creation, providence, and redemption. References may be dispensed with here, for the evidence meets us on almost every page of the sacred literature from Genesis to Revelation, and the Book of Psalms in particular, from beginning to end, is occupied with these themes. When God's operations under these aspects present themselves, not simply as general effects of His power and wisdom, but as expressions of His personal love to the individual, the nation, the church, His works become benefits, and praise passes into blessing and thanksgiving (Pss 34; 103; Eph 1:3; 1 Pet 1:3).

The Duty of Praise.
Praise is everywhere represented in the Bible as a duty no less than a natural impulse and a delight. To fail in this duty is to withhold from God's glory that belongs to Him (Ps 50:23; Rom 1:20 f); it is to shut one's eyes to the signs of His presence (Isa 40:26 ff), to be forgetful of His mercies (Dt 6:12), and unthankful for His kindness (Lk 6:35). If we are not to fall into these sins, but are to give to God the honor and glory and gratitude we owe Him, we must earnestly cultivate the spirit and habit of praise. From holy men of old we learn that this may be done by arousing the soul from its slothfulness and sluggishness (Ps 57:8; 103:1), by fixing the heart upon God (Ps 57:7; 108:1), by meditation on His works and ways (Ps 77:11 ff), by recounting His benefits (Ps 103:2), above all, for those to whom He has spoken in His Son, by dwelling upon His unspeakable gift (2 Cor 9:15; compare Rom 8:31 ff; 1 Jn 3:1).

``we have to accept that what might be bad for a human to do is not bad when God does it``

One last thought on this sentence = in it you have admitted that god is evil.

That would be an incorrect interpretation of my remarks. I admitted nothing - I made it clear that there is a huge moral difference between us and God.

Yes, well, Paul is not author of ultimate truth. In fact, his opinion is just that, an opinion.

Then he's not worth reading. But, if we accept what he says about his relationship with God and the fact that he claims divine inspriation in his writings, well that's a different story: it is not "just" his opinion. You do not found a church on a man's "opinion."

*I* will tell you I have never seen God do anything for humans, good or bad.

This statement proves nothing. I've not seen England either, but I know it exists. Christ makes it clear in the NT that one of the greatest problems he came to free people from was blindness - not the literal kind, the figurative kind.

I do believe he exists as an infinite, but that's an infinite of infinite GOOD.

I have no idea what this statement means.

He does not DO anything, if God works you will not know he did anything.

And the your basis for this belief? What about those of us who flatly disagree with you?

And he would not do anything to hurt anyone.

I do not wish to be insulting, my friend, because I have great respect for you - so please don't be offended by what I'm about to say.

This conception of God is nothing less than a childish demand that God never do anything that cause us discomfort or inconvenience, or do things that may cause us some sort of pain. It is the same logic behind children's claim that a teacher is "mean" or that "my parents hate me" when said teacher or parents possess expectations about behavior/performance or allow the child to experience the natural consequences of his behavior. "Hurt" is a vague term. As a teacher, I occasionally have to "hurt" a child by giving him an "F" in my course; as a parent I occasionally have to "hurt" my child by refusing to bail him out of consequences that his poor choices have brought upon him. Please don't ask God to be the overly-protective, permissive parent that ends up warping His children by always protecting them from "hurt." Most people acknowledge that character is built through struggle and disappointment - and those do "hurt" - but how are we to become adults?

Further, Christianity has no more monopoly on aboslute truth than Paul.

Debatable.

~~ god is not ''haughty'' ~~

His actions in killing all those millions {see link above} clearly prove the point that not only is he haughty, he's a murderer as well!

You're not going to be convincing here, because your usage of the word "haughty" ("arrogant and disdainful") expresses your evaluation of God's words more than it expresses His actual tone.

Second, you seem (like many I've spoken with here) to be in possession of the idea that any loss of human life is wrong. That is not true. The Bible does not forbid all types of killing. As I've said before, the creator of life has as His prerogative to take life away if He sees fit to do so. If you question the justness of God's behavior, what you're really revealing is that you don't see God as the Bible describes Him - all-knowing, all-powerful, perfect in His love, mercy, kindness and justice. Most non-believeres simply conceptualize God as some glorified human being with superpowers and that is absurd. If God were nothing more than that, then yes - we should doubt His sincerity and question His behavior. This simply isn't so. A perfect judge who has perfect love and perfect mercy may elect to give the death sentence to those for whom a continued life might make things even worse. Remember that God is less concerned with our temporary life/happiness here on earth than He is with our eternal existence.

~~ always give us the complete rundown of all the facts behind His decisions ~~


To the dead abortion victim, no such chance is given.

Well what's God supposed to do about that? He gave humans free will and humans often excerise that will by terminating their pregnancies. These children will be in heaven - an existence that will make even the best times on earth seem like playing in a sewage-strewn mud puddle.

~~ If He destroys, He has a reason that will be consistent with His character ~~

A point I agree with but for reasons that differ with yours: yes he kills but not out of justice or beneficence. He does so out of vengeance, hate, and malice. You already have several instances of homicidal actions consistent with this from the OT.

A God as you describe would have killed you the minute you decided to criticize Him. Please provide some texts that support your claims.

Note: "vengeance" is not in and of itself a negative term as "malice" or "hate." When we sentence a criminal to jail, we are enacting vengeance ("punishment inflicted for wrong to oneself or one's cause") on that individual.

~~ there is also a big difference between a human father and an all-knowing, all-powerful being.~~

Jesus spoke of himself as a model. A model based upon his father. He never said ''worship me''. He only said ''follow me'' --- that is, do as I do, imitate me in every way. He made himself quite human didn't he? And he did so because his father is every bit as ''human'' as he. Well, at least in theory both are.

Completely wrong - God is not "human" - it is the other way around: we were designed "in God's image" (Genesis 1) - meaning that we carry attributes reflective of God. Jesus was God incarnated into flesh - but God is not "human" in any sense of the word - to do so is to degrade God. Jesus said "If you have seen me, you have seen the father" but he wasn't talking about his physicality.

But because this god is greatly ''different'', this means that he is all the more accountable for his actions.

Accountable to whom? Us? The things He created? We get to "put God on trial" for His actions? That's like kids putting their parents on trial.

In the legal world there is a concept called respondeat superior. This means that the boss is answerable for the misdeeds of his charges. A superior person answers for the weak. As a god he is morally and ethically responsible for all sins and all evils that are undertaken in his name. At least that's the way it is supposed to be. Your god simply has no excuse for the crimes, injustices, and evils that befall this troubled world. None whatsoever.

"No excuse" to you - you, who possesses a mere sliver of the facts, who possesses a brain that functions only at approximately 10% of its potential, whose existence is limited by 5 highly inadequate senses and 3 dimensions - a creature that God created and sustains on a daily basis. You are going to hold the transcendant being who called the universe into existence with His words accountable for His "crimes"?

Your statements make the assumption that you possess the knowledge and the authority to call God into accounting.

You can continue to make up every excuse in the world but you will never succeed in proving that this god is moral and just. If he was, then people like Alan Watts would not be pointing out that more people have been killed in the name of the Bible than for any other reason in history.

I'm not trying to prove God is just or moral - He doesn't need my help. I'm trying to get you to understand that it is presumption of the highest order for human beings to arrogantly put God on trial for things He did which they barely understand.

All movements, all beliefs, all organizations have "bad" employees, so to speak. I'm not sure Watts actually did any research to make such a claim - but a handful of bad cops doesn't make the institution of law enforcement a thing of evil.

Just as one last example (and not to get unnecessarily political about it), Bush has invaded an innocent country and killed over one million people in an unjust war with many tens of thousands injured. As you likely recall, this liar said he was ordered by the Bible's god to commit this atrocious act.

No comment - Christians are human beings; we are imperfect and make mistakes - the Bible makes that clear. We will be held accountable for the times where we misused the Bible.

If your god is so just and he knows that his name has been so wantonly profaned by this evildoer Bush, why hasn't he stepped up and put a stop to those crimes? According to the Bible which you and others continually use, he is supposed to have stopped it all by now but he does nothing.

Wrong again; God is not some cosmic policeman who exists to interfere in the affairs of the earth. Nothing in the Bible indicates what you claim - have you even read it? More than once? I have, and I don't recall anything in there like you have described. God gave Mr. Bush free will - just like you have. To some of us, what you say and believe is just as bothersome as Bush's activities are to you - but I would never ask God to silence you.

``God is the only one who is worthy of that praise``


I know of Odinists, Buddhists, animists, and others who say that their gods are worthier of that praise. However, none are willing to kill or to have anyone killed in the name of their divinities.

Once again: for whatever reason, you have decided that killing is the acid-test. So be it. God does not will that anybody be killed simply because they don't obey Him or worship Him - if God commissions the death of an individual or culture, it is because "the patient is beyond cure." Once God is utterly and completely rejected, then the human becomes more of a monster than anything else, and the person/community in this condition will suffer far more by being left to its continual degeneration than it will by a merciful death from the God who created them. If my own child had become so twisted and warped that he was determined to kill his own family and I was the only one available to stop him, I would - with immense sadness - be forced perhaps to kill him in order to save others. God takes no pleasure in the death of His creatures - I guarantee that you cannot find anywhere where God takes pleasure in the death of his "children."

Evil is powerful and toxic - like gangrene or cancer, it destroys; if it infects a person/community and the person/community rejects God's numerous invitations to accept His help in escaping that life of sin, then that person/community becomes dangerous in the same way gangrene and cancer are. What are God's choices? Let the "infected limb" start killing the "healthy tissue" surrounding or cut off the infected part to save the rest?

[hellsapoppin]

Excuses, excuses. But if this is what you choose to believe, fine.

Many years ago when I was in law school I came across a very interesting case. In it, a frustrated man stalked a woman and wrote down copious notes of his intentions. He wrote that a relationship with her would be mutually fruitful and rewarding. That it would be her absolute pleasure and privilege to have him as her mate. And that the ordeal that he had subjected her to {repeated threats, importunities, destroyed property, rumor mongering, etc} would in the long run be met with the greatest gratitude on her part.

Naturally, she repeatedly rebuffed him.

Ultimately, his ''patience'' runs out and he declares that he will now kill her if she rebuffs him again.

He again approached her and she rebuffs whereupon he empties his revolver on her.

Police caught him ''red-handed'' as we used to say and establish in court a prima facie case of homicide.

The issue at court, then, was is this a case of premeditated murder?

The prosecutor took the perpetrator's writings to the jury and they determined that, yes, there had been premeditation and convicted him of first degree murder. This, despite the defense attorney's bold assertions that while his client contemplated the commission of the crime, he should not have been convicted of 'capitol one' on the grounds that other circumstances could have or should have intervened.

Naturally, the jury refused to buy his assertions.

The point here is that, if the Bible is to be believed, your god has made his evil intentions clear: he knew that there would be a Fall in the Garden of Eden, he deliberately put a devil or serpent there, he easily could have placed the Tree of Knowledge somewhere else, he could easily have shown what Adam's fate would have been if he listened to the Temptor, he could easily have put angels there to ward off any evil influence, since this same god supposedly created ''generations'' of other humans he could easily have populated the Garden of Eden with them, or he could have formulated beings that were superior in knowledge and wisdom to Adam. Thus, all this trouble that we read of in the Bible and in history could easily have been avoided if this god had chosen to do so.

Same thing with that evil stalker --- he made his intentions clear {as did your god in the Bible} and was held accountable. How then could the great exemplar, if that is what he is, escape the same accountability that everyone else is held to???

To me, I always say, practice what you preach. But if you still insist that you and every one else is ''obligated'' to believe the many excuses that you make, again, fine and dandy.

[Redzeppelin]

Excuses, excuses. But if this is what you choose to believe, fine.

Many years ago when I was in law school I came across a very interesting case. In it, a frustrated man stalked a woman and wrote down copious notes of his intentions. He wrote that a relationship with her would be mutually fruitful and rewarding. That it would be her absolute pleasure and privilege to have him as her mate. And that the ordeal that he had subjected her to {repeated threats, importunities, destroyed property, rumor mongering, etc} would in the long run be met with the greatest gratitude on her part.

Naturally, she repeatedly rebuffed him.

Ultimately, his ''patience'' runs out and he declares that he will now kill her if she rebuffs him again.

He again approached her and she rebuffs whereupon he empties his revolver on her.

Police caught him ''red-handed'' as we used to say and establish in court a prima facie case of homicide.

The issue at court, then, was is this a case of premeditated murder?

The prosecutor took the perpetrator's writings to the jury and they determined that, yes, there had been premeditation and convicted him of first degree murder. This, despite the defense attorney's bold assertions that while his client contemplated the commission of the crime, he should not have been convicted of 'capitol one' on the grounds that other circumstances could have or should have intervened.

Naturally, the jury refused to buy his assertions.

The point here is that, if the Bible is to be believed, your god has made his evil intentions clear: he knew that there would be a Fall in the Garden of Eden, he deliberately put a devil or serpent there, he easily could have placed the Tree of Knowledge somewhere else, he could easily have shown what Adam's fate would have been if he listened to the Temptor, he could easily have put angels there to ward off any evil influence, since this same god supposedly created ''generations'' of other humans he could easily have populated the Garden of Eden with them, or he could have formulated beings that were superior in knowledge and wisdom to Adam. Thus, all this trouble that we read of in the Bible and in history could easily have been avoided if this god had chosen to do so.

Same thing with that evil stalker --- he made his intentions clear {as did your god in the Bible} and was held accountable. How then could the great exemplar, if that is what he is, escape the same accountability that everyone else is held to???

To me, I always say, practice what you preach. But if you still insist that you and every one else is ''obligated'' to believe the many excuses that you make, again, fine and dandy.

From someone who claims law school experience, I expect better responses than calling my detailed answers "excuses." You have rarely actually tried to deal with the implications of my arguments beyond simply dismissing them. Address the components of my position you believe are "excuses" and show me the problem with my logic - show me where I'm in error.

Note: I've not insisted that anybody is "obligated" to believe me and my so-called "excuses." I prefer to call them explanations based upon reasonable inferences conjectured upon evidence contained within the book that claims to give an accurate representation of the character of God. What are yours based on?

If the future is unchanging and exists to be known, then you're right: there is no way around the reality that God is responsible for evil.

However, you assume that the future is unchanging and that it exists to be known: how do you know this to be true? If God "knows" the future, then those two conditions must be true.

But, if the future does not exist to be known, then how can God "know" what does not yet exist to be known by His all-encompassing mind? Granted, there are certain things about what is to come that God knows - He knows the results of His will, and His intimate knowledge of history and humanity allows Him to know certain things that absolutely will happen - but in the realm of personal decision, I don't think this is so. The Bible indicates that humanity was given freewill - freedom requires the existence of at least two valid alternatives - or more specifically, freedom to choose requires that something indefinite become definite at some point. When I wake up, I may wear the red shirt or the blue shirt - before I finally choose, it is undetermined what I'll be wearing. Once I choose, my attire is now determined.

I would conjecture that our decisions do not exist to be known until we make them. As such, God created Satan with the knowledge that Satan could rebel, but until Satan actually made the choice, it did not exist to be known by God. (For the origin of these ideas, see God's Foreknowledge and Man's Free Will by Richard Rice).

[hellsapoppin]

Quite the contrary, it is you who does not answer my questions but respond with excuses. For example, you say ''it did not exist to be known'' even though I have repeatedly shown you where in the Bible he specifically says he knew who was going to be saved all along. Even though I repeat it to you, you continue to ignore this truth.

[NikolaiI]

Then he's not worth reading. But, if we accept what he says about his relationship with God and the fact that he claims divine inspriation in his writings, well that's a different story: it is not "just" his opinion. You do not found a church on a man's "opinion."

Well, let's set aside Paul for a moment, I'd like to address all of your replies, and I'm really glad that you're debating here! My views have changed many times, and particularly because of what they are now I am glad to be discussing these things with you.

Now what you said about my point that God does not hurt people, I would like to make a clarification. God does NOT hurt people. Pain is an illusion in the most extreme case, and in the most liberal case, pain is fleeting and only exists because of our microcosmic perspective. Red, and I'm not saying this TO you so much as to everyone, there is one thing that I cannot express, not love, or philosophy, as those things I seem to be able to, it's just there's one thing higher than everything else, and that is extending the perspective above time, basically----- words don't describe it. I mean, there is a peace to be had.

Now, one way my views have changed since I last spoke to you, is that now I believe in the existence of God as infinite. When I was speaking to you before, I actually would argue both sides of it, atheist with you and Christian in other instances. This is not important. My understanding of it now is more complete-- not complete, mind you-- and of course I am still young, and a year or so ago, when I was an atheist, it was partly because I didn't understand. Yet I would never believe if it weren't true. When I was a younger thinker, less mature I believe, I would have the exact same standard for my belief, and it is because of this in fact I didn't believe. Etc. ... moving on.

So now in my understanding, God is an infinite, which exists. I believe this is according to reason; though neither I understand his existence completely nor the reasons I believe are true and support it completely, I understand several other things a little more completely. Now you said my view was childish, but this you wouldn't think if I had cleared it up a little. I said that pain was illusiory, this I believe is true and will argue; a related point is that our souls are not affected by material phenomena. Material phenomena and spirituality are one and the same, even as all things are interconnected, but there are two parts of the soul to understand to make my next point. One meaning of it is the metaphorical symbol of the soul-- not quite the same as consciousness, this is the individual soul, which is described atomic in the Gita. You know how you can have a conception of yourself, and then you realize since you are the one having this conception of yourself, it no longer includes you, and so on and so forth ad infinitum? This is this part of the soul. It's a metaphor which we cannot explain in words, except perhaps like I have done for you. Nor can we understand the soul in our habitual consciousnesses. We are conditioned by habit to blindness of the soul, whose movements are very subtle, in fact, and require much keen understanding to observe. This part of the soul is what goes to heaven when we die.

The other part of the soul is the visible intimation or understanding of the soul. The first part was the soul learning about itself, asking "What is the soul? It is an animal that cannot be contained by any concept, and by its limitless source of possibility makes it a route to the highest, and to what is true." But the soul doesn't need to ask about itself, it doesn't need to grow. I do not apologize in the least if anyone who has the intelligence to read my posts would have the audacity consider me smaltzy. If they don't realize that the soul--if not true as an atomic soul, is true as a metaphorical symbol-- needs to grow and that there are certain things which nourish it, this is their mistake.

I just meant to say this, I didn't think to go into all of it, but just to say that no, I don't think God hurts people.

Now, I'd just like to say that while I don't have a complete understanding of God, I do not think this is attainable, and have in fact valueless riches which satisfy me. I believe in God because I've seen him, that is, he's revealed himself to me in more than one way and on more than one occasion. God must exist, though I am forgetful of him, sadly, in my meditation always, but I've become aware of his presence other times. I recently wrote an article, Red, about God, which I actually referred to as Gods, I hope you don't mind-- and I desribed an experience which if it was not useful for others, at least when I read over it I could not elude a new value you from it, and usually successfully succeeded in achieving what I had the first time. The value of the repititiousness of this task is very rewarding, I believe, and every time I went over my article I felt a part of the infinite, I felt a clear intimation of the boundless possibility. And I believe it is real and true; I believe in limitless possibility of this world and of time and of our place in it. God revealed himself to me in showing me the temporality of all phenomena, and in the attitude of growth on a path, along the right state of mind, encountering and creating objects which nourish the soul, and attending to peace, always, and good health, that peace can be attained which gives equanimity upon all objects.

This statement proves nothing. I've not seen England either, but I know it exists. Christ makes it clear in the NT that one of the greatest problems he came to free people from was blindness - not the literal kind, the figurative kind.

And he did. But he was up against such an impossible task. It was fifteen centuries before the middle ages even!

I have no idea what this statement means.

God as infinite GOOD. God is infinite, as the source of being, as the source of thought, as the source of goodness. I have seen God revealed as a means of shedding the incorrect views of attachment to material phenomena, as I said above, this is one-- but God is also revealed as giving us strength and guidance and peace in our spiritual relationships, as a spiritual guide. God is the source of goodness and intelligence in all matters.

=And the your basis for this belief? What about those of us who flatly disagree with you?

Perhaps I will clarify to you the statement I made that we are not able to see when God does something. This simply means that he goes unnoticed. Kierkegaard sought to see God in everything, good and bad, that happened to him, and then by living his life in a certain way, to see God in the good that he did for others.

You don't flatly disagree with me anymore, I would imagine. I'm sorry I wasn't clear from the beginning, but if you will make an effort to understand me now, I tell that it will be of value. As follows: we make an effort to learn about God, through reason or through individuals or through scripture or tradition, through our culture or that of others. We cannot have complete knowledge of him, because that would give us complete knowledge of everything, which we do not have the capacity for. Still, we have an understanding that he is the infinite, and we have faith in him as we have seen him working in our lives. Because God as infinite breaks through everything with his love. But these are all words and as they say, words lie-- but please continue reading. The lie of saying we understands him is revealed when we know just how much of a prison we are in. We are all, every one of us, in a prison very subtle, with walls and a ceiling dome so high, that it almost affects us like God. Such a subtle prison we are fortunately given the gift to break out of, but we can only break out of what we can understand. The prison is our understanding, it is our understanding of ourselves. We cannot break out of this dome prison, we can only extend its limit further and further. Except we can break out of it. To truly do so is accept an alternative consciousness which gives us light years of growth. This is the highest thing which has ever happened to me. View our prison dome, how vast it is, how it contains an ecosystem. It is like Earth in a way! Now understand that God is an infinite. God breaks through all barrieres. Once again we are trying to define him, to capture him in the prison of words. The only way we can now make progress is to ACCEPT these things. They are true. We've been shown the truth about the passing of material phenomena, now all we have to do is continue making progress in a positive state of mind, we must only pray, meditate, practice mindfulness and awareness, and practice recollection at all times.

Now let me mention quantum theory again for a moment. This is something that is not understood. I understand it, though. It teaches us humility. It teaches science something which sadly it has lost. Science had all faith in all its theories, because as you know they had been proven beyond 100% probability. Then we get a new theory, which is proved beyond 100% probability, which PROVES ALL OUR OTHERS FALSE. Now if this is viewed with any kind of honesty, curiosity, OPENNESS FOR KNOWLEDGE, then how can anyone not have a headache over these numbers? How true we thought it all was! And then it was all proved wrong-- we were proved wrong! This is why it's a theory that's not understood, we just can't fathom how we were proved wrong. The existence of this, this almost embarassment-- all we had to do was keep true to the humility of the scientific method!!-- it indicates we were wrong about what it means to be sure of something. For me, now, I am sure, positive, that everything is like this-- within the containment of every system are what it acts on, but if there is anything, if anything can be definied, then our definition is a system and there is something outside of this system. We were proven wrong.

We don't see God's actions because there are countless little spirals of clockwork reasoning, that have their value, but at their base express the truth: We are wrong! Red, have you ever felt your brain shift, as if some connection, some mad, perfect, connection had been made? This happened to me a couple minutes ago, reading this-- believe me, I have an elegant view of these matters. The only problem is that we're always having difficulty communicating. But I hope you have understood some of the metahpors in this post? Back to the topic: We don't see or understand God's works due to the elusiveness of his nature, which exists as I have indicated because of our relation to him. Quantum theory, which will not be understood until it's understood fully in relation to all existing theory-- understood in that occurruing once it exists infinitely, and due to the significance of it, actually exists outside of time since moments other than those understanding quantum theory are less important-- this quantum theory tells us there is no deep reality. At the foundations of reality, after we have incised through all science to get to the smallest building block of reality, we find that it is elusive like this and we can't pin it down. Now, this is just one wonder that God has put before us, and it is our most sacred obligation to live up to what this knowledge gives us!!! Heaven on earth, my dear friend. Now you have heard Nietzsche say that what is done in love is beyond good and evil? What is done by God as it pertains to his being we are not able to view with our blinders on, and it is not good or evil-- actually it is a good closer to the source of good, but in that, it is not our understanding of good or evil.

So we cannot comprehend God completely.

I do not wish to be insulting, my friend, because I have great respect for you - so please don't be offended by what I'm about to say.

This conception of God is nothing less than a childish demand that God never do anything that cause us discomfort or inconvenience, or do things that may cause us some sort of pain. It is the same logic behind children's claim that a teacher is "mean" or that "my parents hate me" when said teacher or parents possess expectations about behavior/performance or allow the child to experience the natural consequences of his behavior. "Hurt" is a vague term. As a teacher, I occasionally have to "hurt" a child by giving him an "F" in my course; as a parent I occasionally have to "hurt" my child by refusing to bail him out of consequences that his poor choices have brought upon him. Please don't ask God to be the overly-protective, permissive parent that ends up warping His children by always protecting them from "hurt." Most people acknowledge that character is built through struggle and disappointment - and those do "hurt" - but how are we to become adults?

I hope you've read my post-- and I hope it was okay readable-- I want to share things of value, I really do, and like I said at the beginning I am glad you're here to discuss, Richard! (I am grasping, was that correct?)

I hope I've clarified my view a little bit-- look forward to your response!



Debatable.QUOTE]




[Edit: to take an intelligent leap from the example and event of quantum theory; consider that we might first think like this: "Well, our theories which were indicated and proved by countless experiments, which were accepted almost as law, were proven wrong. It has always been theoreticaly or scientificially politically correct to call these still theories, which could be proven wrong at any time; so we should take the event and example as a lesson! We have renewed faith in the correctness of our humility." This might be the way to think. But actually, if we take the event to have all likelihood of indicating a pattern, we should know that it's 100% likely that what we think now WILL be proven wrong! ]

[Redzeppelin]

Quite the contrary, it is you who does not answer my questions but respond with excuses. For example, you say ''it did not exist to be known'' even though I have repeatedly shown you where in the Bible he specifically says he knew who was going to be saved all along. Even though I repeat it to you, you continue to ignore this truth.

I'm sorry, my friend, you have never quoted anything that suggested the God "knew who was going to be saved all along." Check your posts. If you wish to do so now, I'll be happy to deal with the excerpts - but please, let's be real here: I have responded in detail to each of your charges - and instead of discussing my responses, you glide over them and call them excuses. I ignore some of your statements because they are OPINIONS of yours that I disagree with. You claim the status of "fact" for things that cannot necessarily be established as such. What you call "truth" is your opinion or your understanding of something - but that doesn't qualify it as truth.

Time and again, I have asked you to consider the logic of the god you describe and what that means. Based on the description of Him in the Bible - New and Old Testament - your claims cannot be true. If you wish to invalidate the Bible, then upon what do you base your opinion? If the OT descriptions of Him are satisfactory evidence that He is "capricious" and "cruel," then what how do you respond to the much more numerous descriptions that He is patient, loving, kind, merciful, just, long-suffering, gentle and compassionate? How do you reconcile the two - or do you just pick and choose which parts of the Bible are "true" for you - emphasizing the negative to make your point and ignoring the positive all-together? The difference is is that I don't ignore the negative - I try to interpret it within the context of the entire Bible and the established character of God.

[NikolaiI]

Indeed, positive and negative we only view as so far apart because of the linguistic terminology we have developed to express these terms. To quote "The Joyous Cosmology,"

"The principle is that all dualities and opposites are not disjoined but polar; they do not encounter and confront one another from afar; they exfoliate from a common center. Ordinary thinking conceals polarity and relativity because it employs terms, the terminals or ends, the poles, neglecting what lies between them. The difference of front and back, to be and not to be, hides their unity and mutuality."

But anyway, the implications of this I do not expect to be noticed or considered much less understood! Positive and negative exfoliating from a centere? Nah. ()

Anyway Red did you read my post yet? Tell me what you think!

[hellsapoppin]

``I have responded in detail to each of your charges``

My 'charges'. Yeah, right. that's a good one.

For a god to be by his own admission, all knowing and ever present, to suddenly be ignorant of the fact that someone will succumb in the Garden of Eden is a total contradiction. One that you still persist in sidestepping. If he hadn't played ignorant at that time there would be need for ''patience'' or other self laudatory nonsense.

Since you do not answer my questions but only respond with convenient excuses, there is no further use in continuing this discussion.

[Redzeppelin]

``I have responded in detail to each of your charges``

My 'charges'. Yeah, right. that's a good one.

For a god to be by his own admission, all knowing and ever present, to suddenly be ignorant of the fact that someone will succumb in the Garden of Eden is a total contradiction. One that you still persist in sidestepping. If he hadn't played ignorant at that time there would be need for ''patience'' or other self laudatory nonsense.

Since you do not answer my questions but only respond with convenient excuses, there is no further use in continuing this discussion.

I'll call this one a forfeit too. Your responses clearly show that you've not even tried to consider the implications or the logic of what I've said. That's a shame because I truly thought you were interested in a discussion of some sort - but your posts have been flippant dismissals of my points. So be it.

I have tried to focus our discussion by providing context for the behaviors of God that you've focused on, as well as trying to point out the illogical nature of accepting certain behaviors "at face value" (the killing of certain tribes in the OT and the issue of creating Satan) without even considering the context of God's character as the Bible states it, the description of God throughout the entire Bible (rather than just the OT), and the reality that your judgments are based on a partial understanding of the circumstances at hand (and little understanding, apparently, about the character of God and how it relates to His actions).

Better luck next time, I suppose.

[hellsapoppin]

Anybody else want to try to ''prove'' that an all loving, merciful, and ever beneficent divine father of unparalleled and unmatchable greatness can, somehow, be all knowing and ever present, yet still not know that a Fall would take place in the Garden of Eden so that he would be helpless to stop such a catastrophic event even though he had forecasted such unhappiness tens of thousands of eons before it took place???