Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: An "inconsistent" Christian God? A response.

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    WNC
    Posts
    127

    An "inconsistent" Christian God? A response.

    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Oh yes Yahweh is a vengeful, wrathful, violent and inconsistent god indeed.
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post2175853

    Quote Originally Posted by drsysadmin View Post
    It is important to recall that Yahwey's wrath is not about people, it is about the sin that people commit. When considered with that fact remembered, there is no inconsistency on the part of God or of His wrath.
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post2175977

    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Yes those pesky children that were wiped out by a flood or killed by his chosen children because they were born on a plot of land he promised them.
    Wrathful against sin he gets to define, demanding a blood sacrifice yet if he was the all powerful he could have just made man perfect again.
    http://forum.opencarry.org/forums/sh...=1#post2176014

    As StealthyEliminator pointed out in his response on the original thread, God provided via His own Son the "demanded blood sacrifice" and thus provided a way to avoid the wrath. One merely needs to accept it.

    However, lets deal with "those pesky children" first. Whether killed by a flood or killed by His "chosen" - they fall into 2 groups.

    The first, children accountable to God for their sins are treated no different than the adults - Romans 6:23 defines the "wages of sin" as "death". This however only applies to those who have the capacity to discern between good and evil, who have the ability to know what is acceptable before God and what is not. Thus they also have the ability to discern the "escape clause" provided by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and can choose to accept the gift of salvation.

    That leaves those too young or otherwise incapable of comprehending the concepts of right and wrong, of action and repercussion. What of them? Especially as some were "wiped out by a flood or killed" - what does the Bible say regarding children in that situation? One can look at Ezekiel 16: 20-21 as well as passages in Matthew (Chapters 18 and 19) to see that those who "have never seen light" or as deemed as "children" are given rest and belong to heaven - thus the Bible states that such children (even those aborted per Ezekiel) are not forced to go through a negative judgment.

    Summary: If your old enough (speaking mental maturity - not chronological age) to know the difference between good and evil, your old enough to also choose salvation. If you are not old enough to know the difference, then you are deemed innocent by God and go to heaven.

    Given that the flood was in response to the earth being "filled with violence" and "all flesh had corrupted" (See Genesis 6: 11-13), God determined to destroy the earth and all in it. Had every "child" (as defined above) grown to maturity, how few or many would have chosen to act righteously before God? It definitely wasn't 100% - thus the flood SAVED the souls of all those children not yet "grown" to responsibility! Not only was the flood a corrective action - it was also a MERCIFUL act that spared an untold number of children from growing into unsaved adults who would then face judgement before God and be found wanting. While I can not claim to know the Mind of God, the logical conclusion is that even in what many consider to be a most heinous act based on human standards (and recall, attempting to judge God by human standards is ludicrous on its face) - the action in fact SAVED untold numbers of souls and would - in human parlance - be making the best of a bad situation. Once eggs are broken, one can still make a pretty good omelet, and it would APPEAR from a human perspective that the flood was exactly that - taking a massive screw up by humans and turning it into the best possible outcome *spiritually speaking) in the "long run".

    Regarding the children who were killed because they were born on a plot of land....
    Gentiles in the Old Testament were still able to become saved. While many believe Christianity started with Jesus, Christianity started well before the arrival of Jesus on this earth. The difference between the Jew and the Gentile is one of ceremonial law and "birth" - but ALL people were (and are) created by God and thus have the ability to be redeemed through Jesus - even prior to His coming to earth and dying for sins. One need only look to OT Biblical examples of Gentiles becoming Christian (as choosing to believe in Yahweh and thus the promise of redemption to come). Examples include Ruth, Nebuchadnezzar and Rahab. So if they were "mature" as discussed above, they had the opportunity to be saved. If not, then they were - according the Bible - counted as saved.

    What happens to us on this "level of existence" matters much to us, so I doubt anyone (children or adult) appreciated being killed, but those saved I doubt bear a grudge against the Lord for it happening. Neither I, nor anyone else living can speak to how their soul will view it through the lens of eternity, but I kind of doubt they will be grumpy about it forever and ever while in heaven... Just sayin...

    For those that doubt salvation before Jesus, feel free to note how Genesis 3:14, Genesis 15:6, Acts 10:43, Titus 2:11, Romans 4:5 and 1st Peter 1:18&19 make clear that the promise of salvation through Christ existed before the first human ever died - thus making salvation truly available to every human that ever lived.

    Hardly something a "vengeful, wrathful, violent and inconsistent" God would provide. On the contrary, God's consistently has despised the sin of man, and consistently offered a way to escape the "wages of sin". Every human merely chooses for themselves whether they wish to face the vengeful (and RIGHTEOUS) violent wrath of God, or instead accept the greatest of loving Gifts He provide through the Savior, our Lord Jesus Christ.
    Last edited by drsysadmin; 01-10-2016 at 12:55 PM.

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    I would say if you can't apply the principle to humans (abortion for example) than you cannot apply those principles to a god.

    If a human cannot kill a child because they are not of age of understanding than why can a god?
    If god is almighty and omniscient then why require a blood sacrifice? Why not just erase the inherited sin? This point was given to me by a christian in why he too doesn't like gods actions yet is still a christian I found it a very intriguing point.

    PS My attacks are not on christians per se, questioning Yahweh who is the god of Christians, Jews and Muslims is not a specific attack on "a christian god". I hope we can remain friendly in these discussions.
    Last edited by sudden valley gunner; 01-10-2016 at 01:32 PM.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,880
    thank goodness it is Sunday and the social lounge, otherwise i might have grumbled about the religious rhetoric ramblings..

    tho still waiting for the world's children to be fed tho would settle when the churches in this country to contribute the taxes from their tithes from the collection plate...

    got a fiver (payable to local soup kitchen) the thread turn towards the OP's original premise ~ abortion.

    ipse
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    The god of the old testiment was a vengeful god even declaring so himself as Romans..12:19 confirms.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,880
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    WNC
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    My attacks are not on christians per se, questioning Yahweh who is the god of Christians, Jews and Muslims is not a specific attack on "a christian god". I hope we can remain friendly in these discussions.
    I totally understand the question - and I understand your attacks are not on Christians per se. I see no reason we can't remain friendly. While I hold Christ very close, I also cherish freedom and your right to question. I question a lot too - its how I learn and understand.

    I would say if you can't apply the principle to humans (abortion for example) than you cannot apply those principles to a god.
    On applying principles to humans vs God, I can only say that in my view I can't apply a human principle to something greater than human. I accept that I am not the end all, be all of existence and instead choose to recognize that from my view what makes no sense (morally, ethically or logically) very easily can from a "higher" perspective. Its like business - at one level your with the trees, so all you see is trees. If your brought to levels of higher management, you start to see more than just trees, you start to see the forest. In this life I know I won't see the forest unless I am given a glimpse here or there. I am stuck with the tree view, and as such I either judge based on what I see, or I trust what I see as a more powerful and knowledgeable God and that He knows what he is doing.

    If a human cannot kill a child because they are not of age of understanding than why can a god?
    But kids ARE killed every day - regardless of their "age of understanding" by humans. So why "can't" God? Not sure what your trying to get out here. Not being obtuse, I just don't understand the point.

    If god is almighty and omniscient then why require a blood sacrifice? Why not just erase the inherited sin?
    He stated through scripture that "the wages of sin are death). Why? I don't know. I have a theory, but its limited by my own human perception so is likely inaccurate. Either way, I accept that death being required is a truth. Christian theology often to talks of blood washing away sin. I have never tried it - but I don't think blood would make a good soap. Rather the loss of blood is symbolic of death, as without blood we could not live. Thus a blood sacrifice - whether OT sacrifice which honored the prophecy of the ultimate sacrifice, or the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross - is the blood payment for sin.

    Why not erase inherited sin? Again, I have no claim to know the mind of God, but doing so would simply have put mankind in the position of being basically slavish worshipers with no free will, would it not? I'm glad that everyone has a choice to follow God or not - a God who only was ok with slaves with no mind of their own isn't the kind I would want to follow. In a sense, through the sacrifice of Jesus, God gave US the free will to erase inherited sin. We need simply to choose it.

    There are a lot of questions we humans who believe still have about God. Heck, as my son asked me - if God is all powerful - could He create a rock even He couldn't lift? Made me laugh and shake my head at the same time.

    The god of the old testiment was a vengeful god even declaring so himself as Romans..12:19 confirms.
    Oh I don't deny that God is vengeful - but against what is He vengeful is the question. Is he vengeful against people - or the sins they commit. Committing a sin against a Christian (such as thievery, murder, etc.) is a sin committed against God as well. All sin is against God - thus He has every right to repay it. Its like this - if someone breaks into a home and successfully robs the place - do YOU get to imprison them or does society (aka "the state)? In matters of justice - their wrong was committed not just against you - but against society. Thus - society through the (so called) justice system gets to decree punishment and enforce it - you don't get to. Granted - if you catch them doing it and they threaten you well.... but you get what I am saying. The "greater" entity has the right of punishment. We operate as a civilization the same way. Society takes "vengeance" on the murderer by capital punishment or permanent incarceration. In this case "vengeance" is nothing more than exacting punishment.
    Last edited by drsysadmin; 01-10-2016 at 04:00 PM. Reason: addressed an additional point.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    WNC
    Posts
    127
    Quote Originally Posted by solus View Post
    got a fiver (payable to local soup kitchen) the thread turn towards the OP's original premise ~ abortion.
    Please forward that payment to them. Abortion was merely mentioned in the original post, it was not the main topic or premise.
    The premise was an answer to SVG's comment about attributes of God.

  8. #8
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    According to the book of Genesis, "GOD," is (in my understanding), simply natural law.

    The story of Jesus was the story of a pragmatic teacher/philosopher. Since most all of the recorded history of him did not get recorded until many many years after the story of his last day on earth, I see the stories much the same way as Asop's tales.

    Christians are a race, per the reading of the old testament. What we, now, call Jews are a mongrel group that is the result of one of Abraham's sons going and getting a wife of one of the other races. Thus in the story of Jesus he says to go to God's lost children who are in Canaan. He does not say go convert the Canaanites, he does not say that the people of Canaan are God's children even. This is also why Jesus was accredited with saying that those who are of the tribes of Israel are God's children. No, the modern Israel is not the Israel of the holy bible.

    So, no, I am not seeing an inconsistent God here. It's children were under attack from another group so It told those children to wipe out the threat to their very existence.

    This is why the bible is for racists, anarchists, and tax protesters.

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

  9. #9
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I don't let myself get too wrapped up in scriptural contradictions about God.

    Its not like a particular faithful is gonna stop inflicting his interpretation on me just because I point out a contradiction.

    And, for damm sure, if a government, king, or queen is inflicting it on me, they're not gonna stop because its really just a pretext for them to force me in some direction they want. If that scriptural point was not there, they would find some other way or some other interpretation to coerce me to act as they wanted.

    I figure that whatever the true nature of the creative agency--God--all the major monotheistic religions are talking about that same God. So what if one scripture differs from another? So what if one scripture has internal contradictions. It doesn't erase the personally-observed phenomena leading to the conclusion that there is an intelligent creative agency--God.

    Can I create a universe by simply deciding one now exists? Nope. Whoever or whatever is the creative agency, it is certainly beyond my current understanding.* So, I'm not gonna let myself get wrapped up in apparent internal contradictions in scripture when I have also already seen seeming contradictions come into reconciliation simply with broader context or broader understanding on my part. Hell, I've even seen that right here on this forum.

    Give you a quick example of what I mean. In Christian doctrine there seems to be a contradiction. The Trinity. How can one being be both the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost all at the same time? Impossible. It beggars logic to say that an identity is a difference. It beggars logic to say that two different things are the same thing. And, that is what, on the surface, the Trinity is saying. But, I hold that it is only a seeming contradiction. All one has to do is shift a premise and suddenly it falls into place. And, to me, makes a lot more sense. I'm not saying that is the way things actually are. I'm saying it makes more sense to me. What is the shifted premise? All one has to do is shift Man from incapable to capable. From can't to potentially can. Let me pose it as questions. What if Christ's messages were spoken from the viewpoint that He himself was just a man? Necessarily, we are then all Sons. And, if He was just a man, then necessarily we are each a Holy Ghost.

    But, here is where incapable and "potentially can" fit into it. It takes hardly even a passing observation to see that all have fallen short of the glory of God. I can't even cause my shoe laces to tie themselves (cause an effect at a distance). No problem agreeing with that statement. But, does that mean a man can never achieve that state? If Christ's message were delivered from the viewpoint that he was man, then He was necessarily saying that the glory of God was achievable, that the potential to achieve it was inherent in every individual. When I compare that shifted premise to my own factual observations and conclusions directly arising from those observations, suddenly I see no contradiction. Suddenly it makes sense, and without any logical contortions.

    Thus, I don't let myself get too wrapped up in scriptural contradictions. I figure it will sort itself out with enough understanding.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    I am now about half way through Richard Dawid's String Theory and The Scientific Method (Cambridge 2014). It should be named/renamed Non-Empirical Theory Assessment, and argues that the old ways of finding/proving truth are inadequate in this quantum universe. The existence of God is no more difficult to prove than the existence of a single gluon.

    My inspiration for reading the book is the article 'The Fight for the Soul of Science' in Quanta Magazine on-line reporting on a paper/conference with George F. R. Ellis that elsewhere argue for finding morality in physics. He is a Quaker cosmologist physicist South African, one of his books I have read.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  11. #11
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I don't let myself get too wrapped up in scriptural contradictions about God.

    Its not like a particular faithful is gonna stop inflicting his interpretation on me just because I point out a contradiction.

    And, for damm sure, if a government, king, or queen is inflicting it on me, they're not gonna stop because its really just a pretext for them to force me in some direction they want. If that scriptural point was not there, they would find some other way or some other interpretation to coerce me to act as they wanted.

    I figure that whatever the true nature of the creative agency--God--all the major monotheistic religions are talking about that same God. So what if one scripture differs from another? So what if one scripture has internal contradictions. It doesn't erase the personally-observed phenomena leading to the conclusion that there is an intelligent creative agency--God.

    Can I create a universe by simply deciding one now exists? Nope. Whoever or whatever is the creative agency, it is certainly beyond my current understanding.* So, I'm not gonna let myself get wrapped up in apparent internal contradictions in scripture when I have also already seen seeming contradictions come into reconciliation simply with broader context or broader understanding on my part. Hell, I've even seen that right here on this forum.

    Give you a quick example of what I mean. In Christian doctrine there seems to be a contradiction. The Trinity. How can one being be both the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost all at the same time? Impossible. It beggars logic to say that an identity is a difference. It beggars logic to say that two different things are the same thing. And, that is what, on the surface, the Trinity is saying. But, I hold that it is only a seeming contradiction. All one has to do is shift a premise and suddenly it falls into place. And, to me, makes a lot more sense. I'm not saying that is the way things actually are. I'm saying it makes more sense to me. What is the shifted premise? All one has to do is shift Man from incapable to capable. From can't to potentially can. Let me pose it as questions. What if Christ's messages were spoken from the viewpoint that He himself was just a man? Necessarily, we are then all Sons. And, if He was just a man, then necessarily we are each a Holy Ghost.

    But, here is where incapable and "potentially can" fit into it. It takes hardly even a passing observation to see that all have fallen short of the glory of God. I can't even cause my shoe laces to tie themselves (cause an effect at a distance). No problem agreeing with that statement. But, does that mean a man can never achieve that state? If Christ's message were delivered from the viewpoint that he was man, then He was necessarily saying that the glory of God was achievable, that the potential to achieve it was inherent in every individual. When I compare that shifted premise to my own factual observations and conclusions directly arising from those observations, suddenly I see no contradiction. Suddenly it makes sense, and without any logical contortions.

    Thus, I don't let myself get too wrapped up in scriptural contradictions. I figure it will sort itself out with enough understanding.
    +1

    It appears to me the triune god which is the dogma of many churches is not biblical but pagan in nature.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by drsysadmin View Post
    I totally understand the question - and I understand your attacks are not on Christians per se. I see no reason we can't remain friendly. While I hold Christ very close, I also cherish freedom and your right to question. I question a lot too - its how I learn and understand.



    On applying principles to humans vs God, I can only say that in my view I can't apply a human principle to something greater than human. I accept that I am not the end all, be all of existence and instead choose to recognize that from my view what makes no sense (morally, ethically or logically) very easily can from a "higher" perspective. Its like business - at one level your with the trees, so all you see is trees. If your brought to levels of higher management, you start to see more than just trees, you start to see the forest. In this life I know I won't see the forest unless I am given a glimpse here or there. I am stuck with the tree view, and as such I either judge based on what I see, or I trust what I see as a more powerful and knowledgeable God and that He knows what he is doing.


    But kids ARE killed every day - regardless of their "age of understanding" by humans. So why "can't" God? Not sure what your trying to get out here. Not being obtuse, I just don't understand the point.


    He stated through scripture that "the wages of sin are death). Why? I don't know. I have a theory, but its limited by my own human perception so is likely inaccurate. Either way, I accept that death being required is a truth. Christian theology often to talks of blood washing away sin. I have never tried it - but I don't think blood would make a good soap. Rather the loss of blood is symbolic of death, as without blood we could not live. Thus a blood sacrifice - whether OT sacrifice which honored the prophecy of the ultimate sacrifice, or the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross - is the blood payment for sin.

    Why not erase inherited sin? Again, I have no claim to know the mind of God, but doing so would simply have put mankind in the position of being basically slavish worshipers with no free will, would it not? I'm glad that everyone has a choice to follow God or not - a God who only was ok with slaves with no mind of their own isn't the kind I would want to follow. In a sense, through the sacrifice of Jesus, God gave US the free will to erase inherited sin. We need simply to choose it.

    There are a lot of questions we humans who believe still have about God. Heck, as my son asked me - if God is all powerful - could He create a rock even He couldn't lift? Made me laugh and shake my head at the same time.


    Oh I don't deny that God is vengeful - but against what is He vengeful is the question. Is he vengeful against people - or the sins they commit. Committing a sin against a Christian (such as thievery, murder, etc.) is a sin committed against God as well. All sin is against God - thus He has every right to repay it. Its like this - if someone breaks into a home and successfully robs the place - do YOU get to imprison them or does society (aka "the state)? In matters of justice - their wrong was committed not just against you - but against society. Thus - society through the (so called) justice system gets to decree punishment and enforce it - you don't get to. Granted - if you catch them doing it and they threaten you well.... but you get what I am saying. The "greater" entity has the right of punishment. We operate as a civilization the same way. Society takes "vengeance" on the murderer by capital punishment or permanent incarceration. In this case "vengeance" is nothing more than exacting punishment.
    A lot of good things here to ponder.

    Humans punish other humans for killing the innocent.
    According to the bible men were made in his image so the principles and morals if they come from god should be consistent.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Nightmare View Post
    I am now about half way through Richard Dawid's String Theory and The Scientific Method (Cambridge 2014). It should be named/renamed Non-Empirical Theory Assessment, and argues that the old ways of finding/proving truth are inadequate in this quantum universe. The existence of God is no more difficult to prove than the existence of a single gluon.

    My inspiration for reading the book is the article 'The Fight for the Soul of Science' in Quanta Magazine on-line reporting on a paper/conference with George F. R. Ellis that elsewhere argue for finding morality in physics. He is a Quaker cosmologist physicist South African, one of his books I have read.
    Nothing is very hard to explain.....
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Nothing is very hard to explain.....
    But, oh-so easy to make examples.

    What lies between the ears of the current senior executive of the federal government?

    What is the benefit of anti-gun legislation?

    What is the rational basis for Obamacare?

    What compares in delectable delight to Julia Child's hollandaise?

    See? Hard to explain. Easy to make examples.

    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    A lot of good things here to ponder.

    Humans punish other humans for killing the innocent.
    According to the bible men were made in [H]is image so the principles and morals if they come from god should be consistent.
    +100

    God, as classically described, does not have a face. So He cannot have an image. Thus, the reference to man being made in His image must necessarily be referring to man having the same characteristics as God.

    Now, its too obvious men do not behave as God. They cannot part the sea. They commit harmful acts (sin). Etc. Obvious. So...perhaps those are not the characteristics that are the same.

    We've seen this discussion before. Second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence. All men are created equal. But, sure enough...we've all seen it...it doesn't go thirty seconds before somebody heaves in the comment that all men are not created equal, backing up his argument by saying some are smarter, some are stronger, etc. Oh? Well, some really smart men adhered to the principle that all men are created equal. Instead of implying the Founders were too stupid to recognize that some are smarter or stronger, maybe it will finally dawn on the deniers that perhaps the equality to which the Founders were referring was something other than the too-obvious differences. That is to say, if some men are smarter, and some are stronger, then those must not be the equalities to which men such as Jefferson and Franklin were referring. (John Locke's and Richard Overton's premise was that all men are equal because they have an equal property right in themselves.)

    Similarly, the differences between men and God cannot be the point of the biblical reference to man being created in His image. It must be referring to the characteristics that are held in common between man and God.

    What might those be? We can estimate. We can guess. But, are the guesses and estimates the important points? Or, the idea that there are critical similarities at all? I would argue the idea that men hold something(s) in common with God is far more important than any debate about what those common characteristics are. The mere clue that the characteristics even exist is monumental. It is the hope of the ages. It would have to mean that man possesses within himself the capacity to achieve (return to?) the glory of God. Figuring out the characteristics held in common, while very, very important, can only come after recognition that there is something there to figure out in the first place.

    (more to come; I just hit "send" so I didn't get timed-out)

    So, lets do some guessing and estimating.

    God--infinite love. Man, not so much. But, what about the capacity to love unconditionally and infinitely? The mother who loves her serial killer son. The father who loves his daughter so much he would overlook every shortcoming, and even throw away seven centuries of rights progress to protect her (I met him; I spoke to him). While the amount of love varies, the capacity to love is the same. The difference lies in the capacity and what would stifle a man's love or terminate his love.

    The ability to intend something to happen. God--something happens just because He wants it to. Man...well, I have to turn the key to get my car to start. It has never once started just because I said "the engine is now running." But, the ability to intend something is common. God merely intends the engine to start, and it does. I have to intend to turn the key, and even then rely on a whole bunch of condititions--gas in the tank, a charge in the battery. But, the intend part is held in common.
    ;
    I am sure readers can continue the list from here.

    My point would be about degree. Men can love. Men can intend. Men can correctly judge fairness (sometimes). I am betting men already have all the characteristics of His image. For myself, not so much because the Bible says so, but because I can see some by direct personal observation.

    Now, to tie in to the bold in the quote balloon. If the characteristics are the same, then the principles must also be the same. I am betting that the same principles that apply to God, apply to me. I am talking about very senior hierarchical laws of nature. The very laws that govern how the human spirit functions. I am betting that "made in His image" includes that the laws He made for Himself form a critical part of natural law and the laws of human nature, meaning the fundamental laws of myself.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-10-2016 at 09:46 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •