Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have borowed this statement from another thread to ask this question. even though it is a universalist thread, it is NOT about universalism but fully understanding God's sovereignty, limitlessness and our finite limits. Atheists can join in because I always love hearing different worldly theories as long as we don't get too emotional (Remember God doesn't exist so why get upset talking about unicorns and faries)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
If eternal torment or annihilation is true, then God is the most diabolical being in the universe.
This statement alone is self-refuting. If God is real and does what we humans consider to be unspeakable like sending babies to hell, then under what authority do we have to condemn God? by what moral right do we have to judge him? God doesn't do good things, whatever God does is good regardless what we think. How do we determine that God is wrong? To me this is circular logic regardless if you believe in God or not.
Ravi Zacchariahs said and I quote,
"In an attempt to escape what they call the contradiction between a good God and a world of evil, atheists try to dance around the reality of a moral law (and hence, a moral law giver) by introducing terms like “evolutionary ethics”. The one who raises the question against God in effect plays God while denying He exists. Now one may wonder: why do you actually need a moral law giver if you have a moral law? The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person. You can never talk of morality in abstraction. Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question. In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner. So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into personhood, which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued. And that person can only be God."
This statement alone is self-refuting. If God is real and does what we humans consider to be unspeakable like sending babies to hell, then under what authority do we have to condemn God? by what moral right do we have to judge him? God doesn't do good things, whatever God does is good regardless what we think. How do we determine that God is wrong? To me this is circular logic regardless if you believe in God or not.
Edit: I asked the wrong question.
What determines that any God that exists is good to begin with?
I have borowed this statement from another thread to ask this question. even though it is a universalist thread, it is NOT about universalism but fully understanding God's sovereignty, limitlessness and our finite limits. Atheists can join in because I always love hearing different worldly theories as long as we don't get too emotional (Remember God doesn't exist so why get upset talking about unicorns and faries)
This statement alone is self-refuting. If God is real and does what we humans consider to be unspeakable like sending babies to hell, then under what authority do we have to condemn God? by what moral right do we have to judge him? God doesn't do good things, whatever God does is good regardless what we think. How do we determine that God is wrong? To me this is circular logic regardless if you believe in God or not.
Ravi Zacchariahs said and I quote,
"In an attempt to escape what they call the contradiction between a good God and a world of evil, atheists try to dance around the reality of a moral law (and hence, a moral law giver) by introducing terms like “evolutionary ethicsâ€. The one who raises the question against God in effect plays God while denying He exists. Now one may wonder: why do you actually need a moral law giver if you have a moral law? The answer is because the questioner and the issue he or she questions always involve the essential value of a person. You can never talk of morality in abstraction. Persons are implicit to the question and the object of the question. In a nutshell, positing a moral law without a moral law giver would be equivalent to raising the question of evil without a questioner. So you cannot have a moral law unless the moral law itself is intrinsically woven into personhood, which means it demands an intrinsically worthy person if the moral law itself is valued. And that person can only be God."
Okay I'll answer what I highlighted. If god really does send babies to hell and all that other stuff....well he's kind of a hypocrite. He stands there and says to us "do not kill" but apparently it is okay if he tells his Isrealite bullies to kill em. He expects more from us than he does from himself. And I'm sorry but this book called the bible is impossible to understand. So a bunch of folks are sent to hell cause it just didn't make sense?! Something wrong with that picture.
God is never wrong. It's humans who are fallible and created their own hateful God out of misconception. God doesn't kill or send people to hell. We do that to our selves and then God waits for us to get back into harmony with Him. Just because it's written in a book and misinterpreted by humans, does not make it true. What you see wthin yourself is the kind of God you create.
God is never wrong. It's humans who are fallible and created their own hateful God out of misconception. God doesn't kill or send people to hell. We do that to our selves and then God waits for us to get back into harmony with Him. Just because it's written in a book and misinterpreted by humans, does not make it true. What you see wthin yourself is the kind of God you create.
Hi Rev1111,
I take it you view "hell" as a temporary condition? Possibly this life could be "hell"? Am I reading you right?
We do not determine if God is wrong. That is an illogical statement - by definition God cannot be wrong.
The only thing that might be wrong is our view of God.
God is all-powerful? Check.
God is all-knowing? Check.
God is love? Check.
God is good? Check.
God doesn't lie? Check.
God will do what He says? Check.
That is His nature, we should be able to agree on that, if we can agree the scriptures are true.
We do not determine if God is wrong. That is an illogical statement - by definition God cannot be wrong.
The only thing that might be wrong is our view of God.
God is all-powerful? Check.
God is all-knowing? Check.
God is love? Check.
God is good? Check.
God doesn't lie? Check.
God will do what He says? Check.
That is His nature, we should be able to agree on that, if we can agree the scriptures are true.
What determines that God cannot be wrong? Is it only the issue that we are to weak to kill him?
What determines that God cannot be wrong? Is it only the issue that we are to weak to kill him?
By definition? Who's definition?
The bible. But I suppose therein lies the problem, because we can't agree what that definition actually is.
I am using the definition of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving God. If God knows everything, has the ability to do anything, and does everything for the ultimate good, He will not do anything "wrong" or evil.
Perhaps this is the question: is torturing someone for eternity "evil"? What do you think?
Suppose we believe that god is all-powerful, all-knowing, but is not all-loving.
Would this god be capable of doing something wrong? I suggest YES this type of god would do wrong.
This suggests there is a standard of goodness and wrongness, outside of this god that we can measure this god against.
I think that is the true measure of God - is the standard of goodness and wrongness the same as what God itself is and does? According to scriptures, YES. According to some other people, NO. I have seen Fundy post this before:
"Whatever God does is good".
However, what if God decided to burn everyone alive for eternity, even though we all accepted Christ? This god would be a liar, and this god would be wrong. In this case, this god has left the absolute standard of goodness.
I would submit therefore God can only be the true God if He is the absolute standard of goodness, and therefore would not lie, would not do wrong, and ultimately will do everything for the ultimate good of all.
This is the philosophical debate.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
