To those who believe in a perfect, all-powerful God

[Jake]

God? Whose God?
Your premise is wrong. You’re assuming that your god is “Correct and Omnipotent and can do no wrong.” That’s your opinion. Not mine or a Hell of a lot of other people’s.

Start with this premise: God rewards evil and punishes (assuming a vindictive diety) good. Where will this leave us?

The same place we are now. I’m saying that people are basically good.

I don’t think we needed to invent a god or gods.

[JMS_CCT]

@the raindog

JMS@CCT said:

Can I make a suggestion?

I think you’re trying to do too much, too fast.

You’re like a bull in a china shop. Before you fully explain/resolve one of your cites there is another post with another 20 biblical cites/texts. While I appreciate the time, effort and energy involved (more than you realize) there is a sense that you’re throwing everything up on the wall to see what sticks. When one of your cites is challenged for validity, rather than respond you put up another post with a slew of more cites. Even those cites are not fully explained but run together in one long disjointed paragraph.

I have a sense that rather than answering in a methodical, reasoned way you respond with volume. (the non-noise kind of volume) I’d like to respond to your latest post, but we’re not done with your previous assertions. You seem to throw them out there and abandon them in lieu of another 20 more cites.

Lastly, as a favor, don’t assume that anyone is buying into “accepted lines of Christian thought.” You have a bible. So do I. (On a side note you said, “Concerning God’s word: I suggest you get yourself a copy of it. You don’t have one in that (b)ible your reading.” Actually I have 13 different translations, 1 concordance and 2 interlinears. Surely we can find one that is agreeable, although there is nothing wrong with referencing how other scholars render a word or phrase. (KJV was authorized 1500 years after Christ by a non-Christian in a language that is not common to us. For that reason, I’m not a huge fan of KJV, but will gladly use it if you wish.)) If you’re going to make a case, it will be with the bible. Further, I will rely on the bible to express myself and not using the “accepted lines of thought” by my pastor. (Who I generally don’t find very credible)

So, here’s my suggestion:

1. Make your overall point in a paragraph. No cites! Just in brief terms lay it out.
2. Break it down, and in concise paragraphs make your sub-points.
3. Use paragraph breaks to separate main thoughts!
4. Use fewer cites, and fully develop the cites you make. You make one cite, quote less than the verse cited, and than with less than a full sentence separating them make another partial cite. It’s maddening! We’re not going anywhere. You can get them all in with out using the buckshot approach.
5. Explain yourself and resolve any challenges before going to your next point.
6. Use quote boxes for readability.

Some people are inclined to actually read the cites you make ( I am a student of the bible and fairly familiar with it) and so throwing up more and more cites will not impress readers as much as fully explaining the ones you put up. (Perhaps it impresses those who don’t. who knows?)

Anyway, must get back to my grindstone. Perhaps I’ll get back to this tonight during the Cards game.

I am not spiritually edified by someone’s scripturally unsubstantiated opinions. The Bible itself asserts that, "faith come by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,"(Romans 10:17) not by one’s opinion of it (the word). This is why I cite a lot of scripture. contrary to what you say, it is not my desire to impress anyone with my knowledge of scripture. My desire is for people to see the truth in scripture itself, and I see no other way to accomplish this but to point them to it. If this “puts them off” (as it apparently does you), so be it. Paul told Timothy: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine…” and this can’t be done outside of Scripture.

You say we agree on more than we disagree. I"m afraid I don’t agree with that statement at all. We may agree on some points, but fundamentally we aren’t even in the same ballpark. Here is:

1. The reason you are annoyed by my liberal citing of scripture is (and the reason you rarely cite it to back up your statements), you don’t believe you have the absolute, inerent, preserved word of God, and it puts you off when you run into someone who does. I do believe I have it in a King James Bible, and therefore I believe it is my final authority in faith and practice; so why would I not cite it?

2. You, like most other Christians, believe you’re in the New Testament, and apparently believe this because of the “legion” of others that believe it. I believe we better look at what “the Book” says, because we are responsible for what “it” says; not what somebody else says about it–no matter what their number. Here’s what I believe it clearly says: a. We are in the "dispensation of Grace," a parenthesis in time, sandwiched between the OT and the NT(re-read my answer to Tim314 for scriptural documentation this). b. Therefore, No one in the world today who is saved is in the covenants of promise (Eph. 2:11,12), they’re part of a “new man” (Eph. 2:15), which is the “body of Christ.”

3. When you co-mingle New Testament (kingdom) doctrine with body (of Christ) doctrine (as you and the “legions” you cite do) you pervert the gospel of Christ (Gal. 1:7). and do despite to the grace of God.

I spent the first eight years of my Christian odessy ( which began in 1985)believing what you believe: that we’re in the New Testament. When what I now preach was first presented to me my reaction was: “This can’t be so because there are too many witnesses over the centuries that disagree with it.” Isn’t that what you’re saying? But the individual who showed me the truth, kept pointing to the Book itself as proof of what he was telling me. Up until that time I would characterize myself (as you have) as a “fair” student of the Bible. I realized after spending time with this individual, who showed me Paul’s mystery, that he did a lot more than merely read the Bible: he “labored” in it (1 Tim. 5:17). I was “put off” by his excessive use of scripture, until I came to realize that in doing this he had authority and I didn’t.

[JMS_CCT]

@the raindog

JMS@CCT said:

Can I make a suggestion?

I think you’re trying to do too much, too fast.

You’re like a bull in a china shop. Before you fully explain/resolve one of your cites there is another post with another 20 biblical cites/texts. While I appreciate the time, effort and energy involved (more than you realize) there is a sense that you’re throwing everything up on the wall to see what sticks. When one of your cites is challenged for validity, rather than respond you put up another post with a slew of more cites. Even those cites are not fully explained but run together in one long disjointed paragraph.

I have a sense that rather than answering in a methodical, reasoned way you respond with volume. (the non-noise kind of volume) I’d like to respond to your latest post, but we’re not done with your previous assertions. You seem to throw them out there and abandon them in lieu of another 20 more cites.

Lastly, as a favor, don’t assume that anyone is buying into “accepted lines of Christian thought.” You have a bible. So do I. (On a side note you said, “Concerning God’s word: I suggest you get yourself a copy of it. You don’t have one in that (b)ible your reading.” Actually I have 13 different translations, 1 concordance and 2 interlinears. Surely we can find one that is agreeable, although there is nothing wrong with referencing how other scholars render a word or phrase. (KJV was authorized 1500 years after Christ by a non-Christian in a language that is not common to us. For that reason, I’m not a huge fan of KJV, but will gladly use it if you wish.)) If you’re going to make a case, it will be with the bible. Further, I will rely on the bible to express myself and not using the “accepted lines of thought” by my pastor. (Who I generally don’t find very credible)

So, here’s my suggestion:

1. Make your overall point in a paragraph. No cites! Just in brief terms lay it out.
2. Break it down, and in concise paragraphs make your sub-points.
3. Use paragraph breaks to separate main thoughts!
4. Use fewer cites, and fully develop the cites you make. You make one cite, quote less than the verse cited, and than with less than a full sentence separating them make another partial cite. It’s maddening! We’re not going anywhere. You can get them all in with out using the buckshot approach.
5. Explain yourself and resolve any challenges before going to your next point.
6. Use quote boxes for readability.

Some people are inclined to actually read the cites you make ( I am a student of the bible and fairly familiar with it) and so throwing up more and more cites will not impress readers as much as fully explaining the ones you put up. (Perhaps it impresses those who don’t. who knows?)

Anyway, must get back to my grindstone. Perhaps I’ll get back to this tonight during the Cards game.

I am not spiritually edified by someone’s scripturally unsubstantiated opinions. The Bible itself asserts that, "faith come by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,"(Romans 10:17) not by one’s opinion of it (the word). This is why I cite a lot of scripture. contrary to what you say, it is not my desire to impress anyone with my knowledge of scripture. My desire is for people to see the truth in scripture itself, and I see no other way to accomplish this but to point them to it. If this “puts them off” (as it apparently does you), so be it. Paul told Timothy: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine…” and this can’t be done outside of Scripture.

You say we agree on more than we disagree. I"m afraid I don’t agree with that statement at all. We may agree on some points, but fundamentally we aren’t even in the same ballpark. Here is:

1. The reason you are annoyed by my liberal citing of scripture is (and the reason you rarely cite it to back up your statements), you don’t believe you have the absolute, inerent, preserved word of God, and it puts you off when you run into someone who does. I do believe I have it in a King James Bible, and therefore I believe it is my final authority in faith and practice; so why would I not cite it?

2. You, like most other Christians, believe you’re in the New Testament, and apparently believe this because of the “legion” of others that believe it. I believe we better look at what “the Book” says, because we are responsible for what “it” says; not what somebody else says about it–no matter what their number. Here’s what I believe it clearly says: a. We are in the "dispensation of Grace," a parenthesis in time, sandwiched between the OT and the NT(re-read my answer to Tim314 for scriptural documentation this). b. Therefore, No one in the world today who is saved is in the covenants of promise (Eph. 2:11,12), they’re part of a “new man” (Eph. 2:15), which is the “body of Christ.”

3. When you co-mingle New Testament (kingdom) doctrine with body (of Christ) doctrine (as you and the “legions” you cite do) you pervert the gospel of Christ (Gal. 1:7). and do despite to the grace of God.

I spent the first eight years of my Christian odessy ( which began in 1985)believing what you believe: that we’re in the New Testament. When what I now preach was first presented to me my reaction was: “This can’t be so because there are too many witnesses over the centuries that disagree with it.” Isn’t that what you’re saying? But the individual who showed me the truth, kept pointing to the Book itself as proof of what he was telling me. Up until that time I would characterize myself (as you have) as a “fair” student of the Bible. I realized after spending time with this individual, who showed me Paul’s mystery, that he did a lot more than merely read the Bible: he “labored” in it (1 Tim. 5:17). I was “put off” by his excessive use of scripture, until I came to realize that in doing this he was asserting an authority I didn’t have. This is when my “real” Bible education began.

[SatyaRaven_sDad]

My comment is prompted by the gratuitousness and conspicuousness of the candidates’ religious faith in the third presidential debates. What is it about the human psyche that causes the vast majority of people to still believe in silly, superstitious things like a personal god (which I call “the big sky daddy”) and an immortal soul when we have such an overwhelming assemblage of evidence to the contrary? This isn’t about “religion”, but these basic beliefs underlying religion. Religious membership and cohesiveness is another, easier to understand issue.

I know that ego projection and of course the primal fear of death and oblivion lead many to resist an acceptance of their mortality and people also so desperately want a super-human paternalistic authority figure to reward the “good” and punish the “bad”, but why are so many educated and otherwise intelligent people still stuck in this pathological state of stupidity and gullibility? I know where these concepts originated (primarily an absence of understanding of natural phenomena and a need for control and justice), but why do they linger in civilized, educated societies? It’s downright embarrassing that the bulk of the members of such an “advanced” species still fumble around in the dark in regard to a scientific understanding of our universe (at least at the local level), when the science is pretty well understood. Moreover, why do ethical and trustworthy atheists not get any respect (at least from the electorate)?

The bible is full of good stuff, and much of it is not original, such as the Great Flood, which is a much much older tale found in Sumerian and Babylonian texts. It is without questions that what we call “the bible” today (in all its versions) is thje product of cherry picking by both Jewish and Christian scholars over the millenia of specific texts and translations thereof written by numerous authors. Having literal belief in it is mind-blowing to me. It is sheer cerebral slavery and meme propagation. To me the only valuablke perspective is the skeptical one. The others are stuck in a mire of opinion and superstition. TRUTH comes from inquiry, not blind acceptance of doctrine and dogma. However, most people are not looking for truth, they want fairytales and sugar-coated realities and reassuring falicies and outright lies that make them feel better.

Failure to see this simple fact does not make one’s perspective any more legitimate, just that much less qualified.

[tim314]

@Jake

God? Whose God?
Your premise is wrong. You’re assuming that your god is “Correct and Omnipotent and can do no wrong.” That’s your opinion. Not mine or a Hell of a lot of other people’s.

Start with this premise: God rewards evil and punishes (assuming a vindictive diety) good. Where will this leave us?

The same place we are now. I’m saying that people are basically good.

I don’t think we needed to invent a god or gods.

You’re missing the whole point of the thread. I was asking Christians (and others of similar religious views) to resolve what seemed like a contradiction in their beliefs. I was saying If you believe in an omnipotent, perfect God then how do you resolve this apparent contradiction. Hence the title of the thread. Obviously, if you don’t believe that God is correct and omnipotent and can do no wrong, then there’s no reason to think he’d prevent the suffering in the world. Obviously, if you don’t believe in God, there’s no reason to think there wouldn’t be suffering in the world. That’s beside the point. And I never said that I believe in a perfect, omnipotent God – you just inferred that.

[JMS_CCT]

@tim314

When did I say he hasn’t been involved? I said he’s gotten more subtle – if the Bible is to be believed, then God used to perform obvious, indesputable miracles. Frogs raining from the sky, the red sea parting, etc. And yet today he does not. So my question is, for those who believe in the Bible, how do you explain the fact that God is clearly much more subtle today than he was an Biblical times? What made him stop performing obvious miracles?

Two reasons:

1. [B]“Mighty signs and wonders”** (Rom. 15:19), are particular to Israel . Because “The Jews require a sign” (1 Corinthians 1:22) God gave them multitudes of them in the OT (beginning with Moses) and in the beginning of the New Testament (Matthew through Acts). Since there is now no distinction made between Jew and Gentile in God’s eyes(which there definitly was in both the OT and NT), and everyone who is in the family of God is in a spiritual entity called the body of Christ (See Galatians 3:28), there is no call for God to manifest himself in the manner he did in former times.

2. We (in the world today) have his (God’s) finished revelation. The Apostle Paul said, in his first letter to the Corinthians of the manifestation of signs that, “they shall fail…cease…vanish away…(be) done away (with)…when that which is perfect is come.” (1 Cor. 13:8-10) This begs the question: what is “that which is perfect?” The completed revelationn of God. How do we know we have it? Consider what the Apostel says in one of his last letters, Colossians: “Wherefore I (Paul) am made a minister, according to the dispensation (grace) of God which is given to me for you, to fulfill the word of God.” (Col. 1:25)

Therefore, “Faith (now) cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God,” (Romans 10:17), **, not by witnessing a miracle. “We (now) walk by faith (in God’s word), and not by sight.”(2 Cor. 5:7)

The Scriptural evidence of the cessation of miracles can be found in what is considered to be Paul’s last letter, 2 Timothy, where he informs Timothy that he has left one of his co-labours, Trophimus, sick. Why would a man, who had all the powers and signs of an Apostle throughout the Acts transition, who healed untold numbers of people he didn’t even know, leave a brother in Christ sick? What other explanation is there but that he no longer possessed the power to heal anybody?

Charismatics are quick to counter this by saying that God is performing miracles through Christians today, and offer as proof that they have “seen” people get hands laid on them and get healed, and they have “seen” people speak in tongues, and have “seen” people delivered from devil possession, etc. I don’t doubt that they have. But, if it says that we now walk by faith (in the finished word of God) rather than sight, could these manifestations be coming from God?
The God of the Bible?

[raindog]

JMS@CCT said:

This is why I cite a lot of scripture. contrary to what you say, it is not my desire to impress anyone with my knowledge of scripture. My desire is for people to see the truth in scripture itself, and I see no other way to accomplish this but to point them to it. If this “puts them off” (as it apparently does you), so be it. Paul told Timothy: “Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine…” and this can’t be done outside of Scripture.

Unless you’ve been a member before under a different name, you just got here. Is that about right? I haven’t been here a long time myself. In that time, I’ve made a small name for myself because of a propensity to use the bible to show God’s view on things, even to the apparent chagrin of respected and knowledgeable posters like Polycarp. If you read through my posts, again and again and again I’ve suggested that people read the bible for themselves. I’ve made it painfully clear to anyone taking the time to read these tortured posts to not take anything said by me, or anyone else, with anymore than a grain of salt; that they should read the bible for themselves and come to their own conclusions. Further, I’ve suggested that people should make bible reading a regular (if not daily!) excercise. My point is that I am not (read: NOT) put off by your citing the bible. I also think that the bible should be the final arbiter; on that we apparently agree.

My point in my posts is that you do not develop your points. When questioned, you just throw up more cites. You appear to have a bias for quantity over quality. I wasn’t suggesting that you not use the bible. I was suggesting that you slow down and develop your points. Are you moving to the outback soon without an internet connection? You can get in every single cite you want----every single one of them---- in this disussion. But you don’t need to get them all in a couple posts. And even then it’s OK if you can develop your points and put together a cohesive thread. But you haven’t. Even a person who is inclined to believe you, or who is interested in your thoughts, is bewildered by the buckshot approach. You’re free to take comfort in the fact you cite scrpiture. But my issue is that you’re doing a poor job of explaining it.

And so you’re right. You cite a lot of scrpiture. And it’s good that you’re not trying to impress anyone. :smack:

1. The reason you are annoyed by my liberal citing of scripture is (and the reason you rarely cite it to back up your statements), you don’t believe you have the absolute, inerent, preserved word of God, and it puts you off when you run into someone who does. I do believe I have it in a King James Bible, and therefore I believe it is my final authority in faith and practice; so why would I not cite it?

I’m not annoyed. And you don’t know what I believe about the bible do you? It is presumptuous in the extreme to state what I believe and then formulate an argument for it. Shheeessshhh! I’m not put off by your knowledge. I’m put off by your seeming unwillingness to slow down and present your thoughts .

The KJV is a fine bible, authorized by a king 1500+ years after Christ, in a form of English that is not common to us now. There are many fine bibles in use today that are in modern English. Further, there are bibles of that era available as well (some of which form the bedrock of the KJV such as Coverdale, Geneva & Tyndale) If the KJV bible is your favorite, cool!

2. You, like most other Christians, believe you’re in the New Testament, and apparently believe this because of the “legion” of others that believe it.

Why don’t we let me say what I believe, ok? I think you have enough on your hands trying to articulate (cogently) what you believe.

I believe we better look at what “the Book” says, because we are responsible for what “it” says; not what somebody else says about it–no matter what their number.

No disagreement there…

Here’s what I believe it clearly says: a. We are in the "dispensation of Grace," a parenthesis in time, sandwiched between the OT and the NT(re-read my answer to Tim314 for scriptural documentation this). b. Therefore, No one in the world today who is saved is in the covenants of promise (Eph. 2:11,12), they’re part of a “new man” (Eph. 2:15), which is the “body of Christ.”

Freeze! Don’t move or I’ll shoot. Go back to your post to Tim314 and** fully **develop that thought.

3. When you co-mingle New Testament (kingdom) doctrine with body (of Christ) doctrine (as you and the “legions” you cite do) you pervert the gospel of Christ (Gal. 1:7). and do despite to the grace of God.

Huh? Let’s hold off on that until you make your earlier point, ok? And, we can take this offline if you wish and we can take the time to investigate the cites, one by one.

I spent the first eight years of my Christian odessy ( which began in 1985)believing what you believe: that we’re in the New Testament.

Man, you don’t know what I believe! But I don’t doubt you’re on an odyssey.

When what I now preach was first presented to me my reaction was: “This can’t be so because there are too many witnesses over the centuries that disagree with it.” Isn’t that what you’re saying?

Nope. That’s not what I’m saying, nor is it what I said. If I have, please quote it verbatim and I’ll promptly 'fess up. (or find some excuse to disavow…)

But the individual who showed me the truth, kept pointing to the Book itself as proof of what he was telling me. Up until that time I would characterize myself (as you have) as a “fair” student of the Bible.

Whoa! Where did I say that I was a “fair” student? Heck, Polycarp has me panting over treatises just around the corner! I am a student of the bible. If I live to be 100 I will be a student of the bible. I never said I was a “fair” student, did I? I might be The Teacher’s pet for all you know!

I realized after spending time with this individual, who showed me Paul’s mystery, that he did a lot more than merely read the Bible: he “labored” in it (1 Tim. 5:17). I was “put off” by his excessive use of scripture, until I came to realize that in doing this he was asserting an authority I didn’t have. This is when my “real” Bible education began.

I’m not letting you off the hook with that implication. I am not put off by the [excessive] use of scrpiture unless it is presented in a less than cohesive and orderly way. I would be glad to labor along with you (and that does seem to be an apropros word right about now) but that should involve taking the time to investigate context, intent etc. The 2 that I have investigated; Paul’s use of “fool” vis a vis Matthew 5, and the dispute at Acts 15 over circumcision and your explantions of then don’t leave me sanguine for the rest of them.