God sounds like a sick God.. (prophecies, quotes, Noah, Creator)
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.
This...it is as simple as this...every single Christian I have ever known has believed this. It is by no means a "fundie" or "literalist" thing.
I have never, ever in my life met a Christian who:
1. Didn't think God was literally all-powerful - i.e. could do literally anything.
2. Didn't think God was all-knowing, including knowledge of the future.
3. Didn't think God was all-loving.
Now obviously that all can't be reconciled, as illustrated here (and many many times, not just on CD, obviously, but all over academia, philosophy, oh hell, everywhere)...but...ALL three things are, apparently without much logical thought into it, believed by pretty much any Christian I've ever met in my life.
So it's not like "the atheists" (as was said) on here are taking things to extremes of literalism. These are just (apparently) basic tenets of Christianity - mainstream sects, not just fundie ones. No extremism or overly-literal interpretation necessary on the part of "the atheists."
I agree these are basic tenets of current Christian orthodoxy but as I pointed out elsewhere, Eusebius doesn't believe that god is omnibenevolent. He is unable to say his god is evil, but he does author / allow / use evil when he foresees net good.
At least one reformed Jewish rabbi, the author of the popular book When Bad Things Happen to Good People, disposes of omnipotence .
This is not a bad thing, it simply underscores the logical impossibility of the standard tri-omni deity, and forces at least some theists to back away from one or more of those three attributes, and thus puts the debate on a more rational basis. It is harder (and more pointless) for someone to believe in a deity that is not all powerful, and/or all knowing, and/or all benevolent. Such a thing, while more logically defensible, is far less attractive. Because people want an infallible invisible buddy who will never do them wrong. Not a fallible, limited, and at least intermittently immoral invisible buddy. That is becoming too much like the Real Life they are trying to escape.
I think that theists will will have to give up more and more of the 'omni' properties of their god as the unassailable march of science exposes their untenable beliefs and squeezes them tighter and tighter into an ever decreasing corner.
I agree these are basic tenets of current Christian orthodoxy but as I pointed out elsewhere, Eusebius doesn't believe that god is omnibenevolent. He is unable to say his god is evil, but he does author / allow / use evil when he foresees net good.
Oh, I see. I thought he was thinking of God as all-loving as he continues to say even evil is there for the ultimate greater good.
I think that theists will will have to give up more and more of the 'omni' properties of their god as the unassailable march of science exposes their untenable beliefs and squeezes them tighter and tighter into an ever decreasing corner.
I don't think that science is what exposes that, but rather common sense ... The beliefs presented by evangelical Christianity, for instance, are self-contradictory. I don't need to know anything about science to see that.
I said "if you believe" and kindly left the door open for you to dispose of this objection by saying it won't occur. Fair enough.
Sorry, I didn't read "if you believe" in your original statement. I reread your statement but couldn't find that. It must be in there somewhere. Maybe by what you wrote I was supposed to understand "if you believe"?
Quote:
Here on the other hand you are simply saying they will have a magical epiphany simply by virtue of being resurrected. If dying and being resurrected were like sleep, they would awaken with all the same misconceptions and biases they had when they went to "sleep". But here you are introducing some sort of alchemy whereby they suddenly understand in the afterlife what they could not grasp in life.
Epiphany? yes. Magical? no.
It is not just due to experiencing the miracle of resurrection but also putting on immortality and incorruption. And if that weren't enough, they will see the very Saviour they said never existed.
Quote:
What this demonstrates is that by your own beliefs, your god is capable of instilling this realization of Truth in anyone at any time.
That is a very fair assessment and mirrors exactly my beliefs.
Quote:
At worst he would have to kill and resurrect them.
I'm sure some won't be dead when they are changed and stand before Christ as their Saviour. But most likely many billions will be dead. But I don't know why you would say He would have to kill them. Unless by that you mean that is the only way they can experience their resurrection. That is fair for you to say if that is what you mean. But I don't think He would have to kill them first. For instance, King Saul, when seeking David to kill him didn't need a resurrection. He came in contact with the prophets of Israel and the holy spirit of God came over him and he prophesied and lay on the ground overwhelmed and had a change of heart to kill David.
Quote:
He is willing to do this resurrection gambit for most of humanity (those who have ever lived and are not alive during the end of days) only on the condition that at some point 100% of those who have not yet died will somehow to a person come to this "heart knowledge" that the dead didn't (at least for the most part) achieve. At that point the realization is simply a magic trick for those already dead. Which begs the question of why he doesn't do the magic trick now for everyone.
Again, I don't know why you ascribe a "magic trick" to the miracle of resurrection.
Why should He resurrect everyone right now when that is not part of His plan . . . yet? There are still two more eons to come. The resurrection of the just and unjust Israelites will experience the miracle of resurrection. However, some of them will experience eonian repulsion and some eonian life (Dan.12:2). They will see Him Whom they stabbed. But even at this juncture in their new life, they still need judged for what they did and so some may experience getting kicked out of Israel. Such ones are not given immortality or incorruption at that point in time. But they may see Christ as the true Messiah.
Quote:
Which begs the question of why magic is even necessary given that everyone could simply be born with the realizations, beliefs and ideology that god approves of.
God doesn't use magic. You must have the wrong God in mind.
Of course everyone COULD BE born with the realizations, beliefs and ideology that God approves. But since that is not how He operates, such an idea is simply that, an idea. Remember, mankind must first learn from the knowledge of good and evil. They must first learn what it is like to be apart from God to enjoy being reconciled to God. It isn't my universe. I didn't make the rules and I am not God's adviser.
No no...see he does say his god is all-loving. Thats just cognitive dissonance.
Saying that god allows / uses / authors evil, but only for good outcomes, yet being unwilling to say god is actually therefore evil, ends up being word games and logically inconsistent ... so yes, cognitive dissonance is the result. But Eusebius is capable to an extent I have never before seen, to at least affect blithe ignorance of this dissonance and just forge on ahead. I am not sure if the dissonance doesn't exist in his field of awareness or if he's just that cynical to pretend that it doesn't in order to "win" his points. Or if it isn't cynicism but just dogged persistence in force-fitting a line of reasoning to a desired outcome.
I believe he has claimed that there is no such thing as moral evil so this shows some philosophical flexibility in the service of his ideology ... it allows god to have at least a patina of goodness and it allows all of humanity to ultimately be reconciled to god, by fiddling the nature of guilt / blame sin enough to salvage both god and man in some ultimate sense as not beyond redemption. But it has logical holes you can drive a truck ... nay, a fleet of trucks through. Just different holes than the usual ones.
Sorry, I didn't read "if you believe" in your original statement. I reread your statement but couldn't find that. It must be in there somewhere. Maybe by what you wrote I was supposed to understand "if you believe"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mordant
Yes the old chestnut about "heart belief" vs "head belief" but this is an individual "aha" moment and there is no way that 100% of humans living will ever achieve it, and unless you believe people won't have children in the afterlife then it's an infinite regress because each newborn will have to grow up and will lack this "heart knowledge" and have to go through the same process, thus tainting paradise with "sin".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
It is not just due to experiencing the miracle of resurrection but also putting on immortality and incorruption. And if that weren't enough, they will see the very Saviour they said never existed.
If seeing is believing then it seems reasonable to ask why this seeing isn't happening here and now. And I'm sorry but "well it's just not the way it is in god's plan" is not an answer to a perfectly logical question.
Of course the urgency of this is reduced if you don't believe any part of humanity is condemned to eternal perdition, and the immorality of it is waved away by your assertion that you and I and others are disposable means to some ultimate end and therefore any suffering we experience is entirely rationalizable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
But I don't know why you would say He would have to kill them. Unless by that you mean that is the only way they can experience their resurrection. That is fair for you to say if that is what you mean. But I don't think He would have to kill them first. For instance, King Saul, when seeking David to kill him didn't need a resurrection. He came in contact with the prophets of Israel and the holy spirit of God came over him and he prophesied and lay on the ground overwhelmed and had a change of heart to kill David.
Seems like a lot of nonsense and pain could be avoided if the spirit of god would be that active in revealing himself to one and all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Again, I don't know why you ascribe a "magic trick" to the miracle of resurrection.
It is ultimately a parlor trick and a trivial one for an all powerful god to perform.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Why should He resurrect everyone right now when that is not part of His plan . . . yet?
I am questioning this baroque, byzantine plan of his when far more straightforward means are at his disposal. I realize that questioning god is taboo to you but it is not to me and I don't think any god worth its salt would be so thin-skinned as to be threatened or offended by a reasonable question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
God doesn't use magic. You must have the wrong God in mind.
Christianity has simply taken magic and elaborated it into something called miracles. If you prefer to say that God uses miracles that is fine but I am simply pointing out that it is not some sort of sanctified, elevated thing OTHER than magic. One of the reasons you resist the term is that at least overtly humanity as rejected magic as something no sane adult believes in, so you need a different term. Feel free to use an alternative term then but it does not change the simple fact that claiming god resurrects the dead via a miracle is not substantively different than a shaman raising the dead through magic ritual. Or any more credible a claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Of course everyone COULD BE born with the realizations, beliefs and ideology that God approves.
Thanks for at least admitting that god could choose to do it that way and save himself and us a lot of trouble.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
But since that is not how He operates, such an idea is simply that, an idea. Remember, mankind must first learn from the knowledge of good and evil. They must first learn what it is like to be apart from God to enjoy being reconciled to God. It isn't my universe. I didn't make the rules and I am not God's adviser.
You are right, it is simply an idea. The thing you don't realize is that your idea is also just that, an idea.
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.
