Halcon: You're confusing God with man again.
No, I'm not. I'm referring to Yahweh, and his actions, and what they tell us about him.
TonusOH
JoinedPosts by TonusOH
-
135
Just because Jehovah had to prove His Right To Rule? I don't think so!
by liam inwe get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?
that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.
-
-
-
135
Just because Jehovah had to prove His Right To Rule? I don't think so!
by liam inwe get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?
that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.
-
-
TonusOH
Sea Breeze: And, it is the premise behind this proposition that seems so puzzling to others.
The premise is literally "judge him by his actions." If this is puzzling, I daresay the issue is not with the premise.
Sea Breeze: when we are all using the same definition, your argument immediately falls apart.
Your definition is incomplete, in order to match your presuppositions about what your god is supposed to be. It is not my argument that falls apart, it is the view of god as being only the things you choose to allow, while ignoring the actions that contradict them.
Craig's approach is just a form of "mysterious ways." When god does something that appears wrong, or mistaken, or brutal, or wicked, Craig insists that there must be more to it than we can see on the surface. The problem with this is twofold: for one, many of these actions are pretty clear. Two, it means that we cannot claim to understand him at all, since even the good things he does might be misleading. It is, therefore, useless as an argument.
Halcon: Once again you didn't finish the list. He is also loving, patient, peaceful, considerate, even compassionate according to Christ.
The possibility that god might do something loving or kind does not worry us, for obvious reasons. The possibility that he is irrational, violent, and unpredictable should. Many abusive people are also capable of kindness and compassion. It is not those moments that worry their victims.
Link +3 / -0 -
135
Just because Jehovah had to prove His Right To Rule? I don't think so!
by liam inwe get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?
that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.
-
-
TonusOH
Halcon: People like Tonus cannot fathom that God is both capable of giving punishment and giving reward.
No, no. I understand that just fine. The point that I am (continually) making is that we should judge god by his actions. By his attitude. By his words and his approach. By all of them.
I have no issue with recognizing the nature of a being of near-limitless power and strength who chooses to impose his rules on the universe and the people he created. But we have to also recognize what this says about him, and not only try to define him by what we want him to be. For example, trying to lay responsibility for outcomes at the feet of his creation-- an attitude that does not make sense in any context, but moreso in this one.
We can go with god's self-descriptions, which seems to me to be the best approach. Who is this god? He is jealous. He is vengeful. He is given to anger, and that anger leads to precipitate action. Indeed, the god that most Christians worship today is shaped by the descriptions given by others in the New Testament. And these do not align with a being who uses his power in the manner Yahweh does in the Old Testament.
We have to take all of it into account, and not try to dismiss the stuff that doesn't fit. Either it fits --and god is very different from what we desire for him to be-- or it doesn't --and this god cannot be real.
-
135
Just because Jehovah had to prove His Right To Rule? I don't think so!
by liam inwe get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?
that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.
-
-
TonusOH
Halcon: Are we talking about man's definition of God again?
I am talking about what god's actions --as depicted in his holy book-- say about him, and am willing to use both god's and man's definitions as a basis of comparison. If these do not align with what we know about him, then we must understand why, otherwise it is difficult to believe that he is real.
-
135
Just because Jehovah had to prove His Right To Rule? I don't think so!
by liam inwe get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?
that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.
-
-
-
135
Just because Jehovah had to prove His Right To Rule? I don't think so!
by liam inwe get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?
that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.
-
-
TonusOH
Halcon: On the contrary, God's very explicit self definition solves the problem of what exactly he is capable of doing minus the confusion caused by man.
But it does not resolve the contradiction of how he defines himself versus the way his actions define him. The confusion comes from trying to square that circle. God's actions are not the actions of someone who is loving, compassionate, merciful, and so on. In short, he defines himself out of possible existence.
-
135
Just because Jehovah had to prove His Right To Rule? I don't think so!
by liam inwe get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?
that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.
-
-
TonusOH
God's own definition of himself does not seem to change the problem, because his actions don't align with someone who is compassionate, gracious, slow to anger, loving, faithful, and so on. Indeed, those descriptions are followed by the claim that he will unjustly burden children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren for the sins of their forebears. Sins which wouldn't exist in a world created by a loving and compassionate being.
The only change is that we can now affirm that scripture is at odds with itself, which reinforces the point I made.
Link +3 / -0 -
135
Just because Jehovah had to prove His Right To Rule? I don't think so!
by liam inwe get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?
that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.
-
-
TonusOH
Halcon: From beginning to end, God offers reward or punishment.
Had he wished, he could have only offered reward. Not only does he offer punishment, he offers punishment that will never end. He will keep you alive after death in order to make sure you keep being punished. He understood that this would happen, and he chose to create that universe anyway.
This would be consistent, if he was defined as a sadist. But he is defined as moral, merciful, good, kind, loving, and so on. He is defined as wishing for all to be saved and enjoy eternal bliss. This definition is in direct contrast with the actions he is purported to have taken and the universe he is believed to have designed. That does not make sense.
Link +3 / -0 -
135
Just because Jehovah had to prove His Right To Rule? I don't think so!
by liam inwe get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?
that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.
-
-
TonusOH
Halcon: I've yet to read a scripture where heaven is described as anything similar to suffering.
Sounds like scripture is at odds with the way god is described, then. This, also, is a problem with the Abrahamic god and the religions spawned from belief in it. A god whose nature is contradictory and for whom the supporting text is also inconsistent is unlikely to be real.
These inconsistencies and contradictions would be much more concerning if this god was real. Any possible explanation for those inconsistencies leads us down a dark road, and the understanding that we are this being's helpless playthings should terrify us. We try to paper over those concerns by insisting that he is nothing like this, which sounds a lot like what an abuse victim would say about her abuser.
I don't deny the possibility that a god (or gods) may exist, as this is something impossible to disprove. But I think many gods can be easily dismissed because they don't make sense.
Link +1 / -0 -
135
Just because Jehovah had to prove His Right To Rule? I don't think so!
by liam inwe get old because jehovah had to prove to all the angels that his way of ruling was the best?
that's the sorriest argument the watchtower has come up with.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/11hz_jqjkjo.
-
-
TonusOH
Halcon: But what can anyone do about it?
Exactly. The Christian god is a being with the power to have created a universe where everyone enjoyed comfort, happiness, and bliss from beginning to end. But he instead chose to create one full of suffering, one where a great many people have suffered, and where many more will suffer for all eternity, with no respite. A universe where even he suffered-- an experience that was wholly unnecessary and only possible because he arranged it himself.
The Christian god, as described, is a being who likes suffering. Who revels in it. Think about the requirements for being allowed into heaven. How many of those involve suffering, in some form or another? Those who do not suffer enough in life will suffer endlessly in the afterlife. I have to wonder if heaven is anything like what we imagine it to be. What would heaven be, for a being who is so utterly enthralled by suffering?
Link +2 / -0