Meditations

[Anteroinen]

"Unfortunate" and "False" aren't the same thing. I'm just saying that him possibly being a really bad guy is entirely irrelevant to whether or not he exists.

Sure, but that would mean he does not exist on the Christian terms.

Which ones? Christianity has countless separate divisions with different beliefs about God. Not all of them believe he has to be omnibenevolent.

Well, omnibenevolence is so obviously not God's attribute it is asinine to claim such a thing, but alas, faith is a blind instrument. On the other hand the claim that a being that is moral and perfect in many ways gives a perfect law to make a perfect people makes it so that it could be perceived as obnoxious by anyone at any time is utterly absurd. Indeed this doesn't necessarily disprove god - indeed, how could one prove a negative existence - but it discredits the Bible, which is the core and heartstring of Christianity.

[Redafro]

Sorry for how long my response is taking. All the wonderful chaos of the holidays with a toddler and a 1 month old have limited the time I can work on a response, which, unfortunately, is something like 8 paragraphs long at this point, and I'm not done yet.

I'm trying to tighten it up so I don't have so much for you guys to read. I'm doing my best to address these issues, which are very valid and big concerns, but it is also very daunting to try to explain my beliefs about it because we are getting into the very definition and purpose of God in making humanity in the first place. For now, I'll throw out the "easiest" part of my response until I can get the rest of my response done.

even though the problem is easily fixed by simply saying that God has all the Omni attributes that it is logical for him to have.

That being none.

Perhaps I misspoke that. I meant that his omni attributes are only as omni as it is logical for them to be. This almost seems like a trick, because any time someone brings up a logical inconsistency between omni-attributes, the believer simply says, "ah, but that is illogical and thus is a place where God's omni-attributes are limited. It seems like some kind of lie, right? We seem to be saying he's omni, then saying how he isn't omni because it is a moral and logical contradiction to have all the good omni attributes without some kind of limitation. And that is exactly the point. The omnis are not about God having no limitations: he is limited by his purpose (his morality and goodness... and defining these terms correctly is part of what is taking so long) and by logic/consistency, but beyond that he is infinite.

[Vurn]

Perhaps I misspoke that. I meant that his omni attributes are only as omni as it is logical for them to be. This almost seems like a trick, because any time someone brings up a logical inconsistency between omni-attributes, the believer simply says, "ah, but that is illogical and thus is a place where God's omni-attributes are limited. It seems like some kind of lie, right? We seem to be saying he's omni, then saying how he isn't omni because it is a moral and logical contradiction to have all the good omni attributes without some kind of limitation. And that is exactly the point. The omnis are not about God having no limitations: he is limited by his purpose (his morality and goodness... and defining these terms correctly is part of what is taking so long) and by logic/consistency, but beyond that he is infinite.

So God is limited by logic? Hah, that's pretty funny.

On the other hand, the *mystery of the Trinity* is supposed to be exceeding logic. And human ability to understand and all that stuff.

[Redafro]

Why funny? Although I suppose I've misspoken again if that is the way it came off. He is limited by logic because he is the source of consistency and it is his nature to be consistent. Ah... your probably scoffing because the bible seems inconsistent. I'll get to that.

As for the Trinity, I'd argue it is very logical, though we don't often have the logical framework to understand it. I kind of despise it when religious people shrug their shoulders and say "it's a mystery" when I find that often the truth is more like "we don't know yet." So, just a quick explanation. If you look into the work of Richard C. Schwartz who developed a concept called Internal Family Systems, he states that we all have a family of personalities within us such that you are a different person when you are at work then when you are hanging out with your buddies. His idea is that these parts can in fact dialogue with each other through roll playing. Really interesting stuff. There are some youtube interviews with him I believe. Anyway, point being, if this is true of us, and we are made in the image of God, then how much more would it be of true of God? Perhaps he is more than a trinity, but more like a multiplicity, perhaps even including flawless versions of each of us within his mind. This is not schizophrenia or any other mental disorder, but simply the natural structure of minds, and with God, perhaps as in ourselves, all those characters are in perfect union with the whole or center of God's mind, the Father. Here, as I find in most cases, if religious people would embrace scientific research and challenge their precious beliefs, they would find that there is greater explanatory power to be had then just condescendingly grinning and saying "it's the mystery of God you poor fool."

[Vurn]

So I found this recently:
http://www.project-reason.org/bibleContra_big.pdf

[Anteroinen]

As for the Trinity, I'd argue it is very logical, though we don't often have the logical framework to understand it.

I'd argue not. How can a single entity speak with itself, like God did with Jesus or appear before itself like Holy Spirit did when Jesus was baptized? Are we forced to conclude that God is a time traveler?

[Anteroinen]

As for the Trinity, I'd argue it is very logical, though we don't often have the logical framework to understand it.

I'd argue not. How can a single entity speak with itself, like God did with Jesus or appear before itself like Holy Spirit did when Jesus was baptized? Are we forced to conclude that God is a time traveler?

EDIT:

Perhaps I misspoke that. I meant that his omni attributes are only as omni as it is logical for them to be. This almost seems like a trick, because any time someone brings up a logical inconsistency between omni-attributes, the believer simply says, "ah, but that is illogical and thus is a place where God's omni-attributes are limited. It seems like some kind of lie, right? We seem to be saying he's omni, then saying how he isn't omni because it is a moral and logical contradiction to have all the good omni attributes without some kind of limitation. And that is exactly the point. The omnis are not about God having no limitations: he is limited by his purpose (his morality and goodness... and defining these terms correctly is part of what is taking so long) and by logic/consistency, but beyond that he is infinite.

You claim God is moral and good, yet we find much of the things he has ordered in the Bible (e.g. genocide of Cananites) to be unfair, immoral and often even obnoxious. If his purpose is to be morally good then how did he manage to fail so horribly at any point or is the problem really so simple that what God deems good is good and moral by default, always, even if we thought it was horrible? Well, if that is so how could God negotiate with the guy (I forgot which one he was) who asked to save a city for X amount of believers?

EDIT: Also, if God won't do something and it is illogical for him to have the ability to do such a thing, why suppose he can?

[Redafro]

Ha! Dude, I know I should take the time to read more of that, but it seems like more of the same old stuff. 1. If you assume the bible is written with modern ideas of historical scholarship, then yes, you will find "contradictions." But no one with any amount of scholarly credibility would judge ancient texts by today's standards, but rather according to the standards and writing styles of the time. 2. It is only a contradiction if it actually says something contradictory! I've looked up 3 of the points so far and there is no contradiction!

1. This is a good example of an inconsistency which could have happened for many reasons and it might be worth considering, though it has no theological import beyond the question of "why isn't the biblical record completely consistant?" It is not, however, contradictory. Contradictory would have been if one scripture said "he killed 300," and the other said "he didn't kill 300."
2. James 2:21 is a rhetorical question It says "if" right there.
3. The scriptures which talk of Abraham having only one son (gen 16:15, 21:2-3, 25:1-2, 4:22) all come after Abraham had sent Ishmael and his mother away, meaning he has only one son in his immediate family. So, again, there is no contradiction a little scholarship can't fix.

I realize there might actually be valid points amidst all the nonsense, but the fact that so many are invalid makes me doubt them all and not want to waste my scarce time looking. Stuff like this kinda pisses me off. Are they even trying at scholarship?

I did a brief search and found several sites which answer this list and others, though I didn't look up their responses to use for mine. Here are a few that seem decent:

http://cwhisonant.gotdns.com/documents/ ... tions.html
http://www.thedevineevidence.com/skepti ... tions.html
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/bible.htm

Edit: but I should say thank you for posting that anyway. And I should add that I goofed myself by saying

Ah... your probably scoffing because the bible seems inconsistent

I actually did mean contradictory. Although there are inconsistencies and any good theory of God and his purpose will address that. I will, just not yet. XD

[Redafro]

I'd argue not. How can a single entity speak with itself, like God did with Jesus or appear before itself like Holy Spirit did when Jesus was baptized? Are we forced to conclude that God is a time traveler?

I answered that already. But if Dr. Schwartz's theories have no weight with you, then consider this: God the father is God's fully aware self, while Jesus is God limited to human capacities. If God's mind is infinite in scope, there is no problem with a partition between God limited to human form talking to the rest of the mind of God. In other words, Jesus was a man that was also God because he had God's perfect moral understanding and the capacity to fulfill it, and there is no problem with such a man talking to God.

I'll get to your other objections with the mega-post I'm working on. Except could you clarify this?

EDIT: Also, if God won't do something and it is illogical for him to have the ability to do such a thing, why suppose he can?

I'm not sure I follow what you mean here...
Edit: how am I supposing he can do something illogical? My argument is just the opposite, that he can't do illogical acts.

[Anteroinen]

EDIT: Also, if God won't do something and it is illogical for him to have the ability to do such a thing, why suppose he can?

I'm not sure I follow what you mean here...
Edit: how am I supposing he can do something illogical? My argument is just the opposite, that he can't do illogical acts.

I know, but you seem to be arguing he in reality has omniabilities, he is just not doing that stuff because it'd be immoral or illogical:

The omnis are not about God having no limitations: he is limited by his purpose (his morality and goodness... and defining these terms correctly is part of what is taking so long) and by logic/consistency, but beyond that he is infinite.