Replacing God With A king
Evangelical Christians would do well to pick up the Bible and review what happens when they lose faith in God, and replace it with faith in a king instead.
1 Samuel 8 New International Version (NIV)
Israel Asks for a King
8 When Samuel grew old, he appointed his sons as Israel’s leaders. [ a ] 2 The name of his firstborn was Joel and the name of his second was Abijah, and they served at Beersheba. 3 But his sons did not follow his ways. They turned aside after dishonest gain and accepted bribes and perverted justice.
4 So all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah. 5 They said to him, “You are old, and your sons do not follow your ways; now appoint a king to lead [ b ] us, such as all the other nations have.”
6 But when they said, “Give us a king to lead us,” this displeased Samuel; so he prayed to the Lord . 7 And the Lord told him: “Listen to all that the people are saying to you; it is not you they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king. 8 As they have done from the day I brought them up out of Egypt until this day, forsaking me and serving other gods, so they are doing to you. 9 Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will claim as his rights.”
10 Samuel told all the words of the Lord to the people who were asking him for a king. 11 He said, “This is what the king who will reign over you will claim as his rights: He will take your sons and make them serve with his chariots and horses, and they will run in front of his chariots. 12 Some he will assign to be commanders of thousands and commanders of fifties, and others to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and still others to make weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. 13 He will take your daughters to be perfumers and cooks and bakers. 14 He will take the best of your fields and vineyards and olive groves and give them to his attendants. 15 He will take a tenth of your grain and of your vintage and give it to his officials and attendants. 16 Your male and female servants and the best of your cattle [ c ] and donkeys he will take for his own use. 17 He will take a tenth of your flocks, and you yourselves will become his slaves. 18 When that day comes, you will cry out for relief from the king you have chosen, but the Lord will not answer you in that day. ”
19 But the people refused to listen to Samuel. “No!” they said. “We want a king over us. 20 Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles.”
21 When Samuel heard all that the people said, he repeated it before the Lord . 22 The Lord answered, “Listen to them and give them a king.”
Then Samuel said to the Israelites, “Everyone go back to your own town.”
Tags
Who is online
535 visitors
Rejecting God
When the Israelites asked for a king in 1 Samuel 8, God says “they have rejected me from being king over them” (verse 7). That was the core of their sin. They wanted to have a king “like all the nations” (verse 5). But God’s plan for Israel was not to let them be ‘like all the nations’! God was their king, and He ruled them directly. He spoke to His people through the prophet Samuel. But that was not enough for them. They did not want a simple prophet speaking God’s words to them. They wanted a strong and mighty king! And they forgot the Lord Himself was their strong and mighty king.
The scepter from Judah
How does this square with the prophecy that the scepter would not depart from Judah? First, the final fulfillment of this prophecy is not found in any earthly king of Israel, but in the Lord Jesus. You can see this from Genesis 47:8: “The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, until tribute comes to him; and to him shall be the obedience of the peoples.” The Bible speaks about ‘peoples’, not just about the people of Israel. Jesus is the King of kings, but his kingdom is not of this earth.
Secondly, undoubtedly this prophecy also finds a partial fulfilment in king David and his royal line. And it is very likely that God would have instructed Samuel to anoint David as king even if Saul had not been king before. Just as God could rule His people through a prophet, He could rule his people through a king. But Israel was not happy with what God gave them at that time, and demanded a king before the time of the Lord’s plan. The result was that they got a king who was ideal in the eyes of man: tall, strong, and brave. Yet his heart was not right with God. And it was clear that this was not God’s perfect plan for Israel: for king Saul came not from the tribe of Judah, but from Benjamin.
Earthly king
So in summary: God was reluctant to give Israel a king when they demanded one because they were looking for an earthly and not a heavenly king; and because they did not want to wait for God’s time. These are important lessons for us. We should seek heavenly and not earthly blessings; and we should not push the Lord to confirm to our time schedule, but trust Him to work out His good purposes in His perfect time.
~LINK~
I will be most interested in seeing the responses to this article.
Good post, Larry.
Why? Some post of Bible verses to try to take a dig at Christians?
I care as much about Christians and there beliefs as I do anyone else who professes to follow a religion.
President Trump isn't any more of a messiah or God king than the fool Obama was.
The left should be thankful that the Hillaryious hag Hillary didn't win with her corrupt ass instead of claiming Christians are worshiping Trump.
Actually I wanted to see the input and thoughts of other members.
You know, an exchange of ideas, unlike your comment.
What horrors did the queen of ugly pantsuits and sensible shoes have planned for American conservatives if she had won the November 2016 election? Conservativers often make this claim but they never are able to articulate her supposed demonic platform.
I once heard that "no sparrow would fall" in bible school.
As do I. This is a precipitous moment for evangelical Christians; We are witnessing the back sliding of the Christian church in America.
Totally agree. What the Christians now say they stand for in their support for someone who is a known repeat adulterer, perpetual liar and racist, which Christians once claimed to abhor as being against their God's laws and Jesus' teachings, they are now happily accepting and turning a blind eye to for the sake of their new Messiah, Donald Trump. They are also turning a blind eye to many other acts that would be condemned in the true Christian faith some time ago.
They are the New Christians. While they profess their Christian piety out of one side of their mouth, they willingly accept, praise and defend a person who lives a life of blatant wanton behavior while touting his own Christian piety to those who are blindly willing to believe him.
These New Christians give the true Christians a bad reputation, as not all Christians have sold their soles to the Devil for a mere 10 pieces of tin foil.
Just my own opinion.
They call themselves Christians, but, their very words and actions speak otherwise of being a true Christian. As you say, their hypocrisy, and adamant defense of the things that make Trump an evident non-Christian and would not be acceptable to a true Christian, makes it way to see their dedication is not to Jesus or his Father, but, to a despot wolf in sheep's wool which makes it easy for him to fool his willing supporters. They will happily and defiantly defend any and all of the despicable behavior committed by him. It truly indicates how depraved they themselves have become in the name of God. And the louder they profess their piety, and defense of their idol they worship, the more they give themselves away as being false Christians. As true Christians would not defend and worship someone of such base and unchristian behavior, no matter who much he declared his piety, when his own actions and words belie his professed piety.
I don't think it will fly with the real God.
Titus 1:15-16
15 To the pure, all things are pure, but to those who are corrupted and do not believe, nothing is pure. In fact, both their minds and consciences are corrupted. 16 They claim to know God, but by their actions they deny him. They are detestable, disobedient and unfit for doing anything good.
Very well said. And so very true. Too bad they don't see it themselves. They choose to blame others who do not walk in lock step with their ideology and belief as being the ones who are not true Christians.
I am not associated with any organized religion, but, rather follow the ancient religious beliefs of my Cherokee ancestors. While we believe in the Creator as a supreme being, it is not in the same manner as Christians worship God. Our beliefs are more Spiritual and attuned with Mother Earth and Father Sky, and all living beings here on earth. We are all connected, and no one of us is more superior than any other. We all must depend on each other, and without Mother Earth and Father Sky, nothing, and no one can survive. Those who feel they are superior to Mother Earth and Father Sky will one day find out how wrong they are. Even the smallest being on earth is important to the survival of all living beings, as well as Mother Earth. Without all beings working together, no one on earth can survive. Every being that is born on the earth has a purpose, and without them the earth will fail to survive.
Hard as it is to swallow, Drakkonis, I see your point. God can use a harsh leader to bring about good at some point. President Donald Trump is one such old dyed-in-the-wool authoritarian personality. It was former FBI Jim Comey who recently stated, 'President Trump is not morally fit to be president but he should not be impeached.' Instead, the people should be forced to endure this president: His strident personality; his audacity of lies. Suffer this president, at least, until God removes him from control over such a rich and diverse people.
By that reasoning, one must then recognize that God picked Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Chairman Mao, Saddam Hussein, et. al. to rule their respective nations.
Yes, and no doubt. If the Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof, then ultimately everybody is responsible to God. Including President Harry Truman and his call to drop two atomic bombs on Japan.
All the horrible things done by the worst leaders in history yet God ostensibly hand-picked these leaders.
Worse, given God is omniscient, He knew that Stalin, for example, would murder ~20 million people. So this is not just poor judgment, this is deliberate.
God picked Stalin to lead the USSR and murder ~20 million people.
God knows what mankind seeking after knowledge of good and evil is capable of bringing to light and accomplishing. TiG! What is your specific point?
Since this sub-thread is discussing Christian doctrine, maybe the following scripture for 1 John 5:19 should also be considered when wondering why God would allow the things you raised.
The evil one is recognized to be Satan, as in "get behind me Satan", after he had offered Jesus all the kingdoms of the earth in exchange for a single act of worship.
Following the Bible sometimes leads one to absurd conclusions.
In this case, if one accepts that God picks the leaders of nations then one must accept that God sometimes places brutal dictators, incompetent boobs and individual who are insane in positions of great power where they can do great harm.
Critical thinking Cal. To try to rationalize a godly pick of Stalin to lead the USSR is to trash one's critical thinking simply because of an ancient book.
I don't think that God has any thing to do with such a low life a Trump. It's more the other side of the coin that has an interest in Trump. I don't think that God would get any joy out of watching the American people suffer under Trumps depraved and repulsive behavior.
I am more interested in how one can possibly believe that the most supreme possible entity - one who is omniscient and omnipotent - would choose Stalin to lead the USSR given the bloody and incompetent results exposed by history.
But, nothing good came of their being picked by God to control their nations. Totally the opposite. And I doubt that it was God that picked them. More likely the entity from the other side of the curtain.
I agree with Raven Wing that the pick came from the opposite side of the curtain and if Christian doctrine is part of the discussion then the aforementioned verse supports that line of thought.
What about that would constitute an absurd conclusion?
That is my point.
That is also my point. I am questioning the biblical notion that God picks our leaders.
Do you not see the point I am making?
I put forth these despicable leaders as examples of why it does not make sense to believe the biblical notion that God picks our leaders.
Absurd Conclusion: God deliberately put a cruel person like Stalin in charge who would, in turn, murder ~20 million people.
Try to rationalize a planet with human life on it possessing limited understanding of the extraordinary powers at their disposal in any era. Clearly, there are forces at work here that you, me, we, do not understand the full-scope of its intent. So, I am not impressed when you single out one truly monstrous human-being. This world's ills are legion, and they were so during the biblical era and prophesied to be so until the end of life on Earth. So, good, good-doers, evil, and evil-doers do not catch us unawares.
You are 'forcing' the discussion into a space that it need not go: I have not asserted God appoints all the Earth's leaders. What role would people play if that was the case? Certainly, people do play a role in choosing their leaders. In the largest scheme, at the highest level, God accepts or denies what mankind puts in place.
Lastly, my reply was tailored to Drakkonis' comment specifically. He makes a statement of faith, which another believer (in God) can accept. You do not believe, therefore you question. There is nothing wrong with asking questions. Additionally, one most be willing to accept others' answers as well. In my worldview, the same God who allows me choice to walk by faith in God's existence, allows you choice to walk by critical thinking to question (and deny) God's existence. There are many dynamics in the world which the Bible does not bother to explain.
I listed several monsters. One can list many more:
History is replete with leaders doing very bad things.
You agreed with Drak's biblical assertion that God picks our leaders. See 3.1.8 below.
... which was in response to this by Drak:
If you disagree with the above in blue then I have nothing further to offer. Do you agree or disagree with the assertion that the Bible says God appoints leaders?
(p.s.) Is it possible that this is an incorrect biblical interpretation? Is it possible that the Bible does not state that God appoints leaders? Thus, biblically speaking, God did not choose Trump?
Hi Raven Wing, my comment is specifically tailored to Drakkonis' comment on what God allows in earthly leaders. Of course, mankind has wide latitude in choosing. I am writing a tad tongue and cheek when I suggest that God will remove President Trump over his lies and strident personality. History is well-stocked with truly dangerous leaders, some still living, who yielded power for terms of duration. Keep in mind, God has seen all these 'fiendish' gems come and go by.
(Smile.)
TiG! Take my comment in its entirety. I am not about to engage with you over where there are dividing lines for God and man in choosing and placing this world's leaders. You are seeking to rationalize God when it is clear we do not have enough information (revelation) to do so. My reply to Drakkonis, as I stated, is of faith!
Thus, I am willing to wait to learn how such questions and details are ultimately answered.
If God is all powerful and God loves mankind then He certainly has a cruel sense of humor considering the men who have risen to power over time. From Caligula to Stalin and Hitler over and over the cruelest tended to rise to earthly power. Consider the poor leadership the endures. If what we currently suffer a godly government, as our leader so often proclaims ours to be, then I would surely hate to experience an ungodly one...
Another non-answer smoke-screen. Might as well just answer every rebuttal with 'the answer is faith'.
Whatever, TiG! Here is the good news for me: It is not my responsibility to persuade you to believe in God.
Yes (dryly). We see a great mixture of cruelty and love in the animal kingdom of which we are a part. The 'Good Book' tells us man crossed God by wanting to know both; good and evil. Well, our condition as humanity, in the Earth, is demonstrative of the two spectrums of the whole - ying and yang - playing out.
Not even remotely close to what we were discussing.
*
wait.. I'm told God created everything.. and Satan was an angel at one point which means... God created Satan so... God did indeed choose those people since he created Satan who chose them, correct ? It all goes back to the origin and to the top, correct ?
This is an argument from incredulity, not an actual explanation as to why God putting such leaders into power would be an absurd notion. Or, we can consider it the non-argument argument fallacy, where you present something shocking and then ask one to draw their own conclusions. In either case, there's no actual reason given why putting such people in leadership would be an absurd thing for God to do.
Stalin was arguably the most monstrous dictator in recent history. But that does not matter because you are arguing 'God works in mysterious ways'. That fall back allows one to argue: 'Sure, Stalin certainly seems like a horrible choice but God knows best. God has a plan and Stalin was a perfect choice in God's plan. We are simply too ignorant to understand why.'
Toss out 'I just believe' or 'God is always right' and one need not apply reason. Those fall backs are not persuasive, they simply end intellectual discourse by claiming universal incoherence.
I would ask you to explain how God could possibly see Stalin as a good choice and thus how you cannot see the absurdity of the choice. But your answer will be something along the lines of God knows the answer even if you do not. Am I right?
The argument could also come form the belief that God is good, while killing millions of people is not, and that makes the two incompatible.
What was "depraved and repulsive" about Obama's behavior" ?
Here's a clue : NOTHING
Perhaps the two are only incompatible in the minds of our flesh. We mere mortals have no knowledge regarding the importance God places on our earthly lives compared to eternity. Ever give thought that our spiritual being has more value in the overall scenario of God's plan?
Not intended to derail, have thoroughly enjoyed the dialogue on this seed. Thanks Larry!
Now you are committing the argument from ignorance fallacy. From the Wikipedia entry on that fallacy:
In other words, you assert your position is true because I can't provide specific information or examples as to why God would choose Stalin. I can state with confidence, because of faith, that God chose Stalin because by doing so it would accomplish some purpose of His, but that I can't explain what that purpose might have been, specifically, does not negate that purpose. It simply illustrates my ignorance of it.
I note, however, that you still haven't explained why God choosing Stalin would be absurd. You throw out a number of people killed, a lowball number I might add, and just expect people to think it is absurd simply because of that number. Again, I ask you, why would it be absurd to think God would choose someone like Stalin?
Thank you LynneA for your valued participation! You may notice that I give a wide and free hand on my articles; there is no greater way to learn and socialize in my opinion than sharing varied thoughts and ideas with friends.
:~)
You need to read up on your fallacies so that you apply them to arguments . Not to questions . I asked you a question . Here is the question :
Fallacious arguments first must be arguments.
I did not merely assert that my position is true. I made an argument (and my argument is not one from ignorance). Here is a more formal representation for clarity:
∴ God placing ( monster ) Stalin in charge of the USSR is absurd (to most human beings)
Now you respond to this logic by disagreeing with premise 3. You claim that God never makes mistakes so no matter how horrible the choice seems to us mere human beings, Stalin really was the perfect choice . Well to ordinary critical thinking human beings, enabling a cruel monster to engage in mass murder is a horrible, tragic choice.
The problem is not a logical fallacy on my part. Rather it is the fact that you play the 'God works in mysterious ways' wild card on premise 3. That wild card makes critical thinking submissive to faith.
Maybe God "chose" Stalin to teach Mankind that we have unearthly appetite for destruction and that some members of the human society are very good at exploiting this appetite.
So....now maybe God is sitting back and asking us if we've learned our lesson yet? I think we haven't and thus trumpy has been unleashed on us.
Largely you have hit on Drak's logic. He posits that God subjects us to evil so that we can learn through the experience.
My response is that since God is omnipotent, He does not have to make people suffer. He could just transfer the intended knowledge right into our minds. All done. People are now fully informed and no need to have Stalin examples anymore.
But God is a sadist
Since Drak has already weighed in on that, I am pretty sure he would tell you that you cannot possibly judge God because you cannot see the big picture. That is, it may look as though Stalin, Hitler, Mao, etc. were net negative brutal murderers but since God is perfect there actually was a necessary reason for God to put these madmen in charge of nations.
But it would be best to pose the question directly to Drak to hear it directly.
For the sake of argument, was President Truman a monster to end World War II by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan? And, were God to override Stalin's so-called "programming" or trigger the destruction of this man outright, how would that equate to a miracle taking place—not allowed by adherents to critical-thinking.
Furthermore, you are compelled to admit you can not possibly know all that God is required to know about this world and its meaning of life and what value God places on human life. You have no 'working' concept of God. You make this abundantly clear when you express an unwillingness ("free-will) to consider special revelation. There is a bit of meta-ignorance on display here: Apparently, you read what we 'say' about God, spirit, and revelation, but you are determined not to empathize or explore with those of us whose lives are spiritually integrated.
Thank you, TG! For this attempt to turn the discussion back on topic: Replacing god with a king!
These men rose through the ranks using their significant free-will granted by God. What is the role of people using their significant free-will to end the rise of such diabolical men and women from rising to power, influence, wealth, and fame? If God has to live humanity's experience - of what use are people?
Besides, God could not allow Stalin, Kim Jung Un, or morally depraved individuals or groups, for that matter, to be significantly free and accountable to God if God overrides their earthly activities. Moreover, it is because of significant freedom that humanity gets to demonstrate a spectrum of moral good or moral evil.
These appear to be questions that would lead off into a tangent. First explain why you are asking.
It is actually a display of not buying what one is selling.
You should stop trying to psychoanalyze people and just engage in debate on the topic itself.
What does any of this have to do with the posit that God chooses our leaders? Not going to chase these tangents.
Er' I have been writing repeatedly that this (line of discussion) is not the topic. What? Do you arbitrarily get to declare what-when subject matter is a tangent?
TiG! I do not wish to psychoanalyze you, I simply wish you to discuss with me and stop discussing at me. There is a remarkable distinction between the two.
What? Do you arbitrarily get to declare what-when subject matter is a tangent?
Then why do you perpetuate this tangent?
You can keep driving off the road all you want Cal unless the author or mods stop you. My statement is that I am not interested in following your tangent. And yes, I get to say when I personally consider something a tangent. We all have the right to render our opinions on something.
You can go back on the thread and answer or not: Your CHOICE. The comments are relevant to the discussion you brought to this thread, in my opinion.
Your choice. I render my opinion, likewise. See? A good example of God not taking away our free-will!
Seriously? Do you really think your questions fall outside the bounds of your argument?
No, you didn't. You simply threw out Stalin and a big number and felt that answered my question. It didn't.
Let me refresh your memory. You said:
I asked:
You responded with:
As you yourself state, this is a conclusion, not reasoning. I then pointed out that this was an argument from incredulity, a logical error. You then simply restate your conclusion while accusing me of arguing from ignorance, which I haven't done. Argument from ignorance states that since we don’t know (or can never know, or cannot prove) whether a claim is true or false, it must be false, or it must be true. I have made no such claim. I have merely asked why you would find God appointing Stalin an absurd choice. Until your post that I am currently addressing you have done nothing but post conclusions. I will now address the reasoning you have now presented.
Before I begin, though, I wish to reiterate the question. What about that would constitute an absurd conclusion?
Here's the important problem with your reasoning. But before I get into what the problem is, I wish to establish just what we're talking about. God's actions. Not just anyone. God. Specifically, would or wouldn't he appoint a Stalin.
That said, point 1 is fine. Points 2. and 3. are not fact, as you claim. Since we are talking about God, you'd be hard pressed to find a Christian, a significant portion of our population, who would call God a monster for ordering deaths in any number. It is true we'd find a human a monster, but not God. He is not in the same category. Also, while we may not like a particular leader and have our own doubts, we aren't going to accuse God of making a "horrible, tragic choice."
Your problem is that you can't logically reach your conclusion in 5. without making assumptions you don't address in your reasoning. Points 2 and 3 suggest that God would or should condescend to human thinking. If so, why?
While point 4 is true enough, it is hardly all that He is. You left out His passion for Justice, for one thing.
But mostly, the problem with your conclusion is that it assumes what you think about who God would logically appoint is valid. It assumes that your view of what God would be after is valid.
So, let me give you my reasoning why God might appoint a Stalin. I wish to stress that it is my reasoning. I do not claim to speak for God as to exactly why He did appoint Stalin. I can't say specifically, but I am confident that my reasoning is more Biblically supportable than yours.
Conclusion. If appointing a Stalin results in more saved people than appointing a Gandhi, then Stalin is the logical choice.
I presented the argument for you to analyze to avoid a sideshow on fallacies applied to questions. Show the fallacy on an actual argument rather than on a question. Yes I am a fan of applying fallacies properly - on arguments. I am not interested in debating fundamentally confused notions. (Sorry for the candor but this is such a waste of time.)
Not playing a game of 'yes I did, no you did not'. You cry fallacies on questions but here fail to recognize arguments when made?
If you recognize a conclusion and then deem it an argument from incredulity does that not even register as a logical problem with your analysis? If you think there is no argument then how can you deem it an argument from incredulity? Enough of swatting flies. Let's focus on the argument.
For context, this is the argument I presented:
∴ God placing (monster) Stalin in charge of the USSR is absurd (to most human beings)
Your rebuttal follows (with my rebuttals on each line item):
No, this is about human beings reasoning about God's actions because, after all, that is all that is possible. God is not weighing in on this and neither of us can claim to speak for God.
That established ...
Yes
Not so fast.
Point 2 = "Those who order mass slaughter are considered by human beings to be monsters." Read that again carefully. Note what is in blue. You really want to claim that human beings do not generally consider those who order mass slaughter to be monsters? Do you not consider Stalin, Hitler, et. al. to be monsters??? Yes, your interpretation violates the words of point 2.
Next, Point 3 = "Most human beings hold that placing a monster in charge -when it is known said monster will commit heinous acts on a grand scale- is a horrible, tragic choice" You want to explain how you (as a bona fide human being) believe that it is a good idea to place a monster in charge of a nation? You really think most people would be in favor of putting a reincarnated Stalin in charge of the USA's nuclear weaponry? (As an example.) Your interpretation also violates the words of point 3.
Now let's deal with your qualifying comments on 2 and 3:
But we have not been talking about God (yet). That is not how logic works Drak. Premises 2 and 3 have nothing whatsoever to do with God. The argument is about God, but premises 2 and 3 make zero assumptions. They are true if a God exists or does not exist.
First, 5 is not the conclusion, so ... Beyond that, points 2 and 3 do nothing of the sort. Again, you are reading from your script instead of literally following what I wrote. The only resolution is for you to be more disciplined and objective in your analysis of my argument. Don't add anything or remove anything.
Why do you bother making that complaint? Point 4 ("God is held to be perfect, omniscient, omnipotent and loving.") is a premise. It was not meant to nor does it need to define God exhaustively. Necessary and sufficient is what matters. So you do not disagree with point 4.
The conclusion is: "God placing (monster) Stalin in charge of the USSR is absurd (to most human beings)". Read the bold blue: "to most human beings". The conclusion is regarding what human beings think - not what God thinks. If there is a God, there is no way anyone could possibly know what He thinks and my argument of course does not presume to know how God thinks. So you missed this as well by not carefully reading what I wrote.
Premise 5, by the way, is "It is absurd ("wildly unreasonable, illogical, or inappropriate") to claim that a perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, loving entity would make a horrible, tragic choice." Note that this is not talking about God either (stay tuned) but rather the attributes. It is making an obvious logical assertion based on definitions of the words used. A perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, loving entity (again, as human beings understand these terms) would not (by definition) make a horrible, tragic choice. For someone to claim that such a being would make a horrible, tragic choice is wildly unreasonable and illogical aka absurd. In fact, I am pretty sure that if I substituted God in this premise you would agree:
It is absurd to claim that God would make a horrible, tragic choice. You agree, right?
But my argument did not insert God. Rather, once all 5 premises are established as true, the conclusion assembles them into a single thought:
"God placing (monster) Stalin in charge of the USSR is absurd (to most human beings)"
So when you claim that God placed Stalin, et. al. in charge, I (as a bona fide human being) consider that absurd. And I think my fellow human beings would also consider that absurd.
In summary, you misread premises 2 and 3 and misinterpreted the entire argument as one of presuming to know God rather than an argument of what human beings would consider to be absurd.
Also, please show the argument from incredulity or argument from ignorance that you inferred from questions. Not there, when you apply logical fallacies to the actual argument rather than individual comments or questions.
Now the question will be if you will actually reread the parts you misinterpreted and then objectively rerun the argument.
This post is devoted to your argument.
1 is definitional. It is defining God.
2 is definitional. It is defining sin as that which man (people) desire
2.a is definitional. It is defining God as entity whose Will people naturally resist.
3 is definitional. It is defining God - in particular a desire of the God you are defining. The desire to rescue people from sin.
4 is definitional. It asserts that the defined God has a plan to achieve His desire
5 is definitional. It further defines God in terms of presenting His plan
6 logically follows from 2 and 2.a
7 is definitional. It provides an essential summary of the plan of 4
Conclusion: Well this is not really a conclusion it is a framework for a different argument. Conclusions are not of the form If ... Then.
Here is the argument you might have made:
∴ It is logical for God to make Stalin the leader of the USSR
Of course you can make any argument you wish using the God wildcard. You can ascribe anything you wish to God and as long as one is willing to accept your definitions as factual (at least for the sake of the argument) your argument will be sound. But note that your conclusion is also dependent upon your definition of God.
However, if God does not exist or if God varies from any of your definitional premises then your argument is unsound.
Ultimately, nobody knows. You do not know if your premises are valid - you simply believe they are. So a fine exercise but ultimately it amounts to nothing more than expressing a belief.
I've never seen so much moving of the goal posts in one posting in my life. Congratulations.
If you are going to make such an offensive claim (in effect accusing me of being intellectually dishonest) you damn well better be prepared to back that up.
Or apologize. Either will do.
Note: 'is definitional' = is presumed to be true by definition for the sake of the argument
You have all night to do so. Later.
this makes no sense - why would a "perfect" entity create an imperfect human being who's natural state is to resist the "perfect" entity's will and intentions ? That would state this "perfect" entity is incapable of creating a creature who's natural state is not to resist the "perfect" entity's will and intentions, correct ? (or that "perfect" entity would have done so since it's his will and intentions for his creations to love, adore and be with him in the "afterlife")
Since you did not respond I figure you are not going to. So I will.
In analyzing your argument ( TiG @ 3.1.61 ) I accepted every premise as ' true by definition ' where that which is defined is 'God'. That is as generous as one can be. To wit, I did not refute any of your 7 premises - those 7 premises essentially framed 'God' for your argument.
Your conclusion, however, was not a valid conclusion. Fact. It is not that I disagreed with what you are trying to argue, it is that a conclusion is a statement that logically follows from the premises. Your conclusion was a conditional statement - it was an argument in itself. Accordingly I offered a way to make your argument in a way that would meet your objective. I offered, by example, this form:
∴ It is logical for God to make Stalin the leader of the USSR
This argument is valid and sound (depending upon how one defines God). The three premises are all hypothetical so one would have to accept them as 'true by definition'. This essentially defines 'God' for the argument and includes the presupposition of 'God exists and is as defined by this argument'. Given this infrastructure, you have a sound argument.
There is not a shred of moving the goalposts. My post supported your argument based on someone accepting your presupposition .
Your general argument, all along, seems to be on similar lines. You have been trying to defend your original claim that it is not absurd to conclude God chooses all leaders. Your defense, in argument form, seems to be something like this:
A : Establish that God will at times pick monsters (in particular, Stalin) to lead
∴ God picked Stalin, Mao, Hitler, et. al. to be leaders of their respective nations
B : Establish that concluding God wrong on any point is simply a flaw of human ignorance
∴ A conclusion that God made a mistake is simply ignorance of God's grand plan
C : Formulate your argument
∴ TiG is wrong due to his ignorance
My Rebuttal
∴ God placing ( monster ) Stalin in charge of the USSR is absurd ( to most human beings )
My rebuttal argument basically states that any argument that yields an omniscient, omnipotent, loving entity putting monsters in charge of nations to then commit unspeakable atrocities is absurd. That is, I am claiming that you have a flaw in your argument. And it is easy to find flaws. In this case, there are several:
While A.3 is a fact, A.1 and A.2 declare with certainty that God appoints leaders. I will accept A.1 for the sake of argument. But, even if you are correct on A.1 (and can support the claim), the critical flaw is A.2 - an assertion that the Bible is correct. This assertion is not only unsupported, but highly refuted to the point that it is absurd to claim the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.
So the conclusion of A is unsound.
While B.3 is a fact, B.1 is simply a claim that needs to be supported. Same with B.2. So the conclusion of B is unsound.
Your C.1 and C.2 are thus unsupported and your overall argument is consequently unsound - a house of cards built upon the faulty A.2 and the unsupported claims of B.1 and B.2.
Of course, you might disagree with my formalization of your argument. If so I would expect you to note the corrections.
Defending the Bible is definitely a highly creative undertaking. One must somehow find logic that causes the Bible to make (at least minimal) sense in spite of all that we know. The result is, at times, a very tortured path of logic. Worse, these tortured explanations tend to contradict each other. This leaves one shaking one's head that anyone could actually believe the offered explanations.
But they really do.
Consider going to the Freedom From Religion Foundation lately? "Mr. Spock" calls the foundation "home." /s
IMO, this is little more than a power grab based on a bastardized reading of, "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."
i.e. Since I don't want to go to hell then I should not want my neighbor to go to hell also. And the only way to do this is to make laws that I, as a christian, want everyone, regardless of what faith they are, must obey so they will go to heaven.
Sounds like Christian sharia law which uses the secular government to enforce their superstitions against "sin". It's profoundly unethical and un-American but that's exactly what most evangelicals do. No wonder they support Trump.
I've said this to a christian a few times, does the government have the right/authority to aid someone to get them to heaven. It would be an interesting question to ask the SCOTUS. Especially when they claim this "right of conscience" garbage.
As a Christian, I'd like to give you my answer to this. Simply put, no. Not in this country, at least. And even in the countries that think they do they are wasting effort, at best. God can't be legislated into someone's heart. The role of government is to enforce just laws and look after the safety of its citizens.
As to your comment on " 'right of conscience' garbage", I'm not sure what you intended to convey, but my opinion is that is one of the things a government should strive to protect. I think that is one of the reasons for the First Amendment.
I'll ask. Do you or anyone hold the opinion that a person or group should be discriminated against or denied a service by a "company" serving the public so that by denying them a service or product it will keep them from going to hell?
I can't speak for "anyone" but for me, no. I don't hold that opinion. Mainly because that isn't how one avoids Hell.
With all due respect, tell that to Hobby Lobby who used a version of this to deny birth control as a benefit or the baker that denied a gay couple "an artistic work" (a cake).
Thank you.
I know a little about the Hobby Lobby thing but not everything. I am unaware that they took the action they did because they thought by doing so it would prevent them from going to Hell. Can you please cite relevant sources as to their stance on this?
In any case, it's my view that an individual, company or corporation is not obligated to provide such a benefit to another. It is not a right.
The owners of Hobby Lobby said they "hold a deeply religious belief" that birth control is some form of murder (a sin). They do not want to be involved in a sinful act because to do so would cause them to be assisting a person to sin and therefore cause their god to punish not just the sinner but those who aid in committing the sin.
They did get a waver not to by using the conscience excuse
The idea Hobby Lobby is somehow intervening between God and sinner by restricting forms of birth control is self-righteousness at best.
My Christian belief systems holds that the Holy Spirit is to convict individuals of sin in their lives, not a corporate entity. Is Hobby Lobby so certain birth control pills are acceptable to God any more than an IUD isn't?
Guilt by association? Or perhaps aiding and abetting in committing a sin? Remember this is a privately held company.
You're losing me. What, exactly, are we talking about? What prevents a person from going to Hell or your view of what constitutes morality on Hobby Lobby's part?
They objected to the use of abortifacients, meds that would induce an abortion. I believe there were 4 of them they would not cover. The other case will be decided soon, very likely in the baker's favor.
What this is about is someone with authority (government, business, family...) trying to impose their beliefs/bigotries (religious, moral, ethical...) on another citizen.
I can hardly wait for that day when this comes back to bite them in the ass.
Guess where I will never spend my money again.
You are certainly free to do so in the 73 page brief filed with SCOTUS.
Or read the synopsis from this sight:
Both Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are controlled by family members with shared religious beliefs. Those beliefs hold that life begins at conception and that any birth control method that may result in the destruction of a fertilized egg is a form of abortion and killing that is forbidden by their faith.
They also believe that supporting and financing their company health care plan in a way that provides their employees with the means to destroy a fertilized egg makes them complicit in a sinful and immoral act. (my emphasis)
Do they oppose all birth control?
No. Their objections were to four of 18 methods required to be provided to female employees under the Affordable Care Act’s contraception mandate. They objected to paying for two forms of the emergency morning-after pill and two kinds of intrauterine device (IUD).
They did not object to providing their employees cost-free access to the most common forms of birth control, including daily birth-control pills.
They also have stock in the morning after pill - talk about hypocrites.
They have stock in one of those morning after pills - complete fucking phonier than thou hypocrites.
I think you are projecting your own opinion as being descriptive of all Christians motives, while I think probably very few think of Trump as any sort of Messiah. God's tool, perhaps, but not a Messiah. My opinion is that many Christians who voted for Trump chose the lesser of two evils. While Clinton may possibly be the less hypocritical, what she stood for was repugnant to many Christians than who Trump was personally. The promises that Trump ran on were more acceptable than the promises that Clinton ran on. Take the abortion issue, for instance. Many Christians were not about to reject Trump in order to make some statement rejecting his personal life if it meant doing so amounted to installing someone into the Presidency who supported what they see as the murder of children. As such, it is more a case of justifying rejecting Trump because of his moral failings compared to installing a President who supports such murders.
Looking at it logically, it would look something like this. You have two candidates, both of whom you find morally reprehensible. The only thing to choose between them is their vision of what should be done with the future of our country. Since you find them equally reprehensible, although not necessarily for the same reasons, which do you logically choose? Would it not be the one who espoused what you yourself wish to see for the future of the country?
Of course, there's the third option. Don't vote for either of them, but that, on a certain level, is not really much of an option. If the majority of Christians had opted for that, it's tantamount to voting for the candidate who espouses the future you disagree with.
In spite of that reasoning, this is the option I took. I voted for neither. My belief is that it doesn't really matter as voting is rigged anyway. Not in the usual sense but in that the Bible says that it is God who appoints rulers and powers. I believe Trump is President because God put him there. That doesn't mean God approves of Trump as a person. That is, it doesn't mean He doesn't care about the reprehensible things he has done. From what I understand of what God has done in the past, as recorded in the Bible, God doesn't put people in such positions because they deserve it or something. He does so because it serves His purpose.
How does that square with free will?
Hard to answer unless we have agreement on what constitutes free will. Can you please tell me what you consider to be free will and how you think it would work?
Yes.
Free will (in a religious context) means that God lets human beings make their own choices. Even if the choices are bad (or horrible), God does not prevent any human being from acting. For example, when Stalin engaged in mass murder or a pedophile rapes and murders a tiny girl and displays her corpse in a seductive pose for all to see (a true case), God does not step in and prevent these acts. In fact when asked why God allows bad things to happen, the most common religious answer I get is 'free will' - it is man who commits the atrocities, not God, because God does not violate His gift of free will.
Okay, then what specifically about what you said here applies to what I said about God appointing rulers and authorities?
As requested, I offered this description of free will:
If one puts this together, God is so serious about allowing us free will that He will not stop us from making truly horrendous choices (and acting upon them). He will let people brutalize helpless innocents because stepping in would violate free will . The list of historical human atrocities is of course long and devastatingly sad.
All this to allow free will but then God makes an exception and does not allow us to freely choose our leaders?
What exception? Free will is about the ability to make choices. It's not a guarantee that your choice will come to be.
Yep, Trump was the lesser of two evils.
If one can make a choice but God intercedes and nullifies acting on the choice, that is not free will.
You are defining free will as the ability to generate a preference (a choice) but God will sometimes hobble your ability to act on your preference. With that loophole, God can interfere with actions all He wishes and still claim we have 'free will'. In result, there is no 'free will' - just the freedom to generate a preference.
When I walk my dog on a leash sometimes he wants to veer off into the grass to investigate an interesting smell. His preference is to pursue the smell. When I use the leash to keep him on the walkway I prevent him from acting on his preference. You would argue that my dog has free will because he can generate a preference. And note that my dog could act on his preference by starting to walk toward the smell. So he was free to act up to the end of the leash where I ended his free will.
Can I claim to have given my dog free will? I would argue that to give my dog free will I need to remove his collar.
It gets worse too. There are consequences of this conditional free will:
Under your definition of free will, a pedophile may choose to rape and kill a young girl. Per your definition, God could prevent this despicable rape-murder. God could stop the acts that He does not want without violating free will. So now 'Why does God let bad things happen to good people?' becomes even more difficult to 'explain'. Next time a gunman murders school children we know that God could have prevented the gunman from killing (e.g. make the bullets disintegrate before impact) without violating his free will (as you define 'free will').
Your 'concern' is not of faith. What do I mean? It means that you are rationalizing God (Spirit) without using benefit of any spiritual oversight. Using your line of reasoning, God could have avoided Jesus (the Christ) dying on the cross. It was Jesus' prayer 'Let this cup should pass from me.' To which God replied, 'Drink the cup.' So how are we, humans, to make rational sense of an all-powerful God insisting the death of Jesus' flesh to accomplish something of divine importance? We do so using spiritual insights, not human reason.
Objectively-speaking, God has not used general revelation to explain anything to you, me, or others about the plan of salvation. However, using special revelation, a strong plan of salvation is established.
Coming back to your analogy. I presume you do remove your dog's collar at some point during the walk or back at home. At this point, you grant your dog assent to exercise its freedom (within parameters you oversight). During those periods of freedom for your animal, you anticipate to deal with the consequences of your dog's actions (for example, biting a neighbor, killing another dog or pet, digging up yards, 'crapping on someone's lawn, running away, . . . .) by passing judgement on the dog's activity. It is clear to all you do not immediately kill or maim your dog for exercising its freedom to perform poorly, badly, or diabolically! Your judgement over the dog suits the larger scheme of the plan you have for your dog in your life.
It makes good sense then, God is much more than any human-being, individually and collectively. That is, God's design, plan, "sum totals" are so much higher than the sum totals of all mankind that there can reasonably be NO comparison to our worldly passing of judgement to God's decisions which regard world's without end. Mankind sees and understands in fragments, God creates and see the whole of the plan for humanity, this world, and other worlds besides.
In order to go farther, this has to be 'dropped' into the spirit of the discussion. . . .
Albeit, I do not know what this has to do with "replacing god with a king." (Smile.)
My comment is specifically focused on the meaning of free will and you are off talking about spiritualism and special revelation.
The point is that the dog has at best a conditional or sporadic free will - free will within parameters. All this talk of judgement is irrelevant to the point so just focus on the 'free will within parameters' part. Free will with provisos and limitations is at best a punctuated, partial free will. Not at all like that suggested by religious views.
Now you are justifying God's conditional free will. The question is not why God would have conditional free will but if God has conditional free will. You seem to acknowledge that God does indeed provide only a conditional free will. That is quite different from free will as described by the religious. In this variant of free will, God could stop a mass murderer from acting on his choice to shoot to death a bunch of school kids. One cannot claim (as is often done by the religious) that God let's bad things happen to good people because of free will. That explanation goes out the window with this conditional free will notion.
So take your pick:
If you pick unconditional then you can continue to explain God not preventing bad things from happening with the 'respecting free will' excuse.
If you pick conditional then God allows bad things to happen and your excuse is basically 'God works in mysterious ways'.
If you are going to discuss God, then you have no choice, no pun intended, God is Spirit - you will have to discuss spirituality and special revelation! Of course, freewill is "partial" God is in control and using your analogy, when God allows for it, man is granted a measure of control. Why does this distinction 'trouble' you?
Every believer humbles himself/herself before God, when s/he comes to a realization of its place in the larger scheme of existence. Consequently, we understand and agree, we are free to follow or not follow until the consummation of our lives and all things. It is an AGREEMENT we can see, because like our faith, this plays out in our daily lives.
God allows us choice: 1. Choose Good or Choose Evil. Even so, many people play along the spectrum (scale).
It is doubtful that, theologically-thinking, mankind will have the power and position to overrule God: That would be the ultimate free-will arrangement.
World religions speak of free-will in this sense above. Sure they abbreviate what is presumed to be understood- once established with congregants and by virtue of continual lessons in spiritual understanding.
Man can not be under God and totally free of God at the same time.
Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. And, my response to this all this is: "Amen." ("So be it.") Clearly, there is a larger scheme at work than I, and you, can perceive.
(We are seriously off-topic.)
Noted.
And to rationalize the fact that God is in control but chooses to allow truly horrible things to be done to innocent people you offer:
Basically 'God works in mysterious ways'.
1. How emotive you are today! How is this helpful in a discussion of this nature?
2. God is supremely patient in giving us space and partial freewill to do amazingly wonderful things and create catastrophic messes. (NOTE: How would we fare with NO facility to choose?)
3. Of course, God is a mystery to us. I daresay, given the choice to remain innocent or not know good and evil—mankind failed the choice-test and now gets to know what he could have avoided (that is; pain, death, destruction).
Consider this: The Bible suggests God acted to remove access to eternal life from Adam and Eve (mankind) after the lost of their innocence. Imagine mankind stuck for all eternity in a state of 'knowing' good and evil and not having capacity to the pain, death, and destruction coursing through human nature?
I'd say partial freewill is about all humanity can abide. God is a mystery for now. Well it is to be so. We have had explained to us, that a 'creature' once tried to displace God based on what it knew of God. It was casted down. Much like mankind was to its "humble" state we know now.
Yes. He patiently watched Stalin murder ~20 million people. He patiently watched the Holocaust attempt to wipe all Jews from the face of the Earth.
Supremely patient in an understatement. Given God does not stop the worst acts of humanity at what point does this punctuated free will kick in? If God is not going to stop the likes of Stalin, Mao, Hitler, et. al. when does God step in and stop a human being from engaging in evil?
any choice with only two things to choose from is a false choice.
the problem with your premise is that it demands god be present every minute. single-mindedly watching every one of us at all times. im sure he has other things to do.
You're emoting, again? You routinely advise others not to argue from emotion, but here you are repeatedly doing so to create a 'situation.' How is this not pretense?
You are surely aware that numberless people, livestock, beasts of the field, creeping things, and world systems have appeared and vanished from the surface of this one planet alone. So using world history as a backdrop, what of mankind's wars in the larger scheme/plan? Moreover, as I have mentioned with you at other times, from God's perspective of creating—nobody God wishes to live can truly die. "So, all live!" The saying goes.
Perhaps, the argument you make needs people to be dead once and for all, in order for your charge against God to stick?
It is very poor form to dream up allegations and especially to try to make the other person the topic. Best to not do that.
I'm positively good. (Smile.)
Do you have a source for this all encompassing rule?
If God is ' not here ' to watch our every move then that is unconditional free will because He is not here to stop people from doing what they wish. However, if He ever steps in and stops a choice, that means free will (from God) is conditional free will.
If God is ' here ' to watch our every move then He either imposes conditional free will OR He allows unconditional free will. Again, if He ever steps in, that means conditional free will.
Either way, free will from God (if it exists) is either unconditional OR conditional .
Binary conditions do indeed exist. Your source has mislead you. Ask the source to show the third choice in: 'assertion X is false or assertion X is true '.
my source is "common sense"
no matter what the question, there is always more than two possible answers.
prove me wrong. take your best shot
your two choices are static and imply nothing will change.
while he is away we will do what we do, = unconditional
when he returns? "steps back in? he will smack down the wicked for their actions and will protect those who follow him for 1000yrs of peace = conditional
so I assert the third choice "BOTH"
both conditions exist, but we can only see one at a time.
,
So your source is yourself.
Apparently you did not read past the first sentence:
And if that was too abstract, here are a few simple examples off the top of my head:
Takes only one counterexample to prove you wrong.
did you read the post above that one?
I assert both conditions exist
3rd choice = both are true and both are false depending on the natural progression of our timeline.
before rapture/harvest = unconditional and after rapture/harvest = conditional
Cheers
Whatever is in effect is true regardless of what we can perceive. In other words, free will provided by God is either unconditional or conditional. He may be absent and thus it looks to us as though free will is unconditional, but if God ever returns and stops one person from acting on their will then free will is (and thus has always been) conditional.
A new claim? What is true today might not be true tomorrow! LOL. Well I agree with your new claim.
My guess is that you do indeed recognize your mistake but would rather attempt to move the goal posts than acknowledge you might have been just a tad too aggressive in your claim.
This is why I can't answer your original question:
Because we do not agree what free will is or what the effect of having it would mean. I believe free will, at it's most simplest level, is simply whether one will choose God or not. Or, put another way, we have the ability to choose to act against God's wishes for our lives. It is not necessary for our choices to be realized for free will to exist. If free will did not exist, we would not have any choices to make. They would be determined by someone/something else. It is the ability to choose, not the result of the choice, that is free will.
I see what you intend here but "preference" is a bad word choice. We all sometimes prefer some choice to another but choose the other because we know it is the better choice. And choice is the better word to use, since preference isn't always the basis for our choices. So, I am defining free will as the ability to make a choice, not to generate a preference, although I can see how they are linked.
God does sometimes hobble our ability to act on our choice but think about what you've said here. God has nothing to hobble unless a choice has been made, correct? How are you able to make that choice unless you have free will to make it?
Further, it isn't the "loophole" you seem to think it is. Your error is in thinking that because we have free will it necessarily constrains His. He has free will as well. He can choose to act as well. His exercising His will doesn't diminish our ability to will although it sometimes prevents us from acting out our will. We can see practical examples of this in our everyday lives.
A child wills to stay up and watch some T.V. program. The parents will that their child goes to bed. That the child doesn't have the power to realize his will doesn't diminish the choice that child wishes to make. The parents cannot prevent the child from willing to stay up. If free will did not exist, the child would not be able to will something contrary to the parent's will.
No, because dogs don't have free will that is comparable to the free will God gave us. Animals are. essentially, running programs. A dog can understand that it doesn't want you to do a certain thing, like poop in the house. It can't understand why.
True.
Not really. But this will take some explaining so I will do so in another post.
yepp.
unless you are here for the rapture/harvest you can only see one at a time.
like motion, what you get to see now, is only a matter of perspective.
are you sitting still or moving? answer? both are true and false.
you are sitting still at your computer and you are moving at about 1000 miles per hour around the earth, while our solar system is moving thru space at about 514,495.347173 Miles per Hour around our galaxy and god only knows how fast our galaxy is moving...
moving vs sitting still?
both conditions are true and false at the same time based on perspective
so back to the god paradox
there is always a third choice. often overlooked, but always there.
Cheers
I have often wondered how fast we must go, and in what direction we must go, in order to not be moving at all.
puzzle on that for awhile
Except that is not a third choice. A choice is made at a point in time. You have equivocated on the word choice and now define choice as all possible choices over time.
Even with that level of silliness at play, your argument fails. Did you read my simplified examples?:
On 1, if your common sense is perfect it must remain perfect over all time. Otherwise it is imperfect.
On 2, you insist that your claim is correct. Yet you are trying to argue that your claim is BOTH correct and incorrect. Just one example shows you to be incorrect over all time.
On 3, this message (or any message) is written by TiG or not. This is absolutely a point in time assertion since the writing of this message is an event. Your time game fails on this too.
On 4, you were born (again an event). That is a single point in time. You are either a single birth or part of a multiple. Again, your time game fails.
What will be your next ploy? Try theoretical physics and claim parallel universes where in one universe you can be perfect while imperfect in another.
I wish there were a simple way to explain it. For instance, I could say, because allowing such things leads people to Himself. Not everyone, but some. But that doesn't really mean much to you, does it? There is a laundry list of things one has to consider to understand why God allows such things. I will tell you why I think He does. I don't intend to present these things as definitive, just reasoning as to why I think He allows such things. And, if you can do it, if you can suspend your own thinking in order to understand mine, you might find that it's reasonable.
Let's begin with the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. Since I believe that God knows what will happen in the future, I believe He knew that we would choose to disobey Him concerning that tree. So why did He put it there? I believe it is because it was necessary in order for us to understand who God is.
Consider. If God had made us without free will, what would we be like? What would we understand? We wouldn't have any meaningful concept of God because we wouldn't have any concept of good and evil. God would just be this thing in our lives. Sure, there'd be no suffering, no death or anything like that, but that would be meaningless to us because we would have no appreciation for their absence. I don't know for sure, obviously, but I don't think Adam and Eve had anything like joy in their lives. To have joy, one would have to have a concept of the alternative and they wouldn't have had that pre-fall. They didn't have any idea of what they had lost until they lost it.
If you can understand that, then the next thing would naturally follow. The reason why God allows the pedophile to rape and kill that child is that if He always prevented it, it would make the reason for the Tree pointless. In order for us to know the horror that is sin we have to experience the consequences of that person's choices. We couldn't do that if God prevented us from acting on our bad choices. We would have no concept of good and evil.
Okay, but how is it fair that some innocent child has to suffer for that pedophile's choices just to teach us about evil? Well, that's basically the point. Evil isn't fair. It is the opposite of fair. I think the intent is something like getting us to understand why such things are wrong. You can't do that without understanding the difference between good and evil. But that understanding isn't the ultimate goal. The goal is to choose good over evil. That is, God is the embodiment of what is good and all else is evil.
Well, you might say, it's obvious in such a case so there is no reason for God to allow such a thing. If so, why? Why is it obvious? Would it not be because God both allowed us a path to know the difference between good and evil and also allowed us to experience the result of those consequences? That is, how can we know the horror of a pedophile raping and killing a child if He prevents it from ever occurring? As an aside, I suspect that such things don't occur nearly as often precisely because God does prevent them. I can't prove it but I suspect it to be true.
There's probably more I could say but I would hear your response to what I've written here.
To determine that you'd have to come up with a fixed point of reference and a compelling reason as to why it should be considered so.
Apparently not. If free will is simply the ability to make mental choices even if God prevents you from acting on those choices then it seems to me we are nothing more than pets.
If Drak wants to eat a hot-dog but God says no then God wins. You say that Drak still has free will because he can choose to eat a hot dog. So in your free will world, people are free to think but are not free to act. Okay, so then (as noted earlier) a pedophile who rapes and murders a little girl was free to conceive of his horrible act but God could have stopped him without taking away his free will (as you define it). As with Stalin conceiving of and actually acting on the murder of ~20 million people, God could have stopped him without taking away his free will.
This is the consequence of how you define free will. God is able to prevent these monsters from their horrendous acts but chooses to let them act anyway. And unfortunately I know what you will say - you will assert that these acts seem heinous to us but actually they are part of God's grand plan. You do not seem to recognize, then, the possibility that God might be cruel - that God might be evil. Certainly explains why He put Stalin in charge.
How do you know that God did not give free will to animals? I know that my dog certainly makes choices so that fits your definition of free will. How can you possibly know God's use of free will?
God gets what God wants. You are arguing that God is incapable of providing His creations with an understanding of God except to run us through pain and suffering. Is God omnipotent or not? If you hold that God is not omnipotent and is limited in what He can do (a tough claim given this God created the universe) then your argument has merit. Let's say that the God of the Bible is not really the most supreme possible entity but rather a really powerful alien. This alien cannot wire into our minds what he wants so he has to use alternate methods. That would make sense. But applying this reasoning to an omnipotent, omniscient entity does not work.
Works for an alien with hobbled power. For an omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything this simply translates into cruelty. God can give us any knowledge He wishes (as He is defined).
Yeah. I wonder how many more school shootings God is going to allow to occur before He concludes we understand the evil at play.
What is it you want to read?
God to take away your partial free-will—of anything that remotely resemble the world you have come to be fascinated within? Or, is this a way to indicate God can not possibly ever exist - or, exist in the now? What is the 'play' here?
You keep coming back with Stalin. Well, there have been billions of deaths not involving dictators and evil-doers. There is sickness, natural deaths, gory accidents, major disasters, and run-of-the mill psycho killers. Moreover, through all our earth's man-made calamities:
So which is the gripe? A. God is cruel because the world loses too many people? Or, B. God is cruel to increase creation of many, many more people?
For simplicity I am not tossing out a bunch of varying examples. There are endless examples of human cruelty. You are complaining about form - a form that is designed for clarity.
Nothing I have written is a 'gripe'.
Neither option A nor B has anything to do with the point I made. Worse, it is a false dichotomy. Your question is both butt-ugly and malformed.
I will just quote myself since you did not read it:
If I were to argue that the God of the Bible cannot possibly exist I would not be using free will. Rather I would focus on omniscience and perfection.
I'm out of time for tonight. I need to get to bed, but I couldn't let this pass. I've explained God's omnipotence to you before but apparently you ignored it. Otherwise, you wouldn't have said this.
The problem here is the definition of "omnipotence" as applied to God. Your definition seems to be that God would be able to do anything you can imagine or more. My definition is that it means God can and will do anything He wills to do. Do you understand the difference? I don't think you do.
God cannot make 2+2=17. Defining omnipotence as being able to do so is an incorrect understanding of the word as it applies to God. 2+2=4 and God would never will it to be otherwise.
If that is true, then I think it is also true that God cannot teach us the difference between good and evil without our experiencing it. That is, we can't understand it in the way He intends us to understand without experiencing it. Sort of the difference between academic knowledge and personal experience.
Not a great way to start. Maybe I was not persuaded by your argument.
Are you suggesting that God cannot put knowledge into the minds of His creations? If not then this insulting post has no merit.
And where do I make such an unreasonable claim? Again, are you saying God cannot put knowledge into the minds of His creations?
Why? Explain why God cannot put knowledge into the minds of His creations.
Who says? Where do you find this limitation on omnipotence ?
That is based on human power. We are talking God - omnipotence.
It isn't relevant whether you are persuaded or not. The point is that by now you should know that I reject your definition of omnipotence you claim pertains to God. Therefore, asking me questions based on your definition is misleading at best.
Since we weren't talking about God doing such a thing, no. I wasn't addressing this at all, let alone suggesting it. Rather, it seems to be an attempt to continue the argument according to your definition of omnipotence. Since you consider God to be a human manufactured construct, God should have whatever capabilities we can imagine.
But to answer your question anyway, whether God could or couldn't is not as relevant as whether His doing so would have much, if any, effect. You leave out the other half of the equation. Us. God gave us the ability to know good from evil. We can tell the difference between good and bad. So in a sense, God has done what you are suggesting. Yet we still have the world today where pedophiles do what they do.
But this isn't precisely what you meant, is it? Rather than experientially having to learn, why doesn't God just pop it into our heads? Because the result would be the same thing anyway. Free will, remember? Add to that the problem of our sinful nature and you get exactly what we already have.
Pretty much every time you ask "Why can't God just..." You don't see God as a real person so you don't attempt to actually understand who He is. Therefor you do what everyone who doesn't understand Him does. Just ascribe to Him whatever capabilities you think He should have as God.
Again, you're attempting to force your definition of omnipotence but no matter. Even if we use it for this question, by now you should know that the limitation is us.
Again, your definition. Again, you're leaving us out of the equation.
What is clear to the believer is God wants creatures to love God (or some such valuation). You seem to be arguing that God can make creature-automatons: by taking away even massive amount of partial free-will. Or, as I stated before and I stand by it, you are arguing there is no god and what we see is man operating in absolute free-will.
As to the rest of your comment, it is irrelevant. Insults have little to no value.
Furthermore we are speaking pass each other, it seems in part (if not all) because you insist on stripping out words and phrases of spiritual insights, choosing to enter and hold hostage faith-based discussion with critical thinking alone. I do not have this "luxury." I have spiritual insights and Spirit within me to contend with and reason from with suitable respect.
Well, since it is arguing from a disadvantage of lacking willingness to use spiritual insight, all those "omni's" will appear in monochrome. Now please, help me navigate back to the topic of this discussion.
You do not have the right or the ability to declare a definition for an English term and insist that everyone immediately follow your definition. Omnipotence per Oxford is defined as follows:
When applied to God most every religious person I have come across views God as having unlimited power. Thus ' my ' definition is not something I invented, it is common usage . Your demand that I simply adopt your definition of omnipotence is rejected. When I write comments using omnipotence in reference to the biblical God the meaning is common usage, not Drak's definition.
Further, by omnipotence I am not insisting that God is able to do that which is impossible . That is a straw man. Omnipotence (common usage) does not mean that God can ' make a rock so big He cannot move it ' or other logical nonsense. It means the ability to do anything that is possible to do.
Going back to your original insulting post, you wrote:
Show where I define omnipotence as the ability to do anything I can imagine? Your definition says that God can and will do anything He wills to do .
Can God put knowledge into the minds of His creations or not?
Here is the non-answer you just gave:
Suggests you are actually going to answer the question.
But no. Question deflected and deemed irrelevant; new flawed question formulated by Drak and answered so as to reveal the embedded flaw and pretend the flaw lies with my question. Note the annotations designed to clearly show why your reply is a non-answer.
Redirecting back to the original question. In general, you suggested that God has provided a world of good and bad as a necessary learning experience for His creations. I asked you why an omnipotent God could not simply put this learned knowledge into the minds of His creations. After working through your omniscience smoke screen we come upon this pseudo answer wherein you acknowledge that God can indeed put (some) knowledge (good vs. evil) into our minds but you cannot quite acknowledge my actual question. You offer that God put knowledge of good and evil and then suggest that this knowledge transfer thing does not work and then imply that this is what I suggested.
So let's be very clear:
Since God can put knowledge into the minds of His creations then logically whatever we might learn through suffering could simply be placed into our minds. Thus the suffering is gratuitous. No need to have pedophiles raping and murdering little girls to 'teach us' of evil.
If God wanted to put the knowledge in our minds then even by your definition of omnipotence God could indeed do so. God apparently wants suffering so how do you explain that (without going in circles)?
That is not what I have argued. Unless you think that God placing knowledge into our minds turns us into automatons. If so, you need to explain your logic.
That would be a different topic (but yes I do not believe there is a god and I suspect we have no free will - that our complex behavior is ultimately the consequence of a deterministic reality - but nobody knows (yet) if reality is deterministic so ...).
Now stop trying to read things into my comments. I think that is what is causing you to be confused about what I write. Just read my words.
'Spiritual insight' seems to me to be a profound disadvantage.
you may laugh but what you can not do is show me anything there is only one of.
if there is one of anything? there are two of those things. if there are two? there is another one. result? always 3 or more things to choose from.
direction? up, down, sideways
electricity? positive, negative, ground
sex? male, female, hermaphrodite = both male and female conditions exist at the same time.
( but wait... someone said two contrary conditions existing at the same time is impossible? not so much )
prove me wrong?
is there one sun in all of existance? no.
is there only one god? no.
god said: "the man has become like US. he has eaten from the tree of knowledge... yadda yadda
the word US implies he is not alone and not so special in the group... probably just the guy running the experiment... ha
god said "put no other god before him... he never said there were no other gods. just that he was the top god.
Already done (@ 3.3.29 ):
funny thing how people tend to ignore the third choice.
example. typical political argument goes like this...
save the trees OR save the loggers jobs.
third choice? BOTH conditions can exist at the same time.
how? plant two trees for every one cut down. = everybody wins
another one....
raise taxes OR reduce spending
again... just do a little of both.
the choice of this or that? always a false choice.
people like to ignore that third choice because they only want their side to win.
and, it all seems kinda silly to me.
Cheers
pick any situation with only two supposed choices?
and I will gladly show you the third choice you ignored or simply did not see.
try it if you have any balls (yes some people even have 3 balls)
there will always be, this. that, the other thing, and then another thing.
this? one ball
that? two balls
the other thing? 3 balls
another thing? no balls
LOL
God has placed information in our minds over thousand of years and allowed us choice and space of how and when to use it. You wrote:
Of course, God has the masterplan! Of course, the masterplan is playing itself out.
You can not argue God in a vacuum. I have to try and understand where you are going with this, because you do not often establish your endpoint. Now then, you write:
One, you do not believe in God. Two, I think I prior read you believe in Chance (universe) ? Three, in this case, what in nature would be determining our future (beyond the laws of nature)?
I am not confused, my brother! Note: I am a tad distracted at this time. So if I missed any consideration that is important, forgive me.
or perfectly imperfect - like the chaos theory "expect surprises"
or the claim remains unprovable either way forever.
or written by someone who says they are tig when in fact they are not = no way to prove which condition is true from way over here.
or I could have been the victim of a partial birth abortion.. here and gone in the same timeline. or time game as you call it.
3 conditions still exist.
is a baby considered alive at conception? at birth? or sometime in the middle? again... always 3 choices.
my aunt and her husband use the same screen names on all accounts email and social stuff.
any post under that screen name could be written by...
Cheers
I can choose to...
Cheers
Since all of your recent attempts are silly and reveal no real understanding of the concept of a dichotomy I will pick this most recent example. Note I am 99% confident that you do not seriously think you are making any sense but in the rare chance that you are utterly confused I offer this:
Here is one of several examples I gave of a dichotomy:
Now pay very close attention:
The only difference in those two sentences is the binary NOT. There cannot be a third option. So now let's look at your entirely confused attempt to find a third option that cannot possibly exist:
Let's now pick your aunt as the subject:
Given the existence of post X, either condition 1 is true or condition 2 is true.
And when you pretend to not understand this I hope everyone here laughs at you.
What sort of response do you expect me to offer here?
I do not believe (as in holding something true without suitable evidence) in chance. Reality may be deterministic. If so, chance is an illusion. Nobody knows (yet).
Existence itself. Refer to my article on existence.
Determinism: If Existence is God, or Existence caused God's emergence, then you are explicitly stating Existence bears complete responsibility for every action taken by God and man, no?
This is better suited in a different forum. If existence itself is sentient (to be determined) and reality is deterministic (to be determined) then existence would be ultimately responsible for everything. Not sure it makes a lot of sense to assign responsibility if existence is not sentient - at best one would have to simply note existence as the root cause.
Now, based on past experience with you on conditional language: Note the use of conditional language. The words if, and, then are critical to understanding.
and
Message x was written by tig and he lied about that = knowing I could not prove otherwise. leaving me to play Schrodinger's cat and just assume all conditions are true at the same time or false at the same time depending on my mood. why? perception is reality until proven otherwise
well then, that sounds fun enough to me also.
but the truth is...
1 win, 2 lose, or 3 draw.... nothing we can do about it.
always at least 3 choices my friend.
Cheers
there is a difference between a choice and an event
I said always three choices
your sticking to things there is no choice about./ but in most cases others do have that choice...
try this...
begins with your 3 choices (not mine)
my 3 possible choices now?
the world is not simply 1. black and 2. white... there are shades of 3. grey
Cheers
You are correct. I don't believe I have done so. I think that is what you are doing. As you said, omnipotence is defined as...
… but then you say it means:
If that is what it means, then why doesn't the definition say that instead of what it does? I understand why you think they amount to the same thing but they do not. God is omnipotent. His power is infinite. That He is limited by His nature does not diminish His power in any way. That is, it isn't a lack of power that prevents God from sinning, it is His nature.
Okay.
And...
This is something you came up with. It isn't based on any actual rationalization except what you think omnipotence in God would mean. You are assuming that because God is omnipotent He therefore must be able to bypass the suffering and just stick what He wants into our heads and still achieve the results He desires. There is zero basis for thinking so except your own idea of what omnipotence would mean. In other words, this is your imagination.
And here is the deception you just tried to pass. Here is the question you actually asked me, which in itself was a deception.
First, nothing I have said could possibly be construed to suggest such. What you did here was introduce a new element into the discussion that you wanted and attempted to make it seem it was I who was doing so.
Second, I literally answered your question.
But since I saw what you were attempting I answered to the best of my ability. Apparently you found it unsatisfying. Apparently you want a yes or no answer. I don't have one for you. First, because I don't know and second, because the issue is too complicated to be answered with a yes or no.
This is entirely you and follows from nothing I said.
No, not by my definition. Not unless you twist what I said into wreckage.
It does. I added the qualification of 'what is possible ' to placate you. Remember how this started. I referred to omnipotence here - read carefully what I wrote:
Implicitly this defines omnipotence of God in a conventional way - God gets what God wants. God is not limited in what He can do. Inexplicably you objected to that:
Note how you add to the definition I offered with ' do anything you can imagine or more .' I never wrote anything of the sort - this is your initial straw man. Note then what you offer as a correct definition: ' God can and will do anything He wills to do '. Compare the two summary definitions:
These seem almost identical in meaning. Yet you object. So let's read the rest of your post to see the specifics of your objection:
Here you put your straw man into effect. Nowhere do I demand that omnipotence means being able to do the impossible . Yet you are here pretending I did. You continue with:
Yet I did NOT define omnipotence to include the impossible. The problem is the straw man you introduced.
That review exists to establish a context for my rebuttal to your most recent post. Note that your opening complaint (your straw man) is that omnipotence does not mean that God would be able to do the impossible (in effect). No 2+2=17, no doing whatever one can imagine. Just what is possible. So I note your concern (even though my opening definition did not impose impossibility) and we move on through further semantic nonsense ultimately to arrive at our most recent posts where I offer the Oxford definition of omnipotence and the common religious view of omnipotence as it applies to the Christian God. Proving this is not 'my' definition but rather the common definition as evidenced by Oxford:
You acknowledge the Oxford definition (even the unlimited part) but then take issue with my paraphrase:
I purposely include 'that is possible to do' for clarity to stop these pointless semantic games. That was in direct reference to your opening straw man complaints:I purposely and explicitly preclude the impossibility requirement that you complained about upfront (in your opening straw man). And you complain that I precluded your original complaint!
Show me that you are not playing an endless game of ' we have different definitions of omnipotence ' as a perpetual deflection. I have spent time to lay this all out with quotes and links. It is time for you to now be extremely clear as to what is wrong with the definition I have offered (Oxford per religious views) ... in summary:
God has unlimited power to do anything that is possible to do. ... basically God gets what God wants.
Show me precisely how that is incompatible with your definition of:
God can and will do anything He wills to do.
This post is focused exclusively on the definition of omnipotence. No point going any further until this is resolved.
Worthless insults are irrelevant. Now deciding what forum should discuss what? Unbelievable! Start the conversation anew in a different forum: I will come. Let's test how sentient your concept of Existence is there. Or just. . . .
Oh, and come prepared to discuss more than general revelation. Or, simply do not bother wasting the time and space.
Distinguish between a suggestion / opinion and a command.
Now this little gem you offer, Cal, is a command. Nice little bit of irony.
Stop working so hard to pick a fight. That goes directly against the objectives of this site.
. . . .
Agreed.
Which baffles me, as it is the way you treat 'what is possible' that I object to. Hardly placating if that was your intent. So, anyway, you ask me to read carefully what you said. I will respond to what I think you are saying.
Since we are talking about omnipotence, I think you are saying that God gets everything He desires and if He does not then He can't be omnipotent. If so, I do not agree.
God does not get all that He desires. 1 Timothy 2:3, 2 Peter 3:9 and Ezekiel 18:23 express God's desire that all would be saved, but it's clear that not all will be. That God allows us to choose doesn't diminish His omnipotence since God can obviously choose to allow us that choice.
Again, within the context of omnipotence, I see this as saying that if God cannot do so, He is not omnipotent. That is, it is the point you are aiming toward.
As an aside, I did not argue that. I explained why I think God allows suffering. I was not attempting to why God allows suffering rather than just stuffing the knowledge in our heads. That is your argument.
Yes, but what we are debating is what omnipotence means.
I do not understand your point here. You seem to mean "If you hold that God is not omnipotent and is therefore limited in what He can do... If you don't mean that, then what you've written makes no sense to me. I don't understand how you think it would give my argument merit.
You seem to think this follows from your reasoning in the previous quote. Again, I totally don't follow you.
Yes, you did. When you suggest that God can just stuff the required knowledge into our heads and bypass the suffering you are doing exactly that because you have no idea whether or not God can do such a thing. Your only basis for doing so is your idea of what omnipotence means. You think that an omnipotent God would be able to do such a thing, so therefore it follows that God could. That is neither logical or supportable.
I understand why you think so and, in truth, they are very close, but they aren't identical. To me the difference is, however, profound.
God wanted Israel to be a nation under God which would be an example to the rest of the world that would lead to Him. He did not get it. Israel failed miserably.
Although God did not get what He wanted, it was His will to find another way to accomplish His goal. That's a bit misleading because it makes it sound as if He came up with the plan as things progressed. In actuality, it was in place before time began. He knew before creation He would not get what He wanted so He had a plan that didn't depend on humans, but rather, Himself.
I disagree. The idea that God can just stuff the knowledge into us without suffering is your idea, not mine. The problem with it is you don't have any idea whether God can do that or not and get the results you think would happen. I don't know, either, but my guess is that He can't because if He could, I think that is what He would have done.
But I don't think He could because you are leaving human nature out of the equation. What makes you think that having all that knowledge would prevent us from sinning, especially when sinning is our nature? How would that work? How do you do it without eliminating free will? If we don't have free will, how can we understand good and evil? If we don't understand good and evil, how can we really know God?
I can't think of any other way to explain it to you. Your idea that God can just stuff the knowledge into us is just that. Your idea. You present it as given that an omnipotent God would be able to do that without any basis in logic except your definition of what an omnipotent God would be able to do, again, a definition based on your idea. If God exists, that he doesn't do as you think He should certainly suggests that it amounts to 2+2=17. That is, God can't arrive at the result He wants the way you think He can.
Why does this baffle you. I laid this out clearly in the prelude. Explain this complaint of yours:
If you are not complaining about demanding God do the impossible then please explain what you actually meant. And then explain this:
Again you presume that I am putting unreasonable demands on God (which I did not do). Explain this. I laid it all out.
I said that God gets what God wants. That means if God wants something then God gets it. (Of course we presume God does not want that which is impossible.)
So let's put that with your operative definition: " God can and will do anything He wills to do ." Are you saying that God can take any action He wishes but that God cannot ensure the results? He can act but He does not have the power to always ensure He gets what He desires?
The question though is if God can act to ensure all will be saved. Can He (as you define God)?
How about just answering the question? You may not see this, but the above is a blatant dodge. (Note how you did not answer the question in any way.)
It is my question of you. It is actually a challenge to your definition of God.
You pulled a question from an old quote included in my post (and clearly shown as a quote). Obviously I did not ask that question in my post so why pretend that I did?
Again you are asking questions about an old quote as if I had just wrote this stuff. Get aligned with the current context or this will never make sense. But I will say that you seem to (in this context) defining God with limited power. If God can act but cannot always ensure He gets the results He desires then do you not realize that is a limitation? Logically?
Okay, seems like a reasonable thing for an omnipotent creator of everything to be able to do, but sure I do not know the limits. Neither do you. So your definition of God holds that God may not be able to put knowledge in our minds? Your definition of omnipotence is getting pretty weak. You think this is how your fellow believers think of omnipotence?
Uh ... yes, I would think that the most supreme possibly entity - the creator of everything - an entity described by many as all-powerful, all-knowing, omni-present, perfect and loving (among other wonderful attributes) would be able put knowledge into the minds of His creations. You find that illogical but you do not say why. You find that unsupportable and I agree, but your view is also unsupportable because, point of fact, nobody really knows God or even if a god exists. It is all just faith. So tell me why it is illogical to expect such an entity to be able to put knowledge in our heads rather than force endless generations through horrors and suffering?
I now (with this post) better understand your position. Also, I think my expectation is perfeclty reasonable (see above). However, the more you write the less potent God becomes. Keep it up and He might just disappear altogether. Funny thing, if He did disappear, the evidence would not be any different than what we currently have. (Just a side note.)
Well since God created our nature I would think he could change the programming as He desires. (As God's powers fade even more.)
Well, gee, per Drak we cannot really act on our free will choices unless God allows it so free will is not all that big of a deal either. Free-will-light. Also, so what? If God wants His creatures to learn lessons so badly that He will subject countless generations to horror and suffering, He might not really care that much about free will. But nobody knows, right?
God could simply give us the knowledge. Did I not mention that already?
FOR FUTURE REFERENCE
I disagree with how you define omnipotence. Not because of personal reasons but because it flies in the face of how religious people (based upon my observations) define omnipotence. Your definition of omnipotence is certainly more reasonable (no entity can be as described in the Bible) but you seem to be on the fringe. I am going with the most common meaning of the word. Just note that in the future to avoid confusion. I am not simply going to adopt your definition.
Just for the record, I am equipping myself to address. . . . others without the use of the personal, "you", in my discussions. I find a small quantity of commenters are sensitivity to this word. Good night!
That is actually a very good way to catch oneself from getting personal. It is still possible to make the other person the topic if one is set to do so. However, if one avoids pronoun and direct references chances are good that one will catch oneself in the act of taking things personal.
Also, is it really that some people are 'sensitive' or is it more that the point of NT is to discuss topics and not each other?
Well, some people are doing. . .something here. Whatever's clever. Also, for the record, I routinely edit my comments using the "clock" and it was late last night, thus "sensitive" came out "sensitivity." Still, in context of the sentence, everybody can put it together. Fhit happens!
How many times do I have to explain it? I don't object to "Omnipotence is the ability to anything that is possible". I object to what you think it means. I'm not presuming you're putting unreasonable demands on God, I am telling you that you are putting demands on God you don't even know are possible. Your only basis for your demand is, as you say:
That it seems reasonable to you doesn't make it possible. You say you don't know the limits but it doesn't seem to make any practical difference to you. You still insist that God can stuff the knowledge into us as if you did know it is possible, simply because you think it's a reasonable attribute for God to have. Most of your argument is based on it. You presume God can do it so therefore, all this suffering is needless. You need it to be true for your point to stand.
Uh, yeah. You said it and I thought it was relative to the point. I'm not going to stop doing it.
What? I wasn't defining God. I was talking about what YOU said. Read it again. I was talking about what you seemed to be saying.
Your question assumes God putting knowledge in our minds that would allow us to bypass all the suffering is possible. If it's possible but God doesn't, He's a monster. If it's possible but He can't, He's not omnipotent. And you make it out as if it is my definition when clearly it is not. It's yours.
My definition remains that God can do anything He wills to do. And, as I have stated before, it may be impossible to stuff the knowledge into our heads, or, if not, it would not have the effect you think it would. Just because it may be possible (we don't know) to stuff it in there doesn't mean we, being creatures of free will, would not still turn out as we did. That it would solve the problem is another assumption on your part.
Yes, that is what you think. But just because you think so doesn't make it so. But you keep on keeping on, even though you know this is true.
You know, we Christians are usually the ones accused of magical thinking.
Yes, I have. All I am doing here is repeating what I've said before. There's nothing new here and it explains why your argument is not logical. Because it isn't based on fact. Just what you think should be.
Whether God exists or not is relevant to this topic. That is, it doesn't matter one way or the other. Even if He doesn't exist, it doesn't make my view unsupportable. The reason is that we (Christians) have at least the concept of God. All that is necessary is that my argument logically conforms to that concept.
Because we are, or at least I am, arguing within the context of the God described in the Bible.
First, our nature was not at first what it is now. We chose to sin and that changed us.
Second, He is changing the programming. What do you think Christianity is about?
Apparently you've forgotten that we don't agree on the definition of free will, either. Free will is the ability to choose differently from God's desire for us, not the ability to act out our disobedience. Also, as I've said before, just because we have free will doesn't mean God can't act according to His.
I don't understand the connection you're trying to make.
Yes, without providing any reasoning that He actually can in the manner you intend beyond:
I guess it depends on the Christian. I think that if we had this debate in front of 20,000 of them, you'd find very few in agreement with you.
I learned that omnipotence doesn't mean the ability to do anything at all. Omnipotence is power without limit, wielded by an individual in order to effect will.
Yes, you are. But insisting that this is the definition that must be used in discussing omnipotence as it pertains to God is an ad populum argument. That is, just because it is the most common meaning doesn't mean it is right for this discussion. It just makes most people wrong about what constitutes omnipotence concerning God.
In transit so no way to reply at this point but will do so when I again have the ability to quote.
Not a problem.
I keep coming back to this. You quoted me and apparently this is your comment on it. I understand your complaint portion. I don't understand how what is in red does. It's as if you've left the quote and are now talking about something else.
In any case I will answer your question in the red portion. I will try to be as specific as I can, so first I will define what I think we are talking about.
Point 1, God is omnipotent, which I believe I defined as God can do whatever He wills to do. I don't believe I said "God can and will do anything He wills to do." You changed it and I don't know why. Part of your objection seems to be that if God wills to save all mankind, but doesn't, this disproves omnipotence. Understandable, but it's too simplistic to describe reality.
As I pointed out earlier with the scripture I provided, God does will to save all mankind. So He provided a way for this to happen in Jesus Christ. Christ's sacrifice is sufficient to save every human who has ever lived or will ever live. A free gift that anyone can accept. It is in no way based on merit. It is a completely one sided offer on God's part because He decided to.
Point 2 is answered with free will. The knowledge you speak of God just putting into our heads is the knowledge of what He wants from us. He wants us to turn to Him in a loving relationship. To be our God and us His people, living as He intended. But God cannot give us free will and force us into that relationship. You cannot logically give someone free will and then causally prevent them from using it. It's a triangle with four sides.
It that is true, then even if God put the knowledge there it wouldn't mean the outcome you are thinking of. You still have free will, and still have a sinful nature. God is giving you this knowledge through me and others like me who tell you about Him and what He wants and you still reject Him.
Alternatively, even if God had put the knowledge there before the fall, there's no guarantee that the free willed person could still choose against God. Satan certainly had this knowledge. He was the highest created being there was, in the very presence of God, night and day or whatever they have in Heaven. Yet he chose what he did.
Point 3. God doesn't always get what He wants but that doesn't diminish or limit His omnipotence. God wants people to choose to love Him. I don't think it is possible for Him to force someone to love Him. God wants all to be saved but it has to be on His terms. People reject them. Would you not find the idea of yourself being forced to love God monstrous? Would forced love even be love? Can there be such a thing? Imagine Richard Dawkins being forced to love and acknowledge God.
There is an interesting article called the Logical Problem of Evil . It has quite a lot to do with what we are talking about here. You might find the table of the four worlds and the discussion concerning them most relevant to this discussion. Perhaps it would get us closer to being on the same page.
Omnipotence is the ability for God to do anything that is possible. That works. But you poison the well for reasoning on this attribute by declaring what is possible is unknowable - in result, all reasoning is invalid. Given this requirement we would have to first get God to tell us whether or not something (like putting knowledge into the minds of His creations) is possible before we can even begin a discussion.
I agree. One cannot possibly know what God can (or cannot) do because no-one actually knows what is possible. If you would like to move from 'sensible' reasoning (e.g. offering reasonable expectations of what an omnipotent entity could do) to 'absolute' reasoning (i.e. reason about only that which is known) then I am good with this.
Going to 'only God knows' changes everything. We chuck everything we think we might know about God and hold onto only that which we truly know. Knowledge that God has actually provided. Accordingly, no human being can know anything about God. Any logic one applies to formulate a definition for God is necessarily speculation. One cannot even know if it is possible for any god to exist, much less have special knowledge of attributes such as omnipotence.
Good way to proceed IMO. Go with critical thinking based on solid evidence. No trusting the words of ancient men or trusting the opinions of modern human beings. All hearsay and speculation. And certainly no trusting 'feelings'.
Being consistent, you should recognize that the only thing that you can say about God (defined as the creator of the universe) is that God might exist and that God might 'be' anything. Toss out those holy books and the whole of religion.
The point, of course, is that you do not get to define and attribute a God based on what seems reasonable and logical (to you) and then declare reasonable and logical challenges to your definition invalid unless the challenger has absolute knowledge of your God.
[ Do not have time to continue ... currently traveling. Will try to finish when I have another slice of time and the proper equipment. ]
I prefer the third option. The one I've been arguing from. Not what is sensible, because what is sensible isn't the same from person to person. That is why there have been so many different religions throughout the ages.
Nor what is "absolutely known" reasonable for discussion for the reasons you point out.
The one I've been arguing from is what is known about God through the Bible. Whether God exists or not is not necessary for this debate. The only thing necessary is, does what the Bible say about God concerning what we've been talking about logically stand up.
I have not been defining and attributing God based on what seems reasonable or logical to me. I've been debating based on the definition based on the Bible. He has been the subject from the beginning. If you feel you can't debate that then just let me know. We need not go on.
I hope you find time to read the Logical Problem of Evil. That is the type of debate I am looking for.
Not a problem
Back in the USA. Sorry for the delay, Drak.
There is no third option in what I described:
That is a dichotomy of reason (without | with). What you call 'the third option' falls under category (option) one: reasoning without absolute knowledge.
You are offering your interpretation (category 1) while requiring that I hold to category 2. Further, you are (based on your recent post) labeling your interpretation of the Bible (i.e. 'the third option') as THE interpretation of the Bible. That claim would need to be substantiated (of course).
As you note, the Bible is interpreted differently. All sorts of conflicted 'knowledge about God' comes from the Bible.
Referencing how you interpret omnipotence. You hold that omnipotence means the ability to do anything that is possible but then categorically reject any reasoning on what is possible claiming that only God knows what is possible. Thus unless God has already done X (illustrating that X is possible) you will not accept X as possible. To make the point through example, God has not (per the Bible) grown new limbs on people. Because of that you must (following your rule) reject reasoning that logically presumes an omnipotent entity who created everything could grow a new limb (e.g. regrow a leg) on one of His creations. No reasoning is possible with such imposed restrictions.
As I noted, if you wish to debate God based only on what is known then that segues into my general recommendation. If one believes in a creator of everything then leave it at that. Anything else you add to the belief beyond 'creator' is unknowable and pure speculation. Because we do not know anything about God. Even holding that a god exists is an act of faith - it is not even based on knowledge. Using the Bible to define God is about as far away as one can get from relying only upon what is known.
Here:
I did not change your words. By the way, when I do paraphrase it will never be done as a trick. It would be either a paraphrase for clarity of an honest misinterpretation.
No, that really is not my argument. My argument (the current one) is the opposite. I am accepting omnipotence as a given and showing the problems with it. Your response has been to argue about the meaning of omnipotence.
How do you know this ? ( If I must follow your absolute knowledge rule then you too must follow it. ) How can you possibly know anything about God much less the details and logic regarding His plan?
I can only answer this without absolute knowledge, but since you asked, God (being reasonable about what the most supreme possible entity is likely able to do) could give us all the knowledge that He wants (skip past the learning through suffering and horror part) and then grant free will to act on that knowledge. My point of course is that forcing his creatures through pain and suffering and at times the worst horrors simply to get knowledge can be avoided by going directly to the knowledge.
Now, one other point, if free will is indeed a goal then omniscience (by any entity, not just God) cannot be possible. If it is possible to know what will happen in the future then the future is determined and free will is impossible.
Hold on there Drak., I am just following your comment. You said that the suffering was to gain knowledge. If gaining that knowledge does not do the trick then this suffering route is not going to cut it either - by definition.
How do you know that ? Also, if you really have this level of knowledge then why is all the suffering taking place? Why not just charge you and others to impart knowledge to others? Skip the pedophile raping and murdering little girls stuff (i.e. God stops this from ever happening) and focus on the transfer of knowledge.
Again, however, you really need to answer how you can possibly know what you write. Holding me to absolute knowledge while you are free to simply declare truth is not acceptable.
How do you know this ? And again, you said knowledge was the objective. If the knowledge God wishes to impart will not do the trick then God's knowledge-through-suffering plan is going to fail (by your argument) and all this suffering was truly pointless.
God could get what He wants. Right?
How do you know this ?
God's omnipotence seems weak. I support not expecting that God could make 2 + 2 = 7 but when you suggest that an omnipotent entity could not affect the very reality He created (e.g. make someone love Him) you are suggesting something that falls short of omnipotence. The word really is misleading if this is how you view it.
How do you know this ?
Indeed!
Would you consider seeding it?
Not a problem
I stand corrected.
No, there isn't. It doesn't mean there isn't one. We are basically talking about the problem of evil. What I have been attempting to do with you is debate it the way most people do. That is the third option I am going for.
The way you highlighted this demonstrates the frustration involved with discussing things with you. It appears the highlighted part is the only thing you can see in that sentence. You can't see the 'through the Bible' part of it, which is too bad. People on both sides of this issue have no problem recognizing that regardless of interpretation of the Bible, all recognize that God is described has having certain attributes and argue in light of those attributes. I don't understand why you have a problem with it. What you are doing now is more Gordy than TiG. That is, "You say there's a God? Prove it."
Not true. I would find your saying that God should be able to put the knowledge into our heads acceptable if you could logically explain how He can achieve His stated goal by doing so. To date, all you've done is say it's reasonable or changed the definition of omnipotent to mean able to do anything.
Although there are differences in interpretation, they are neither as many as you seem to think or relevant to this discussion. You would be hard pressed to find someone who disagrees that the Bible considers God to be a whole list of omni-whatever. Atheist or theist. That is all that is necessary for this discussion.
Incorrect. Again, I ask that you present a logical reason beyond "it just seems reasonable to me" or altering the definition of omnipotence. Being all-powerful and being able to do anything aren't the same thing.
Bad example. I know God can regrow a limb. Logically, if God can create an entire universe out of nothing, He can regrow a limb. That He hasn't that we are aware of isn't a basis for rejecting the logic that he can.
Look, I'm not rejecting the idea of God just putting the knowledge in our heads in this conversation. I'm not disallowing it or anything like it. But I'm not just going to accept it because it seems reasonable to you. There are a number of things to consider.
First, humans don't seem to work that way. Have 100 people read a book about economics and then have those same people give you their definition of what economics are and how it should work. How many different versions do you think you would get? Apparently you feel that because It's God doing it it would somehow turn out different. Evidence is against that. God gave His word who were totally convinced it was from God and they couldn't agree on what it meant.
Second, there is a world of difference between reading about something and experiencing it. How would it be different if God just stuck the knowledge there rather than just reading about it, even if it were possible? There is a reason it is said experience is the best teacher.
Third, for whatever reason seemed good to Him, God decided to give us free will. That free will is whether or not to choose God and what He wants for us. He's not going to do something which impinges on that.
Fourth, we already, more or less, have what you seem to want. Everyone old enough to understand knows, regardless of how that knowledge got there, that some things are wrong. They've seen countless examples of people who've done a particular wrong you could name and what happened to them as a result, yet they still do it anyway. They have the knowledge, both of what not to do and the experience of others, yet they do it anyway because they think it won't happen to them. They're too smart to get caught or whatever.
So, what I would like from you is a logical, reasoned explanation as to how God just putting the knowledge into our heads would logically work. Not just some "Well, He's God so He should just wave His hand and it should just work." It has to take into account free will and human nature, else it is just magical thinking.
Not really. The "what is known" that I wish to discuss is the generally agreed upon attributes of God concerning how they relate to this discussion. As I said, atheists and theist both agree that God is described as a list of Omni's. I do not wish to segue into a discussion of what you think God's attributes would or should be.
Because it is what is described in the Bible. But your question relates more to how do I know God even exists in the first place, doesn't it.
Then explain how He can do this other than, well, He's God isn't He??? You've already agreed that God can't do what isn't logically possible. Explain how God, popping the knowledge into our heads would allow us to avoid the pain and suffering and I'll give you the point. What would demonstrably happen is what happens right now. People would ignore the knowledge and do what they want because we already have such knowledge and we do it anyway. This can't be denied.
Free will is not a goal. We already have it. As for omniscience, we're having a hard enough time with omnipotence. I'm not going to go down that road in this discussion.
When we sinned, we gained the knowledge of good and evil. It doesn't mean we understood it or everything about it. We only learned that there was a good and an evil. Living with the consequences of evil choices is a part of learning. The goal is to see for ourselves what evil is and it's consequences so that we can better understand the choice before us. God or not.
But we have to have suffering for sin, or evil if you prefer. Without experiencing the consequences, you don't really know. It's just theoretical.
How do I know, as in, how do I know there really is a God giving me this knowledge in the first place?
One, because my having such knowledge doesn't eliminate sin from the world, neither in others or myself. As to the rest, God has done exactly that. What do you think proselytizing is? But imparting such knowledge doesn't magically make someone's inclinations disappear. I know, because I still sin.
Because anyone can read the Bible, even non-believers, and come up with the same conclusions. God says He is omnipotent. This isn't a discussion of whether or not God exists, it's whether or not what it says about His attributes stand up to logical scrutiny.
Evidence doesn't support you. There are countless stories of lives being changed by God's method. Suffering and all. People who turn away from the world and toward God. That is the ultimate point of it all.
I don't see how, logically. If you give someone free will, he has to have the option of rejecting God, even though God doesn't want him to.
Perhaps what's lacking is your idea of what love is and it's value. That isn't a put down. You don't have to think of it the way I do. But to me, I can't imagine how it could be called love if you don't have any choice in it.
Or put another way, who's love would you find more precious? Someone who can't even conceive of not loving you or someone who chooses to love you? With the first, you could rape babies for breakfast and that person would still love you. Who you were wouldn't be a factor.
But if someone chose to love you???
Yes. If I can figure out how.
Figured it out. Don't know if anyone will actually see it.
Did you post the first comment on the article? It will cause it to appear on the front page, if you have not done so already. (Smile.)
It actually does. If someone offers A and ~A then there is no other option - it is a dichotomy. For example, you either exist or you do not exist; a stated list of numbers add up to 23 or they do not. If someone offers A and B and declares that there are no other choices then you would have an argument about a third choice. But A and ~A is a dichotomy; end of options.
It is confusing to call that a third option to the dichotomy of:
Rather than call this a third option to the above dichotomy it would make more sense to simply introduce this as a different sub-topic.
It is the important part - the part I am encouraging you to notice. Highlighting a portion of a sentence does not mean that is the only part I read or the only part I understood.
What does that mean? Seriously, your criticism is too vague to understand.
*** Yeah, we tried to do that. Look at what happened with the attribute of omnipotence . Omniscience will have different interpretations too. Existence (of God) also varies in meaning where some view God as separate from existence ... God is without actual being part of 'existence'. (Seriously, Drak, this gets silly.) Loving is highly contested. I think the common definition of God that most people would accept is that God is the creator of the known universe . That seems to be common in all monotheistic religions (but certainly not all religions). It does work for the Abrahamics. If you stuck with that and did not add anything else you might have a common frame of reference for discussion. (Note, however, that this definition does not preclude God as being a super-powerful alien. So there you go ...)
Gordy's "that's nice, prove it" is his trademark - he knows what he asks cannot be proved - that is his point. Here I asked how you know what you just claimed as truth. A quite legitimate question. What I am doing is illustrating that you most likely do NOT know what God wants, what God is or even if God exists. Belief yes, but to claim knowledge is a grand claim. The question now is why you cannot answer the 'how do you know that ?' question. Do you truly believe you know (hold truth) what you have claimed or are you simply expressing a belief? This is not clear at this point so my question is relevant. And if you are able to state a reasonable assertion then I too have that right.
Obviously that is not the case. Anything I proposed you would ask how I knew. No matter how logical you will always be able to claim that I am not omniscient and I would agree. So you may not realize it, but what you just said is a falsehood. And since then, I am simply holding you to the same standard you imposed upon me.
How funny. Oxford on omnipotent:
TiG on omnipotent:
I have already discussed our semantic differences in detail, not going to repeat this for you to ignore again. Summary: you imposed special limitataions on omnipotence, not me.
See above (***). Our debate alone proves you wrong. I offer common usage for omnipotence and you disagree. I predict we would never agree on omniscience either.
You are forgetting what you have written. I am getting tired of repeating the same damn rebuttal. Note:
I agree with you that I cannot possibly know what is impossible - that I was indeed offering a reasonable expectation that might indeed (odd, but possible) be impossible. And not what you have demanded: " You need it to be true for your point to stand. ". Well, hell, Drak then I guess I cannot make any point on omnipotence because it really is impossible for me to know what is impossible to do.
Given your demand I told you that I am perfectly happy to go with what we know. But then your entire argument is a house of cards because you cannot really know what you claim as truth is anything more than warmed over speculation from ancient men with pens. Read my response (quoting myself yet again):
You did not ask for a logical reason to support my assertion. You demanded that I must know what is possible. Thus I reciprocate and demand that you hold to those standards too.
LOL. Well if you can do that then I get to do that too. An omnipotent entity who created the known universe (including our brains) can certainly impart knowledge into our brains. You allow yourself the option to make a reasonable assertion while claiming that my reasonable assertion cannot possibly be known and thus reject it.
Do not even try to claim you do not see the double standard you seek to impose.
(Stopping here for a moment. Have other things to do.)
Thanks : )
Don't bother with anything else. We can't even agree on what we are discussing. What point is there in furthering this?
Probably a good idea. My prior post was nothing but repeating what I have already explained while proving to you (with quotes) that I did indeed write what I claimed.
Also, I am not getting any answers. For example, you never tell me how you know what you claim as truth. So what is the point?
Ultimately I posit this:
Getting people to even agree on the definition of God in terms of the attributes: exists, personal, omniscient, omnipotent, eternal, creator and loving would be quite a challenge if you require agreement on those attributes. Creator is the most likely common point. After that, the definition of God starts veering off in uncountable directions. Pretty much makes the concept of God impossible to discuss and dramatically suggests that nobody knows what they are talking about.
Anyone who claims to know what God is, what God wants, what God's plans are, how God thinks, what God knows, what God can or cannot do, etc. has quite the argument to make. And pointing to the Bible just makes things worse.
In my opinion, the best one can do is claim a belief that our reality is likely the result of a creator. Anyone who tries to go beyond that will be immediately in trouble (and I can prove that).
I am putting these responses to the article here since they really apply to this debate. My comments on the article will thus be free to focus on the argument itself.
The quotes are from the article:
Remarkably similar to: "... the ability to do anything that is possible to do". Do you agree with the phrase in blue or reject this portion of the seed?
Interesting how this seed (appropriately) does not demand absolute knowledge - it recognizes that 'logically possible' is a sensible way to proceed for entities who are not omniscience. Thus when one holds that it is logically possible for the creator of everything - that is deemed omnipotent - to put knowledge into the minds of His creatures that should not be rejected on the grounds that one does not actually know (with absolute certainty) that an omnipotent creator could put knowledge into minds is possible. And it would seem far more likely that such a powerful entity who created everything could infuse knowledge rather than could not infuse knowledge.
Maybe (since this is discussed in your seed) my comments will be taken more seriously.
Actually Tig I have very much enjoyed the back and forth; I appreciate your endeavor as well as the purposed reasoning. Well done.
:~)
Reminiscent of Henry VIII becoming head of the church of England all for the sake of a woman and a male heir whom he had beheaded.
Indeed!!
I am a new Christian and an old Christian. I cover all the bases.
Maybe a different observation from the scripture and epilogue than expected.
IIRC, for a period of time Saul and David worked well together until Saul developed jealousy and tried to kill David. Saul now saw David as a rival for power.
David escaped and went to live on the land. If one is to believe the scripture, then we know David was a capable warrior. David very well could have killed Saul. At one time David even spared Saul's life.
Why? Why did David spare Saul's life? As a warrior with known supporters within the kingdom, why didn't David just go kill Saul and take what was rightfully his?
Maybe a concept lost in our present day.
It is easy to consider David and Saul on opposite side of a political isle. Yet David gave his support to the arrangement that put Saul into his position.
Saul was an anointed one of God YHWH. As a servant of YHWY, David held fast to and supported God's arrangement with his whole heart.
Hmmmm? Parallel that with our current state of politics going back several election cycles. I can't find it, there is no parallel. We have an arrangement of Government and it is not difficult to imagine two opposing groups of people like Saul fighting each other and not a David among them,
Who has time to address matters of We the People?
This article is on point although it strays from the biblical allegory:
.
In other words Trump supporters have replaced the ideal of a democratic republic with support for authoritarianism, and they do so based on completely irrational fears.
I understand what your post is saying and agree the polarization continues to harden, really on both ends on the spectrum. This last part relates to my observation of where we are politically as a nation and my take away from the article and epiloue.
I ask myself, what happens when Trump is replaced, by national vote or other political mechanism? I still don't see now, or trust in the near future anyone, be that individual or group(s), willing to be a political David, in how he supported the arrangement though it was toxic for him at the time.
Speaking about Democracies I don't know how much you have looked into it, but what little I have, the story of Athens and our first recognized Democracy is well worth looking into and a great lesson in appreciation our democratic, representative Republic vs a true Democracy.
One other thing to keep in mind, authoritarianism is not unique to either the right or left. I could be mistaken, but it seems when either side goes down the path of authoritarianism, it often is under the guise of bringing some form of utopia for the masses. Utopia may be the wrong word, but at 1:30 am that is close enough.
Great response Dave and thank you.
Why didn't David take Saul's life? Because he wouldn't touch God's anointed. Politically also it made sense; Israel was then in a continual state of war and dividing the kingdom with infighting could very well have spelled their doom. Even when Saul was chasing him and his band of men around, David understood that killing Saul would have brought a civil discord that would have been disastrous.
Interestingly we see Israel's spiritual health reflected in their national well being. The parallel is that the consequences of spiritual dissonance surface as political and national discord. In particular Israel decided that they needed a man to lead them rather than God; and, though God had a person in mind, his followers not only jumped the gun demanding a king now, the king they got (Saul) served his purpose as a warrior, but was a disobedient and unruly man whom God declared he regretted making a king...
1 Samuel 15:11 New International Version (NIV)
11 “I regret that I have made Saul king, because he has turned away from me and has not carried out my instructions.” Samuel was angry, and he cried out to the Lord all that night.
The parallel is also furthered thusly: there are those who claim to be followers of God, yet have chosen a most decidedly ungodly person as their leader, rather than a righteous one. God may allow this, even as he allowed Israel to do; yet, that does not mean that it is God's first or best choice. What it does mean is that as always, when we are to be corrected, God takes his protection away and allows us to suffer the consequences of our choices. I believe that that is where we are now.
First, you are welcome Larry.
This parallel could be true. Let me add another ingredient into this mix. We have a unique form of Government, designed to prevent any one part of it from running rough shod over the rest of it. I think the consequences of our choices is a result beyond just the single person. It seems to me there is a lot of dysfunction and both option D and option R need to quit the infighting and move forward.
This parallel could be true. Let me add another ingredient into this mix. We have a unique form of Government, designed to prevent any one part of it from running rough shod over the rest of it. I think the consequences of our choices is a result beyond just the single person. It seems to me there is a lot of dysfunction and both option D and option R need to quit the infighting and move forward.
Your recipe is spot-on Dave; both Parties have become too embattled to move forward.
I should expand on my comments as to the purpose of this article in responding to your comment, as I believe it will help explain my reasoning.
Above I said "I believe that that is where we are now." That statement is more ambiguous than it may seem.
I was raised a Christian in an Evangelical Fundamentalist home, attended private Christian school five days a week and church at least that many times a week too. By the time I was sixteen I was part of the national Championship Bible Quizzing team for the Assembly of God Denomination, and a child preachers, doing the circuit in Indian, Kentucky, and Tennessee in the late 70's. receiving a scholarship I attended seminary, majoring in ancient languages (Koine Greek and Hebrew) and a minor eschatology. I don't brag about these things; rarely do I mention them even on this forum. I want to inform about my intention, and I believe I most honestly do so by giving this background.
I dropped out of seminary two months before graduation; my disillusionment was utter and devastating. There was much that contributed to this however it all came down to a growing realization that it was all wrong. That was now over 30 years ago (damn I'm gettin' old). Now my ontology has changed and aligned along the lines of Panpsychism with a stitch of Gaia Animism; but, my knowledge of Scripture, the christian Church, as well as having friends and family still involved with all things evangelical, gives me an opportunity to address these specific issues.
When I say " I believe that is where we are now", I believe that Nature is our complete guide to all things practical, enlightening, factual; and, even sacred. Some build an abstract being to help explain these things, and call that God. My attempt here is to speak to Evangelical Christians in terms that they would most readily understand, and my background allows me that chance.
One purpose of this article is to reach out to evangelical Christians, even attempting to provoke them, into openly debating their reasoning for going against everything that they have believed and taught for a very long time. I want to expose hypocrisy, and encourage growth and maturity to any who desire more. Another is allow any and all an opportunity to enter the debate and hopefully learn and grow too. Finally, another purpose is to expose the major import that evangelicals had in the last election.
Good Comment!
David's attitude was, "I don't agree with Saul, but he's God's guy, and I must serve God."
We have lots of modern, secular equivalents.
Good people distinguish between "what is right" and "my personal interest". Evangelicals are now just another special interest group.
Was a time when evangelical Christians took on the entire counsel of scripture, sought to make disciples of those who professed faith in Jesus Christ, inwardly focused on congregants and outwardly focused on those who needed spiritual and physical help.
The church, which should literally portray the hands and feet of Christ is an abysmal failure. Individual sacrifice, caring and loving as its own reward has seemingly given way to buildings that cost millions, pews that seat thousands and a feel good place to attend. Church has been super-sized like its a number on a fast food menu! Jesus is now a genie in a bottle...pray and ye shall receive.
The widows and orphans Christ instructed the church to look after has been replaced by million dollar sound systems, selling books, bible conferences and the like.
In retrospect, what if the Obama presidency was a testing for the faithful followers of Christ? A leader who professed faith, had a loving family, no scandals, and the obvious...a black man. Dare say the church didn't display the love of Christ to this man, his wife or his family.
Today, truth is relative and bought into by those who would rather wallow in mud or return to their own vomit. (2Peter:20-22)
This excellent article supports your comment:
Great article, thanks for link.
Unfortunately, many Trump supporters (my Christian family members too) don't hold the articles POV or mine
Obama a Christian...after two decades of sitting listening to Rev Wrights spew?? Gimme a break.
You prove my personal observations most admirably.
How so? Raised as a Muslim, he never disputed it.
How so you ask...probably the same way we all come to the Christian faith, you know belief! Being raised Muslim doesn't preclude becoming a Christian.
"He is now a Christian, having been baptized in the early 1990s at Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago."
And what if he was a Muslim even now, a practicing one, what would be wrong with that? Do you not believe in freedom of religion? Don't want to allow gays to marry or women to have abortions either. Then you have the nerve to call yourselves the party of freedom? Pshwa. Liberals are the ones who stand for that. Freedom is what liberalism is all about.
According to Pew Institute 6/3/15 Obama secretly met with the Muslim Brotherhood at the WH and supported them. According to Snopes 11/14 he, also, met secretly with some Ferguson protestors and told them "to stay the course".
This is just wrong-headed. Are some of us so desperate to diminish former President Obama that we are willing to suffer delusions? The Bible says, "The 'whole' head is sick!"
Whoever opens himself or herself up to delusions, bears the weight of them.
Hi, Leno.
Big government....taking away the individual states rights to govern their own. This is a big thing to me. The federal government steps in anytime they don't like a particular law that a state has as they are the big boys.....the bullies on the playground.....and can knock it down as illegal. Insofar as the SCOTUS.....their only purpose is to interpret the C of the U.S. as our forefathers wrote it. If they say, No, State of AL that goes against our Constitution.....so be it .Most liberals forget about our Constitutional rights.
CA has decided to be a sanctuary state. It is a state's right. Should they be allowed to receive federal funding? Absolutely. since they pay federal taxes. Do I like it? Definitely, no. Should the KY lady be allowed to deny gays a marriage license? Absolutely, it was on their books as their law. And, it goes on.
My being a conservative has nothing to do with religion. Politics and religion are two separate things.
he had scandals then and he has scandals now.
they were covered up then but will not be covered up now
Good article, Larry. Sorry to be late to the party.
Franklin Graham is currently preaching / campaigning in California. For the Republican Party, of course. The Evangelical movement has sold its soul. Does anyone imagine that this will end well for anyone.. politicians, religious leaders, church-goers, and ordinary citizens?
Thanks Bob; your input is always welcome and timely!
Yup saw some coverage of Graham inserting himself as a "Godly" political leader. The way things are going I wouldn't be surprised to see a Pence/Graham ticket in the next few years.
More likely to see Nikki Haley.
she would make a great first female president.
niki haley 2024
She's the only one who kept her job while being openly defiant of Trump. If she keeps her integrity and doesn't lie for Trump like his stooges do, she will have a lot of credibility.
true, but for how long will she have her job ? I'm guessing not too long.
perhaps I missed something but what does israel wanting a king have to do with today in the usa?
this is not israel, and it is thousands of years later, we do not have kings in the usa and never will. "we the people" own this country. our representatives work for us. they do not get to tell us how to live... we tell them how we will live. "we the people" are king.
have we been demanding a king while I was sleeping or something?
The article specifically, is about American Evangelicals replacing their faith in God with faith in a leader, as Israel did with their first leader, a king.
I see the analogy to Israel wanting a king. Funny, I can not get Abraham and Sarah out of my mind. When Abraham could not impregnate Sarah "immediately," she acted to aid God by giving Hagar to Abraham to expedite the promise. Will the republicans wish they had waited on the Lord?
'Replacing a President With a Piece of Shit' is more like what has happened to America.
Televangelists are real con artists, and it seems that those who call themselves Christians just cant get enough of them. Even when they know they are being scammed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Louisiana televangelist seeks donations for $54M private jet;
A Louisiana-based televangelist is asking his followers to donate money for a $54 million jet that can “go anywhere in the world in one stop,” The Times-Picayune reported .
Jesse Duplantis, 68, a Christian minister based in Destrehan, about 25 miles east of New Orleans, says his ministry has paid cash for three private jets.
“You know I’ve owned three different jets in my life and used them and used them and just burning them up for the Lord,” Duplantis says in a video posted to his ministries’ website.
Duplantis is now reportedly seeking the funds for a Dassault Falcon 7X , worth $54 million.
The problem with the previous jets, he says, is that they require multiple stops to refuel. But flying the Falcon 7X, Duplantis says, will allow him to save money and not pay “those exorbitant prices with jet fuel all over the world.”
“I really believe that if Jesus was physically on the earth today, he wouldn’t be riding a donkey,” Duplantis says in the video, “He’d be in an airplane preaching the gospel all over the world.”
Duplantis’ video comes after another televangelist, Kenneth Copeland in Texas, purchased the Gulfstream V jet for $36 million.
Both televangelists defended their use of private jets during a joint appearance on Copeland’s program, saying that commercial airlines filled with “a bunch of demons” that get in the way of their busy schedules.
Source:
Story provided by none other then Fox News
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Wow!! Even Jesus would want his supporters buy him this expensive luxury jet. So of course Duplantis should have one as well. Right?