I feel a lot of these concerns could be resolved if people were willing to concede their god was not all-powerful. Like maybe he made some people and he loves them but everything just really spun out of control. I’d more readily buy that.
Since you responded, I will try again and ask another question.
How does God prove Himself in undeniable ways?
And I will repeat a question previously asked, but not answered: Why should I believe what is in the Bible?
Someone else believes in a book as fervently as you believe the Bible, but that book contradicts the Bible. What actual reasons do I have to believe the Bible over that other book?
I am hoping that your response does not include anything like “because the Bible says so”.
If your answer is “I have no reason that will convince anyone else, but that is what I believe”, that is a perfectly valid answer to me.
I like the idea that god is pure love and pure goodness, but not powerful. God doesn’t have power to create or intervene, but he still exists. So he watches sadly as all this organic life is created and all the suffering we have. god wants to change it but can’t.
Easier to answer this part first.
No reason for you to believe the Bible. It is simply one of many books (and other things) God uses. It is God who will chose the ‘book’ and God who to believe in. He is the teacher, He choses the textbook for who we are and what we need. Without God the Bible is useless, except for perhaps to help start a fire in an emergency.
Your journey is your journey. God will use things for you, but God is the teacher, not the thing He choses.
The Bible is the primary text book God chose for me. You have no reason to believe the Bible. But I point to it because of what I believe are universal truths and thus transferable from holy text to holy text. It is perhaps a different perspective from religion to religion but the same universal principal that is being expressed. While religions seem to like to quibble about details and claim they are different from the others, in general they all seem to converge on some things. I use biblical terms mostly because that’s the book God chose for me and I do know it better then any other holy book. Also it is fairly well known to others for them to get context and to challenge if they wish. But more importantly due to convergence, Holy text and Holy text has to converge on those principals.
This is also the reason I believe even intentionally made up religions, such as Dianetics, Jedi, FSM religions actually contain universal truths. Once people start seeking such things they will start converging on universal truths.
So my take on it is not to believe the bible, actually I think it would be a mistake to do so. We see that pattern in history - misuse of the bible to justify anything and everything under the sun, but what I would say is to believe in God and/or seek God, and all those things will be provided for you in the format God choses for you. Your part of this is simply to seek in anyway you know how, God does the rest.
The Bible says seek and you shall find - I believe that is true though that also included Buddha seeking and finding - though Buddha never saw a Bible. It is expressing a universal principal in a biblical form, Buddhism has different words for the same thing.
That’s deeply personal, and I say that because it’s going to vary from person to person, not because I don’t want to share. But as I see it my and everyone’s sharing is designed by the creator not to work as evidence to others as each person must do it on their own but only acceptance of who they are in Him, God’s child. (Just to note I use the male pronouns for God more out of convention and also not to have to use awkward terms as Him/Her, Them, It). If I said I have seen angels would that be evidence? If I was surrounded by a group of people meaning to harm me and all of a sudden they let me go, a passage way through them appeared and I walked through it to safety does that prove anything? Does feeling really sick, praying, walking into a supermarket to a certain soy drink that I never considered having and didn’t even know existed, knowing I should take it, and get it and do and instantly feel better evidence? God has proved Himself in many ways to me time and time again, though I can’t present any as evidence. Though if you want to know one time that seemed undeniable that someone was looking out for me, so many happy coincidences that is was blatantly obvious that at least something beyond ‘us’ was coordinating the efforts for me was when I ‘thru’ hiked the Appalachian Trail. I’m not saying that will work for you or anyone else but it was so obvious that I laughed, the matrix was broken.
Also since you commented about me not commenting, I need to add, yes life getting in the way again and I may have limited post time to reply for a bit.
In context, Job (at first) would atone for the sins of his children (cursing God) using Job’s own resources, and not even knowing if their children actually committed that sin. So Job was not there with his children, and the children would not ask Job to do so. Job was doing this on his own. Also the children could not learn the consequences of their actions and perhaps would continue to curse God. Satan took away has ability to do this by destroying his animals which is sacrificed.
Now it was common (and in the law of Moses) for the sinner to come with a offering for the one who preforms the animal sacrifice.
It is my contention that Job was given the ability, the gift to absolve sin, however instead of letting the sinner come to him, he did it by himself. This was the sin that Job repented of at the end. It was right and good for the sinner to come and ask and present an offering to Job for that to happen and the children to actually have to atone for their sin by coming to Job.
If they are little children or not is a point of contention considering God has renamed people when God changed their life and that God can raise people from the dead.
Would a way to reconcile an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God be that since God is all-powerful, everything it does is by definition Good? Babies with Cancer = Good. Meaningless death in natural disasters = Good. Unpunished cruelty = Good. In this sense, “Goodness” would be synonymous with righteousness, and righteousness set by the ability to define what it means as well as the means to enforce compliance. Power = Goodness.
Such a god would be a monster, but since it defines what “good” is, if you don’t like it, tough cookies.
Your contention is not backed up by any verse in the Bible. You seem to be reading between the lines to create the evidence needed to back up your beliefs.
It actually seems like this is trying to remove the speck in my eye without first removing the mote in yours as that seems to be exactly what you are doing, not just here but other posts.
And it was exactly what Job was stated as doing in the start of the book, and exactly what God instructed Job’s friends to have Job do for them to have their sins forgiven at the end for that exact purpose.
Job 1:4 His sons used to hold feasts in their homes on their birthdays, and they would invite their three sisters to eat and drink with them. 5 When a period of feasting had run its course, Job would make arrangements for them to be purified. Early in the morning he would sacrifice a burnt offering for each of them, thinking, “Perhaps my children have sinned and cursed God in their hearts.” This was Job’s regular custom.
Job 42:8 So now take seven bulls and seven rams and go to my servant Job and sacrifice a burnt offering for yourselves. My servant Job will pray for you, and I will accept his prayer and not deal with you according to your folly. You have not spoken the truth about me, as my servant Job has.” 9 So Eliphaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite and Zophar the Naamathite did what the Lord told them; and the Lord accepted Job’s prayer.
A difference is in the beginning Job used his flocks, in the end the sinners brought their flocks for their sin.
That’s not what “good” means, though, not in English anyway.
The “mysterious ways” defense reminds me of Phil Hartman’s Unfrozen Caveman:
“We cannot know the Lords ways, how to get into Heaven, why bad things happen for good people, for He is mysterious to us. But, if there’s one thing we do know…”
…it’s that two men can’t get married.
…it’s that women can’t be priests.
…it’s that, if you send me your money for my new air conditioned doghouse right now, the Lord will smile upon you and save you!
That still doesn’t solve the paradox of how an all-powerful being is incapable of being malevolent. And I don’t think there’s a lot of evidence that the Abrahamic God is incapable of being malevolent. Quite the opposite. However, I think an argument could be made that he is sometimes benevolent.
I suppose one could make the argument that an omnipotent being, who is capable of malevolency, chooses to only be benevolent at all times, but again I’m not seeing a whole lot of evidence that that’s the case with the God of Abraham.
This is the best of all possible worlds explanation. In some way, the baby getting cancer produces a better world than one in which the baby doesn’t get cancer. It also works if god is omnimalevolent - you meeting and falling in love with the person of your dreams and being happy leads to something horrible later.
And then there is the problem of how do we know what god does is good. Is it good just because god does it? Then it is random. Is it good because god is meeting some other definition of good? Then god just channels what is good which is outside him.
There is a name for this - it comes from Socrates by way of Plato, so it might actually come from Plato.
I suppose an omnipotent God could define "good’ any way He wants, being omnipotent and all…
Or rely on his followers to do the same in his name, right?
Thanks. That’s the one I was referring to.
Well, that tiny fraction is the audition.
OK, I’m handing out your future destiny test. Eternal bliss or eternal torment? It’s up to you! You have less than a quadrillionth of a yoctosecond to complete it. GoTimes up!
And we’d call them Sea Monkeys
And you may have to take it when you’re thirteen.
If you assume baptism is required, maybe even earlier.