Epic Debate Over God's Existance

[Key]

3 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Is that really an issue?  Placing nothing above God?

 

Taking the Gospels at face value -- Jesus was criticized for associating with "sinners".  Even dinning with them.

 

You did say that Jesus was the example for Humanity.

 

If Franklin Graham had been there -- he would have been one of the harshest of those critics.  He would have lead the critics.

 

 

 

 

 

Very true. Even most Evangelicals today would probably contradict Him, sadly.

[Dan56]

17 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Wasn't there something in there saying of faith hope and love the greatest is love?  Guess you pick a different order

 

Yes, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment". God comes first.

"Of faith hope and love the greatest is love" (1 Corinthians 13:13). This is in reference to God, not a love for sin. Free medical help for everyone exemplifies love for others.

 

15 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Is that really an issue?  Placing nothing above God?

Taking the Gospels at face value -- Jesus was criticized for associating with "sinners".  Even dinning with them.

You did say that Jesus was the example for Humanity.

If Franklin Graham had been there -- he would have been one of the harshest of those critics.  He would have lead the critics.

 

Nothing wrong with associating with sinners, we are all sinners, "I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (Luke 5:32).

Jesus was our example, which is why you don't include those who would outwardly deny him to engage in his work (wolves in sheep's clothing).

You don't invite Caesar to work in the Temple, you call disciples who believe to do the work. Graham would eat with sinners, but not use Atheist to spread the gospel.

 

12 hours ago, Key said:

"What you do for the least, you do also for me." Thus, He is the objective. Not using all possible resources to assist in the objective is a form of denying Him, then. That along with the Samaritan parable demonstrates the hypocrisy of certain "Christians".

It is also why there are many factions. Interpretation and faith, which interfere in the relation of doing works to save lives. Focus, initiative, and full use of knowledge and skill are better options to achieve intended goals when it comes to medicine, as we've seen through the ages time and time again.

 

That's correct, "He" is the ultimate objective in all that we do in his name. The Samaritan's Purse is a missionary pursuit to do just that (being a Good Samaritan). Refusing to sign a statement of faith is a form of denying him. It would also reflect poorly on a Christian hospital if those working there were non-christian, that's a "Statement of Confliction".

[cuchulain]

Treating every one equally implies a love for others to me.  Treating them differently or discriminating because of faith puts faith higher than love.

[RevBogovac]

7 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Treating every one equally implies a love for others to me.  Treating them differently or discriminating because of faith puts faith higher than love.

 

Really? You are arguing about this with someone who will defend his god killing every single first born of an entire country because their leader didn't listen to the demands of his stepbrother...

 

Even if that god existed, he is not "good" in my book. Neither would I worship him. Nor want to spend eternity with him.

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Really? You are arguing about this with someone who will defend his god killing every single first born of an entire country because their leader didn't listen to the demands of his stepbrother...

 

Even if that god existed, he is not "good" in my book. Neither would I worship him. Nor want to spend eternity with him.

 

 

 

 

Why start there?  Drowning the planet in Noah's Flood is impressive.     

 

 

 

 

 

[RevBogovac]

12 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Why start there?  Drowning the planet in Noah's Flood is impressive.     

 

Killing innocent babies speaks more to the imagination of an unjust deity... 

 

Although I am sure there are more than enough "christians" to be found who will explain to us how their god did it out of love and a profound sense of justice.

 

[Dan56]

22 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Treating every one equally implies a love for others to me.  Treating them differently or discriminating because of faith puts faith higher than love.

 

Everyone is not the same, you treat them differently when they are different. Faith in God is the highest form of love, putting people secondary is not discrimination, its just having your priorities in order. 

 

14 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Really? You are arguing about this with someone who will defend his god killing every single first born of an entire country because their leader didn't listen to the demands of his stepbrother...

 

Even if that god existed, he is not "good" in my book. Neither would I worship him. Nor want to spend eternity with him.

 

 

If a leader is given an ultimatum and refuses to comply, who's really responsible for the repercussions? God is good, people aren't...  400 hundred years of slavery and your sympathy goes to the Pharaoh?

[cuchulain]

41 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

Everyone is not the same, you treat them differently when they are different. Faith in God is the highest form of love, putting people secondary is not discrimination, its just having your priorities in order. 

 

 

If a leader is given an ultimatum and refuses to comply, who's really responsible for the repercussions? God is good, people aren't...  400 hundred years of slavery and your sympathy goes to the Pharaoh?

Spinned it so faith is more important even though your book literally says love trumps faith.  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

Everyone is not the same, you treat them differently when they are different. Faith in God is the highest form of love, putting people secondary is not discrimination, its just having your priorities in order. 

 

 

If a leader is given an ultimatum and refuses to comply, who's really responsible for the repercussions? God is good, people aren't...  400 hundred years of slavery and your sympathy goes to the Pharaoh?

 

 

First, it's a story.  Not actual history.

 

Second, the story is explicit.  God "hardens" Pharaoh's heart. That means that Pharaoh is not a free agent.  It is the puppeteer that does evil things.  Not the puppet.  

 

Third -- Why were the Hebrews in Egypt in the first place?  They were escaping the great famine.  Who sent the famine?  God.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 9, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

Everyone is not the same, you treat them differently when they are different. Faith in God is the highest form of love, putting people secondary is not discrimination, its just having your priorities in order. 

 

 

If a leader is given an ultimatum and refuses to comply, who's really responsible for the repercussions? God is good, people aren't...  400 hundred years of slavery and your sympathy goes to the Pharaoh?

 

Seriously?     

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

Killing innocent babies speaks more to the imagination of an unjust deity... 

 

Although I am sure there are more than enough "christians" to be found who will explain to us how their god did it out of love and a profound sense of justice.

 

 

A brutal and unjust clergy leadership, will project a brutal and unjust God.     

 

 

 

[Key]

8 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

Everyone is not the same, you treat them differently when they are different. Faith in God is the highest form of love, putting people secondary is not discrimination, its just having your priorities in order. 

 

 

If a leader is given an ultimatum and refuses to comply, who's really responsible for the repercussions? God is good, people aren't...  400 hundred years of slavery and your sympathy goes to the Pharaoh?

Christ literally commanded to love others as yourself. Love your neighbor, as well as your enemies. Where is that saying to treat anyone differently? By not doing this, how are you truly honoring Him?

Btw, when He says that what you do for the least, you do also for me, that is not meant to put people secondary. All of this means, to value others or life more, as it honors Him to do so.

[Dan56]

21 hours ago, cuchulain said:

Spinned it so faith is more important even though your book literally says love trumps faith.  

 

The greatest commandment is; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind". So how do you love something that you have no faith in? Faith is trust, and love is demonstrated by trust, you can't have one without the other.  No spin, you just can't love a God that you don't believe exist!

 

20 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Second, the story is explicit.  God "hardens" Pharaoh's heart. That means that Pharaoh is not a free agent.  It is the puppeteer that does evil things.  Not the puppet.  

 

 

The Egyptian pharaohs had enslaved the Israelites for 400 years. A previous pharaoh, possibly even the pharaoh in question, ordered that male Israelite babies be killed at birth (Exodus 1:16). The pharaoh God hardened was an evil man, and the nation he ruled agreed with, or at least did not oppose, his evil actions.

Second, on least a couple occasions, Pharaoh hardened his own heart against letting the Israelites go: “But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart” (Exodus 8:15). “But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart” (Exodus 8:32). It seems that God and Pharaoh were both active in one way or another in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart.

 

12 hours ago, Key said:

Christ literally commanded to love others as yourself. Love your neighbor, as well as your enemies. Where is that saying to treat anyone differently? By not doing this, how are you truly honoring Him?

Btw, when He says that what you do for the least, you do also for me, that is not meant to put people secondary. All of this means, to value others or life more, as it honors Him to do so.

 

We are socially commanded to love one another, but condoning sin is not an act of love. Jesus himself didn't give everyone a thumbs up. Did Jesus treat the Pharisees the same as his disciples? "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him " (Luke 17:3). Remember the woman caught in adultery, Jesus told her to stop sinning (John 8:11). Loving/praying for your enemy doesn't necessarily mean an exchange of polite etiquette, correcting a wrong just as a parent corrects a child is also considered an act of love. 

[cuchulain]

The greatest of these is love.  You figured out how to change it and you don't get that your simply justifying the way you want it to be instead of trying to live by the actual word for word message.  Yes you have your own brand of Christianity and it doesn't make sense.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

5 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

The greatest of these is love.  You figured out how to change it and you don't get that your simply justifying the way you want it to be instead of trying to live by the actual word for word message.  Yes you have your own brand of Christianity and it doesn't make sense.

 

Of course.  It's Dan.     

 

 

[RevBogovac]

On 7/9/2020 at 12:04 PM, Dan56 said:

[...]

If a leader is given an ultimatum and refuses to comply, who's really responsible for the repercussions? God is good, people aren't...  400 hundred years of slavery and your sympathy goes to the Pharaoh?

 

1. That's a load of crap logic criminals (hostage-takers/kidnappers) use to justify their actions;

 

2. Punishing others instead of the one responsible is morally wrong. He should have punished pharaoh.

 

But sure, you think he is "good". Sure...

[Key]

7 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

The greatest commandment is; "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind". So how do you love something that you have no faith in? Faith is trust, and love is demonstrated by trust, you can't have one without the other.  No spin, you just can't love a God that you don't believe exist!

 

 

The Egyptian pharaohs had enslaved the Israelites for 400 years. A previous pharaoh, possibly even the pharaoh in question, ordered that male Israelite babies be killed at birth (Exodus 1:16). The pharaoh God hardened was an evil man, and the nation he ruled agreed with, or at least did not oppose, his evil actions.

Second, on least a couple occasions, Pharaoh hardened his own heart against letting the Israelites go: “But when Pharaoh saw that there was relief, he hardened his heart” (Exodus 8:15). “But this time also Pharaoh hardened his heart” (Exodus 8:32). It seems that God and Pharaoh were both active in one way or another in the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart.

 

 

We are socially commanded to love one another, but condoning sin is not an act of love. Jesus himself didn't give everyone a thumbs up. Did Jesus treat the Pharisees the same as his disciples? "Take heed to yourselves: If thy brother trespass against thee, rebuke him; and if he repent, forgive him " (Luke 17:3). Remember the woman caught in adultery, Jesus told her to stop sinning (John 8:11). Loving/praying for your enemy doesn't necessarily mean an exchange of polite etiquette, correcting a wrong just as a parent corrects a child is also considered an act of love. 

If his disciples respected Him as the Pharisees did, He would. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Treating others equally isn't "condoning sin". To even say that is just an excuse to give yourself that discrimination is okay.

To work with others to achieve a common goal outside of religion is not condoning sin, unless the goal is to actively participate in the sin. Give up the judging, Dan. It really doesn't work the way you think it does.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

 

It's time to rethink the assumption of God's goodness.

 

Why do we say that God is good?  Because God said that God is good?  That's nothing but a circular argument.  Or an appeal to authority.  Neither is a good argument.

 

Is God subordinate to some principle of goodness?  Then God is not all powerful.

 

God's evil in the Bible defies cataloging, for quantity, variety and depth.  Please, no appeals to God's "nature".  That is fully on display and it's not a thing of beauty.

 

No.  The only reason to say that God is good, is the doctrine of God's goodness.  Really.  It's time to move on.

 

     😷

 

 

Edited July 10, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

18 hours ago, cuchulain said:

The greatest of these is love.  You figured out how to change it and you don't get that your simply justifying the way you want it to be instead of trying to live by the actual word for word message.  Yes you have your own brand of Christianity and it doesn't make sense.

 

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him" (John 14:21). That's Christianity in a nut shell. Your brand of love is tolerating any and everything, but watching sinful acts and blessing those who conduct themselves in ungodly ways, is not the biblical definition of love. What you really want is for Christians to condone all manner of sin, and when they don't, your quick to allege that they're void of love. Giving a thumbs-up to evil is no demonstration of love.

 

13 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

1. That's a load of crap logic criminals (hostage-takers/kidnappers) use to justify their actions;

 

2. Punishing others instead of the one responsible is morally wrong. He should have punished pharaoh.

 

But sure, you think he is "good". Sure...

 

Most 'leaders' have the support of their people. It wasn't just the Pharaoh who benefited from slavery in Egypt. Going along makes everyone culpable. 

We are all morally wrong, but who bore the punishment for our transgressions? God is good.

I know its a stretch, but there's a remote possibility the He who created all that is, might know a tad bit more than you do about fairly administering justice? Compare Christ to yourself, which of you would you honestly classify as 'good'?

 

 

12 hours ago, Key said:

If his disciples respected Him as the Pharisees did, He would. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Treating others equally isn't "condoning sin". To even say that is just an excuse to give yourself that discrimination is okay.

To work with others to achieve a common goal outside of religion is not condoning sin, unless the goal is to actively participate in the sin. Give up the judging, Dan. It really doesn't work the way you think it does.

 

Refusing to condone sin is not discrimination. Your insisting that Christians alter their moral values, and refusing to do so makes them bigots. Treating others equally is good, but it doesn't entail embracing their moral standards, or the lack thereof. "Doing unto others" does not always necessitate favorable treatment, e.g; If I stole a car I'd expect to be locked up, likewise if someone stole my car, I'd want them locked-up.

 

God is never outside of a Christian life, but its not unacceptable to have common goals with non-Christians. I just feel that something like the Samaritan's Purse was a specific group, and being a Christian operation did not require it to be all-inclusive to everyone opposing the values it represented.    

 

11 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Is God subordinate to some principle of goodness?  Then God is not all powerful.  😷

 

 

"God is good" is a statement of fact, its not a characterization of what you determine is good or bad. God is not subordinate to anything. "Good" is not Websters definition, its what God is.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, Dan56 said:

 

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him" (John 14:21). That's Christianity in a nut shell. Your brand of love is tolerating any and everything, but watching sinful acts and blessing those who conduct themselves in ungodly ways, is not the biblical definition of love. What you really want is for Christians to condone all manner of sin, and when they don't, your quick to allege that they're void of love. Giving a thumbs-up to evil is no demonstration of love.

 

 

Most 'leaders' have the support of their people. It wasn't just the Pharaoh who benefited from slavery in Egypt. Going along makes everyone culpable. 

We are all morally wrong, but who bore the punishment for our transgressions? God is good.

I know its a stretch, but there's a remote possibility the He who created all that is, might know a tad bit more than you do about fairly administering justice? Compare Christ to yourself, which of you would you honestly classify as 'good'?

 

 

 

Refusing to condone sin is not discrimination. Your insisting that Christians alter their moral values, and refusing to do so makes them bigots. Treating others equally is good, but it doesn't entail embracing their moral standards, or the lack thereof. "Doing unto others" does not always necessitate favorable treatment, e.g; If I stole a car I'd expect to be locked up, likewise if someone stole my car, I'd want them locked-up.

 

God is never outside of a Christian life, but its not unacceptable to have common goals with non-Christians. I just feel that something like the Samaritan's Purse was a specific group, and being a Christian operation did not require it to be all-inclusive to everyone opposing the values it represented.    

 

 

"God is good" is a statement of fact, its not a characterization of what you determine is good or bad. God is not subordinate to anything. "Good" is not Websters definition, its what God is.

 

 

"God is good" is a statement of fact, it is not a characterization of what you determine is good or bad.

 

A statement of fact?          A bald assertion does not make it so.     

 

 

 

God is not subordinate to anything.

 

Then God's goodness, is based on nothing more, than God saying that God is Good?

 

 

 

"Good" is not Websters definition, its what God is.

 

     Now, you don't need a dictionary?         What happened to your earlier statement in this thread?     

"I can relate to that ..... The simple remedy is a dictionary, but Atheist don't seem to like that definition."

 

 

 

     Oh, Dan.  You don't get to make up rules -- or facts -- as needed.     

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2020 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl