Subject:
|
Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 7 Dec 2002 15:21:29 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1775 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Brendan Powell Smith writes:
> Since I generally agree with DaveE's comments, I will try to not to repeat
> his arguments too much here, assuming you will reply to his post.
I will assume you read that reply.
SNIP
>
> > God
> > created man but unlike the angles
>
> I don't remember anything in the Bible about God creating the angels, and
> whether or not they have free will. The existence of angels seems rather
> assumed in the Bible, and we don't learn much more about their nature.
> Where does your knowledge of angels and free will come from? Come to think
> of it, I don't think there's any mention of free will in the Bible.
I always took the creation of angels as implied. 'In the beggining
God...' (No mention of angels) 'created heaven and earth' (I always put them
in the heaven stage that isn't really described in the Bible.
> For the sake of argument, OK, man has free will.
Thanks.
SNIP
> When you say "already", do you mean good and evil existed before God? Or
> before God created Earth? Did God create good and evil?
Nothing existed before God because he has always been. This is real
hard to get your head around and thankfully is not the issue.
> If so, I wonder why he didn't limit how much evil people can inflict on
> others. Doesn't it seem like God could have worked out some system by which
> people could choose to *be* evil, but not actually *cause other people to
> suffer* (or at least not suffer so much) from it? That way, God could still
> properly judge evil people without everyone else having to suffer from it.
God didn't want people to be evil at all. He gave us the choice. So all
damage caused by evil is essentially our fault.
SNIP
> > God was good and always will
> > be (please hold your challenge for further down). There was a definet divide
> > between him and evil (represented by Satan). I think most people know the
> > story of how sin entered mankind and they had to leave the garden.
> > Let me clarify God forced them to leave because in his perfection he could
> > not 'mix' with or look upon evil.
>
> This is an interesting theory about God -- that he *cannot* (much as he
> might wish otherwise, in order to be merciful) 'mix' with or look upon evil.
> I don't remember this being explained in the Bible, I'm curious how you got
> this understanding of God's nature.
The bible calls God the judge of the world. I personaly believe that. It
also says he is holy. Again I believe this. For the sake of this section of
debate please accept these as given.
God being the holy judge of the world is forced to judge fairly. He is
however (in character) merciful. God is seperated from humanity by his moral
perfection. His holiness is a seperation between us. When we (carrying evil)
enter his prescence he being perfect (and the seperation ignored), judges.
His mercy causes him to remain generally above so this won't have to happen.
But in some cases (including most of your examples) he was invited down to
bless and dwell with a holy people (as the world was set up for him to do)
but when they sin he has to judge.
Think of a judge (in our modern context) who can never do wrong. His son
lives outside his juristiction and is constantly commiting crimes. The
father is merciful and never asks for his son to be punished. He merely
leaves it in the hands of the other juristiction, who never do anything.
Eventually the sson realizes he was wrong and longs to see his father again
so he move back to within the fathers juristiction. The father welcomes him
and gives him presents and for a while they are happy. Than one night the
son robs their neighbors house and is caught. He is drug before his father's
court and his father, despite his mercy and love, has to judge fairly and
imprison his son.
SNIPed some stuff to do with above
> It's pretty tough to be merciful when those are the rules. Your version of
> God is almost pitiable -- he *wants* to be merciful to all us crazy sinners,
> but he even he, though he is God, has to play by the rules and smite us
> nonetheless. But who made the rules, why were they made like that?
God set the world up, and the rules he opperates by (with the exception
that he was, is, and always will be holy). He meant them to give us a choice
so that we could choose to be good and he could welcome us as sons, not as
inferior beings (created lesser), but we twisted it all to evil by being evil.
And ruined (not totaly) the system untill Jesus.
> The immediate obvious question is: if there was a great solution to this
> whole problem of God *having* to smite people, why did God wait so long to
> provide it? Why not send Jesus to atone for our sins right after Adam & Eve?
I have to trust God's timing. I'll think on this one.
SNIP
>
> It would have been nice if the Israelites could have just "withdrawn" from
> the covenant. I'm sure that would have saved a lot of lives. But
> apparently that wasn't an option. Instead of letting Israel out of the
> covenanent, God continually sent brutal punishments against his chosen
> people. Wasn't it obvious the Israelites wanted out of the deal? They were
> worshipping *other gods*!
They did leave the covenant. Every time they sinned they broke it. But,
like my example above, when they started sinning again they were in the
judges juristiction.
>
> > I will deal with your examples of what you feel this time was like
> > below. For the record Gentiles were welcome to the covenant. They were by
> > definition those outside the covenant.
>
> These last two sentences seem to contradict each other. How can gentiles be
> both welcome to the covenant and by-definition outside it?
Sorry, very unclear when I reread it. What I meant was the gentiles were
welcome to join the covenant. There was no Israel at the time it was made.
Israel was made up of the people who took him (God) up on it (if
half-heartidly). So the gentiles were by definition those who didn't join in
the covenant. (It really depends how you take Abram's decendants).
> > God said he would make Abraham a blessing to all the world.
>
> I don't know what means, so I'm not sure how it supports what you are saying.
It has to do with how wide the offered blessing was. I was just
saying it included everyone (potentially).
I'm out of time for right now. I'm going to post this and post my reply
to the rest later. Please hold your reply until you've see both.
> > Christianity requires faith. I can't make you believe it I can only defend
> > what I have accepted as, and is, true. (no offense!)
> >
> > God Bless you!
>
> I'm assuming you read Dave Schuler's comments about the innapropriateness of
> your closing your posts (particularly ones aimed at me) in this manner in
> the context of a debate about the nature of God, so I am now forced to take
> your continued use of "God Bless you!" (now emphasized with an exclation
> point) as tantamount to you thumbing your nose at me. I don't appreciate
> it, and will not continue to debate you if this sort of thing continues.
>
> Also, the "what I have accepted as, *and is*, true" comes off as, "oh, and
> by the way, even if my arguments aren't particularly convincing to you, just
> remember, the important thing is: I'm right, and you're wrong". Not the
> most civil way to sign off.
Just to quickly clarify. I had not read the whole 'God Bless' thread when
I wrote this. I did skim one post by you from which I took (perhaps
incorrectly) that it was OK if you really meant it and were praying for the
person. Please note as I said in my last post: I sign off this way in almost
every post, I do mean it, and perhaps I would make too open minded of an
athiest but what can be bad about 'God Bless'? If you don't believe in
God...fine, it's me wasting my time not you. And if perhaps the small chance
(from your perspective) that God exists is true, even if he isn't loving
(like you imply), what can be bad about someone asking him to bless you?
I find the 'rev' offensive in this debate, as it normally implies the
opposite stand to that you are taking... but I didn't complain. And if
people can complain about me saying 'God Bless' and call it offensive, what
about your whole mocking post featuring some kangeroo and 'Lob' and making
fun af all we are suppose to be debating. God bless isn't exactly facetious
when it is meant.
Nathan
> -Rev. Smith
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| (...) Oh, but it is in fact the very *crux* of the issue... at least in one line of argument that's advanced. If you posit the existence of a creator because you can't accept a universe always having been, you haven't actually *explained* anything, (...) (22 years ago, 8-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: The Brick Testament parts the Red Sea
|
| Since I generally agree with DaveE's comments, I will try to not to repeat his arguments too much here, assuming you will reply to his post. (...) Yes, we are debating God's character as presented in the Bible, so in this context it only makes sense (...) (22 years ago, 5-Dec-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
205 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
