Adam and or Eve had all the viruses.

[Avajs]

Lets be practical enough of all this Bible stuff---I want to know how to make the red stone. 1000's of years of alchemy and chemistry and you cannot tell us how to make that stone? Just go away.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

God stands in the congregation of the mighty;He judges among the gods.

Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 82:1 - New King James Version

A Plea for Justice - A Psalm of Asaph. God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods.

www.biblegateway.com

There is a footnote in the NKJV (one of the reasons I like it) for "gods" here. (Footnote b)

It reads:

Judges; Heb. elohim, lit. mighty ones or gods

It's not referring to actual gods, but of mighty men, judges.

You're in denial here and even your cited footnote states that Elohim means "gods" little "g"
Strong's Concorance likewise defines Elohim as gods:

Original Word: אֱלהִים
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: elohim
Phonetic Spelling: (el-o-heem')
Definition: God, god

Note the dual element in that definition. Elohim refers BOTH to ANY "god" with little "g" and also to the "God" with capital "G" who would like to be seen as top dog among all the other gods.

This is where religious dogma being uncomfortable with plainly written text, seeks to twist and subvert the truth because the text doesn't fit the religious narrative it wants/needs to peddle to the masses. It's purile to just dismiss all the numerous Bible references to the existence of multiple gods and to suggest that somehow that just means mighty men. It doesn't fly, not for one second.

Except it's not.
If it were so, then you have no means by which to judge God, because you think He is unjust, but I think He is just.
Who’s right? You or me?

Every individual has different concepts of what is right or wrong or just depending on their life experiences and circumstances. What's wrong with that? That's how the world is. It's through our interactions that we learn together and come to appreciate who we all are as individuals and start to understand each other and that in turn evolves everyones notions of right, wrong or just.

How can you know?
There must be an objective standard somewhere.

No there's mustn't because justice is a subjective concept. If there's a standard then it's an authoritarian imposition on others, one person's subjective view of justice forced upon all. That's not right.

My answer depends on your answer to my question.

Pathetic. You lack the moral fibre to call out a very simple example of an unacceptable attrocity that occurs daily and you do so because it challenges to the core the intellectual dogma that you have built your life around. Wrong is wrong and if there exists an entity powerful enough to prevent such an attrocity then inaction is equally wicked and wrong. It IS that simple. There is no confusion, no middle ground. This is the area that I mentioned where people who worship despots like Hitler are "all in" mentally and thus make any and all excuse for appalling behaviour.

Except it's not just a simple yes or no question.

Yes, it is, it really is.

Again: Do you think it's harmful or not harmful for someone to avoid the consequences of their thoughts and actions?

I don't remotely see the relevance of this question in the context of what I have put to you. What you are alluding to with this question and your subsequent comments regarding it, is that in your immoral mentally "all in" world, it's ok for an innocent kid to be sexually abused provided that LATER ON the guy gets suitable punishment. That's appalling. The innocent child still gets molested and will be psychologically damaged for life.
Not acceptable. There is no grey area here. There are simply people with instinctive moral compasses and compassion who know this is a black and white situation, and then there are people who are so tied to their comfort blanket religious dogma that they compartmentalise such attrocities, pretend they don't really happen and/or that somehow, kids being sexually abused is all part of some super grand master plan of their facile God concept.

The truth is that YOU KNOW in your heart that this is wrong, you KNOW that it doesn't wash with the concept of an all-powerful God or a loving God but your belief system requires you to ignore that inconsistency or make apologies for it. That is self-denial and is I'm afraid incredibly harmful to your own soul and to wider humanity itself. Humanity will never evolve while people cling to this utterly ridiculous religious theological nonsense. Only when we can honestly and sincerely admit that the truth lies elsewhere and we have to find our own way can humanity move forward.

God does not intervene because doing so would cause more harm than good.

Bunkum

Obviously, the parent should intervene. That would be the loving thing to do.

That's it. Nothing more needs to be said. It doesn't need qualifying with caveats and conditions. Intervention, prevention is absolutely paramount. Since it happens, and no intervention occurs we can rationally conclude that the concept of an all-powerful or loving god is pure fiction. That being the case it's entirely reasonable for humaity to individually apraise any other sub-powerful, sub-loving entity that throws his/her/its hat into the ring.

And a society where such is common is the result of inaction on the part of the government, whom God has given the authority and responsibility to deal with such things, to serve as a deterrent against such crimes. To the extent that such crimes occur, to that extent the government has failed.

Where there exists any chain of command the "man" at the top MUST always accept responsibility for failure of any part of that chain. That's the basic premise of all such systems. This has to apply to your concept of God. If he creates a sub-standard product that doesn't function or behave in the right way , then I'm afraid HE not the product, is responsible. Again those religiously indoctrinated will continue to make endless excuses for their concept of God in this respect.

So again, I ask you, should men not face the consequences of their actions?

Yes men should face the consequences of their actions but this IN NO WAY makes the sexual abuse of innocent children acceptable if there exists the power to prevent it happening at all. Christianity claims it's god is powerful enough, yet it is evident that he either isn't or else is entirely indifferent to children being sexually abused (together with all manner of other unacceptable attrocities).

It's no surprise whatsoever that you refuse to answer the simple question on this topic. Every so-called Christian when confronted with what is a simple moral decision, fails to answer honestly because it drives a stake through their comfortable belief system. It shatters the illusion and that's something most Christians are not ready for. They need the delusion, just as a child needs the delusion of Santa Claus. Meanwhile the rest of society continues to be influenced and shaped by this religious nonsense. That too is unacceptable and needs to stop.

Do you think that the One who gave them that responsibility should be held accountable when those parents forsake that responsibility? Or how about when the government fails in its responsibility to punish criminals appropriately, so as to deter them from such crimes, should then the One who gave the government the responsibility to do so be held accountable for their failure?

See now you're making excuse upon excuse. You may as well worship Hitler. Human parents are NOT all-powerful, not all-loving in the way that Christianity peddles it's god to be. So NO you can't hold parents responsible if their kids get sexually abused by wicked old men. The parents are not all-powerful, can't be everywhere at once at any time. But allegedly the Christian God can. Yet he sits there doing nothing, indifferent.
The upshot is that the notion of the Christian god is patently false. And as Open Theists I guess you'll come back and say "yes" that's mostly right. You don't believe God is all-powerful or all-knowing so you're just choosing to worship one of many sub-standard gods/entities out there which is your right but such is not for me. I WILL hold ANY ENTITY or ruler to a level of morality and action. I most certianly will not be worshipping any entity that is immoral or impotent.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

I want to know how to make the red stone. 1000's of years of alchemy and chemistry and you cannot tell us how to make that stone?

If you want to know how to swim, go find a swimming teacher and learn to swim

If you want to know how to speak Spanish, go find a Spanish teacher and study Spanish

Why do you think such basic concepts would be any different for learning the science of Alchemy?

Get out there, start reading the 100s of alchemy texts and learn. Best get to it as well because as Jesus starkly warned, if you don't eat/drink the White/Red stones, you have no life in you. The clock is ticking . . . .

 

[Avajs]

If you want to know how to swim, go find a swimming teacher and learn to swim

If you want to know how to speak Spanish, go find a Spanish teacher and study Spanish

Why do you think such basic concepts would be any different for learning the science of Alchemy?

Get out there, start reading the 100s of alchemy texts and learn. Best get to it as well because as Jesus starkly warned, if you don't eat/drink the White/Red stones, you have no life in you. The clock is ticking . . . .

Ahh, you just want to keep the secret for yourself.

 

[JudgeRightly]

You're in denial here and even your cited footnote states that Elohim means "gods" little "g"
Strong's Concorance likewise defines Elohim as gods:

Original Word: אֱלהִים
Part of Speech: Noun Masculine
Transliteration: elohim
Phonetic Spelling: (el-o-heem')
Definition: God, god

Note the dual element in that definition. Elohim refers BOTH to ANY "god" with little "g" and also to the "God" with capital "G" who would like to be seen as top dog among all the other gods.

Yes, I cited the footnote. Did you not catch that bit?

Please pay more attention.

Regarding Psalm 82, as a whole, later in the verse, the same word is used again.

Note what it says about these "gods":

God stands in the congregation of the mighty;He judges among the gods. How long will you judge unjustly,And show partiality to the wicked? Selah Defend the poor and fatherless;Do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy;Free them from the hand of the wicked. They do not know, nor do they understand;They walk about in darkness;All the foundations of the earth are unstable. I said, “You are gods,And all of you are children of the Most High. But you shall die like men,And fall like one of the princes.” Arise, O God, judge the earth;For You shall inherit all nations.

Bible Gateway passage: Psalm 82 - New King James Version

A Plea for Justice - A Psalm of Asaph. God stands in the congregation of the mighty; He judges among the gods. How long will you judge unjustly, And show partiality to the wicked? Selah Defend the poor and fatherless; Do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy; Free them...

www.biblegateway.com

And to further iterate my point:

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and believe that the Father in Me, and I in Him.”

Bible Gateway passage: John 10:34-38 - New King James Version

Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, “You are gods” ’? If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of...

www.biblegateway.com

To whom was "You are gods" referring to?

Jesus, who is God, is calling someone else "gods," and says "I am the only true God."

So either Jesus was contradicting Himself, or these "gods" are not actual "gods," but men.

Which is perfectly consistent with what I said above...

This is where religious dogma being uncomfortable with plainly written text, seeks to twist and subvert the truth because the text doesn't fit the religious narrative it wants/needs to peddle to the masses.

This is where religious dogma being uncomfortable with plainly written text, seeks to twist and subvert the truth because the text doesn't fit the religious narrative you want/need in order to reject what the Bible says.

What I said above stands.

It's purile to just dismiss all the numerous Bible references to the existence of multiple gods and to suggest that somehow that just means mighty men. It doesn't fly, not for one second.

It's puerile to just dismiss all the numerous Bible references to where God says "I am the only true God" and "besides Me there is no other" and to suggest that God was lying. It doesn't fly, not for one second.

Instead of doing that, perhaps, just maybe, you could try to have an open mind, and consider what the Bible says about these "gods," instead of trying to twist and subvert the truth because the text doesn't fit the religious narrative you want/need in order to reject what the Bible says.

Read, please:

If the God of the Bible Is the Only One Who Exists, Then Why Does Scripture Speak of Other Gods?

Apart from the God of the Bible, could other gods possibly exist? Does the Bible have anything to say about the existence of other gods? No Other gods Exist

www.blueletterbible.org

Every individual has different concepts of what is right or wrong or just depending on their life experiences and circumstances.

You think God is unjust, but reject an objective standard by which to judge Him.

Do you not see the problem with that?

What's wrong with that? That's how the world is. It's through our interactions that we learn together and come to appreciate who we all are as individuals and start to understand each other and that in turn evolves everyones notions of right, wrong or just.

God exists, therefore an objective standard of right and wrong exists.

No there's mustn't because justice is a subjective concept.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

If there's a standard then it's an authoritarian imposition on others, one person's subjective view of justice forced upon all. That's not right.

The problem with this assertion is that it doesn't take into consideration the nature of God. This is where Euthyphro's Dilemma comes into play.

If God were a unitarian God (ie, if He was only one Person), then your argument would be valid, because there would be no way for Him to know if He was good.

However, the God of the Bible, the one true God, is not unitarian. He is triune. He is one God in three Persons.

The Father testifies of the Son that the Son has never wronged Him. The Son testifies of the Holy Spirit that the Holy Spirit has never wronged Him. And the Holy Spirit testifies the same of the Father.

Thus, God knows that He is good, through the trifold witness of the Trinity. His standard is not subjective, but objective for that reason.

See this thread for a full explanation:

Euthyphro's Dilemma (On God, right and wrong)

rayruiz wrote on 12-27-2003 12:18 AM: Hi Pastor Enyart, I am a member of the CWS Christian chat room and hope I can get you to help us on a subject that came up...? Thanks and that was a great battle royale!! Dear rayruiz, Thanks for asking your question about what many call Euthyphro's...

theologyonline.com

Pathetic.

Appeal to ridicule is a logical fallacy.

You lack the moral fibre to call out a very simple example of an unacceptable attrocity that occurs daily

False.

and you do so because it challenges to the core the intellectual dogma that you have built your life around.

False.

Wrong is wrong

Objectively?

Or just according to your subjective opinion?

and if there exists an entity powerful enough to prevent such an attrocity then inaction is equally wicked and wrong.

Because you say so?

It IS that simple.

Because you say so?

There is no confusion, no middle ground.

Because you say so?

This is the area that I mentioned where people who worship despots like Hitler are "all in" mentally and thus make any and all excuse for appalling behaviour.

Supra.

Yes, it is, it really is.

No, it really isn't.

Plugging your ears and demanding that it is because you don't like what it means if it isn't, is irrational and intellectually dishonest.

Don't be irrational or intellectually dishonest.

I don't remotely see the relevance of this question in the context of what I have put to you.

Thankfully, all you have to do, in order to move this conversation forwards, is to simply answer the question.

Your stonewalling against it is telling.

Please answer the question:

Do you think it's harmful or not harmful for someone to avoid the consequences of their thoughts and actions?

What you are alluding to with this question and your subsequent comments regarding it, is that in your immoral mentally "all in" world, it's ok for an innocent kid to be sexually abused provided that LATER ON the guy gets suitable punishment.

Who said that?

I certainly didn't.

That's appalling.

Indeed, that would be appalling, if that is in fact what I said.

Thankfully, that's not what I said.

The innocent child still gets molested and will be psychologically damaged for life. Not acceptable. There is no grey area here. There are simply people with instinctive moral compasses and compassion who know this is a black and white situation, and then there are people who are so tied to their comfort blanket religious dogma that they compartmentalise such attrocities, pretend they don't really happen and/or that somehow, kids being sexually abused is all part of some super grand master plan of their facile God concept.

Yawn.

The truth is that YOU KNOW in your heart that this is wrong,

What is?

you KNOW that it doesn't wash with the concept of an all-powerful God or a loving God

God is indeed loving.

But God is not "all-powerful."

So you're arguing against a straw man.

Try arguing against my/our actual position.

but your belief system requires you to ignore that inconsistency or make apologies for it.

Or, maybe, just maybe, you're not arguing against my position, but a straw man.

That is self-denial and is I'm afraid incredibly harmful to your own soul

So you believe in a soul?

Or is this a matter of stolen concept fallacy?

and to wider humanity itself.

Or maybe what I said is right, and what you're ranting about is what's harmful...

Humanity will never evolve while people cling to this utterly ridiculous religious theological nonsense.

Appeal to the stone. And nonsense in and of itself.

Only when we can honestly and sincerely admit that the truth lies elsewhere and we have to find our own way can humanity move forward.

Hilarious.

Bunkum

Saying it doesn't make it so.

That's it. Nothing more needs to be said. It doesn't need qualifying with caveats and conditions. Intervention, prevention is absolutely paramount. Since it happens, and no intervention occurs we can rationally conclude that the concept of an all-powerful or loving god is pure fiction.

I'm not seeing the connection between parental intervention/prevention, which parents should do, and preventing crimes from happening on God's part.

Could you perhaps explain the connection for me? What's your reasoning for conflating these two things?

That being the case it's entirely reasonable for humaity to individually apraise any other sub-powerful, sub-loving entity that throws his/her/its hat into the ring.

Whatever that's supposed to mean...

Where there exists any chain of command the "man" at the top MUST always accept responsibility for failure of any part of that chain.

Why?

That's the basic premise of all such systems.

News to me.

This has to apply to your concept of God.

Because you say so?

If he creates a sub-standard product that doesn't function or behave in the right way, then I'm afraid HE not the product, is responsible.

I see you never bothered to watch that CSLewisDoodles video I posted.

Would you mind doing that now?

Here's the link again:

Again those religiously indoctrinated will continue to make endless excuses for their concept of God in this respect.

No one here is making any excuses, but you.

Yes men should face the consequences of their actions

If the consequences of a person's actions is that someone is harmed as a result, and God intervenes so that the person is not harmed, would that not be preventing men from facing the consequences of their actions?

but this IN NO WAY makes the sexual abuse of innocent children acceptable

Of course it's not acceptable. That's different than whether something should be allowed to happen, though.

You seem to be conflating those two things.

if there exists the power to prevent it happening at all.

Supra.

Christianity claims it's god is powerful enough, yet it is evident that he either isn't or else is entirely indifferent to children being sexually abused (together with all manner of other unacceptable attrocities).

False dichotomy.

The third option is that He is powerful enough, but recognizes that intervening every time a child is about to be harmed would only strengthen the desire for the abuser to commit such an atrocity.

Which is far worse.

It's no surprise whatsoever that you refuse to answer the simple question on this topic. Every so-called Christian when confronted with what is a simple moral decision, fails to answer honestly because it drives a stake through their comfortable belief system. It shatters the illusion and that's something most Christians are not ready for. They need the delusion, just as a child needs the delusion of Santa Claus. Meanwhile the rest of society continues to be influenced and shaped by this religious nonsense. That too is unacceptable and needs to stop.

What was the question again? I must have missed it.

See now you're making excuse upon excuse. You may as well worship Hitler. Human parents are NOT all-powerful, not all-loving in the way that Christianity peddles it's god to be.

Straw man.

Not my position.

So NO you can't hold parents responsible if their kids get sexually abused by wicked old men.

You can if they are negligent, or if they allow it to happen.

The parents are not all-powerful, can't be everywhere at once at any time.

Who said they were?

I didn't.

But allegedly the Christian God can.

You're arguing against a straw man.

Yet he sits there doing nothing, indifferent.

He did do something.

He implemented human government to punish and deter criminals from committing such crimes.

To the extent that the government is not a deterrent, to that extent the government is at fault.

But God is not at fault for what the creatures which He made to be free agents do or do not do.

Nor is He at fault for not intervening when the do or do not do something.

The upshot is that the notion of the Christian god is patently false.

False.

And as Open Theists I guess you'll come back and say "yes" that's mostly right.

Wrong.

You don't believe God is all-powerful or all-knowing

Correct.

We believe God has the attributes ascribed to Him in the Bible, not the ones ascribed to Him by pagan Greek philosophers.

so you're just choosing to worship one of many sub-standard gods/entities out there which is your right but such is not for me.

Huh?

I WILL hold ANY ENTITY or ruler to a level of morality and action.

That's nice.

Now, if you could address our position, rather than some straw man you've come up with...

I most certianly will not be worshipping any entity that is immoral or impotent.

God is neither.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

Read, please:

If the God of the Bible Is the Only One Who Exists, Then Why Does Scripture Speak of Other Gods?

Apart from the God of the Bible, could other gods possibly exist? Does the Bible have anything to say about the existence of other gods? No Other gods Exist

www.blueletterbible.org

How ironic ! You use a citation to try and uphold your belief which itself totally contradicts your belief ! It says:

"Also there is no room in the universe for another God to exist. Scripture says that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere present. He is without limits. It would be absurd to believe that two unlimited beings could occupy the same space. If another God did exist, then God would be limited. However the Bible says God has no limitations."

And yet you and your cohorts here argue endlessly that god isn't all-powerful or all-knowing. You seem to want it all ways.

The Bible most certainly refers to the presence of numerous gods. This article explains it well:

The Bible’s Many Gods | Gerald McDermott

The idea that there are other “gods” who exist as real supernatural beings, albeit infinitely inferior to the only Creator and Redeemer, pervades the Bible. The Psalms fairly explode with evidence. . . . Continue Reading »

www.firstthings.com

The world has for countless years suffered the jostling for position of all these powerful beings, fights, wars, conflicts and the "little people" have suffered the outfall of every one of them. The gods don't care about humans, we are cannon fodder to them. Every one of them believes they have the right to subjugate humanity and use us for their own ends. We are trapped in a planetary prison of their making, a slave work force. None of them are worthy to be worshipped.

Jesus was a man, a remarkable man and an alchemist and one who used that secret and important knowledge wisely and for the good of others. Yet even then, he kept this great thing, the Stone, for himself and his disciples instead of freely giving it to all mankind. After all, if we had it then we too would become like god and of course he doesn't want that as he stated clearly in Genesis.

"And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

How nice!!!! We mustn't be allowed to live forever and enjoy that natural priviledge just as the gods do. This isn't love. This is despotism.

I'm not seeing the connection between parental intervention/prevention, which parents should do, and preventing crimes from happening on God's part.
Could you perhaps explain the connection for me? What's your reasoning for conflating these two things?

No I imagine you don't. The connection is love. Love demands that action is taken. And the ability/power demands that action is taken.
A loving parent would take immediate action to prevent a child from being sexually abused. If they had the ability/power to do so.
A loving god by the same token would take immediate action likewise if it had the ability/power.

I'm very confortable if your defense is that the Christian god is impotent. But on that basis I see no reason to take any notice of an impotent being much less an un-loving one.

I see you never bothered to watch that CSLewisDoodles video I posted.

The so-called "free will" argument is about as lame as they come and has always been cited by cowardly Christians to explain away all the appalling attrocities of the world which their god sits idly by watching and allowing. There is no free will. You don't have free will and neither do I.
The true definition of free will is that you can "will" something and that thing happens, materialises, manifests. Humans are not permitted to do this, yet the gods enjoy this natural ability. Of course the Stone would give a human that ability which is doubtless why the gods seek to keep it from humanity. We are prisoners held captive on a prison planet. Had you free will you could, with a moments thought, will yourself onto a different planet in the universe, create your own planet, do anything you desired. Please don't try appealing to the cowardly free-will nonsense, it's an absurdity.

If the consequences of a person's actions is that someone is harmed as a result, and God intervenes so that the person is not harmed, would that not be preventing men from facing the consequences of their actions?

For God to intervene he would first have to know that the crime is about to be committed. According to your Open Theist position god is an impotent un-knowing sub-standard entity so discussion about how he/she/it might prevent an attrocity from occurring is pointless surely. If we instead debate the defacto Christian position of an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, omni-present entity then we CAN discuss it but we inevitably arrive at the same conclusion which is that this god cannot possibly be BOTH all-powerful and all-loving for love demands that action is taken (just as with the parents) and action can only be taken if there is power and ability to take it.

Of course it's not acceptable. That's different than whether something should be allowed to happen, though.

So you iterate your thoroughly awful immoral position. You suggest that sexual abuse of children SHOULD be allowed to happen. How disgusting.

The third option is that He is powerful enough, but recognizes that intervening every time a child is about to be harmed would only strengthen the desire for the abuser to commit such an atrocity.

This makes no sense at all. If a powerful god intervened then it would strike abject fear in the perpetrator who would know that he can't get away with his actions. Even if he tried to do it again, he would meet the same obstruction by god. He would soon realise that he simply can not do what he wants to do.

He implemented human government to punish and deter criminals from committing such crimes.
To the extent that the government is not a deterrent, to that extent the government is at fault.

But God is not at fault for what the creatures which He made to be free agents do or do not do

False. Any god IS TOTALLY responsible and accountable for those in his chain of command. If he doesn't manage his chain of command adequately then he is at fault. Regardless, punishment of perpetrators and deterence is a world away from actual prevention which is what is needed in regards to some forms of attrocity. Your god doesn't prevent such attrocity. He sits by and watches those things happen. What happens to the perpetrator is immaterial. It's what happens to the victim that is the problem. Innocent children should be protected by those with the power to do so. Your god very clearly doesn't have such power, nor it seems the love to induce any action.

We believe God has the attributes ascribed to Him in the Bible, not the ones ascribed to Him by pagan Greek philosophers.

You believe he isn't all-powerful or all-knowing. That being the case he's just one of many gods and all therefore have a case, all should be assessed in their own right.

 

[JudgeRightly]

How ironic! You use a citation to try and uphold your belief which itself totally contradicts your belief! It says:

"Also there is no room in the universe for another God to exist. Scripture says that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, everywhere present. He is without limits. It would be absurd to believe that two unlimited beings could occupy the same space. If another God did exist, then God would be limited. However the Bible says God has no limitations."

And yet you and your cohorts here argue endlessly that god isn't all-powerful or all-knowing. You seem to want it all ways.

I already told you that Christianity is not a monolithic group.

It doesn't mean that two Christians who believe differently on some things can't agree on other things.

No, I don't agree with that part of the article.

But instead of focusing on the part that I do agree with, and with the point that I was making, you had to waste both of our times trying to mock me for citing an article that partially disagrees with me.

Surely you can be a bit more gracious than that, no?

Now that that's out of the way, can you address the point I was making, which is that God repeatedly states He is the only true God, and that other gods don't actually exist, except as concepts, which the article does indeed affirm?

The Bible most certainly refers to the presence of numerous gods. This article explains it well:

The Bible’s Many Gods | Gerald McDermott

The idea that there are other “gods” who exist as real supernatural beings, albeit infinitely inferior to the only Creator and Redeemer, pervades the Bible. The Psalms fairly explode with evidence. . . . Continue Reading »

www.firstthings.com

None of that contradicts what God said.

Yes, people worship "gods." They are mentioned throughout the scriptures. I'm not denying that.

What I'm saying is that they don't ontologically exist.

They ("gods," not men or angels (fallen or otherwise)) are just concepts, figments of men's imagination, intended to fill the God-shaped void in men's hearts.

What God was warring against in Exodus against the Egyptians was not "gods," as though Ra, et al, were actual beings, but rather He was warring against the concepts of the gods that men had created, to show that He was the one true God, and that those "gods" had no real power.

Stone and wood idols are not gods. They're just stone and wood idols, worshipped as gods.

Do you see the point I'm making?

The world has for countless years suffered the jostling for position of all these powerful beings, fights, wars, conflicts and the "little people" have suffered the outfall of every one of them. The gods don't care about humans, we are cannon fodder to them. Every one of them believes they have the right to subjugate humanity and use us for their own ends. We are trapped in a planetary prison of their making, a slave work force. None of them are worthy to be worshipped.

Rather, those gods don't exist.

God does.

The battle that has been raging is certainly a spiritual one. But it's not between God and other ontological beings, but instead between God and men who have rejected Him, such as yourself, who have made gods in their own image to worship in place of the one true God.

Jesus was a man, a remarkable man . . .

He was God.

He became flesh and dwelt among us.

We mustn't be allowed to live forever and enjoy that natural priviledge just as the gods do. This isn't love. This is despotism.

So, when you reject the One who is life itself, you expect to receive life?

Don't you think that's backwards?

Or do you think that people shouldn't face the consequences of their actions?

No I imagine you don't. The connection is love. Love demands that action is taken. And the ability/power demands that action is taken.

What if that power has been delegated to someone?

A loving parent would take immediate action to prevent a child from being sexually abused. If they had the ability/power to do so.

Indeed.

A loving god by the same token would take immediate action likewise if it had the ability/power.

So you expect God to intervene instead of the parents of the child? Instead of the government?

Also, should none of them intervene, do you think that the criminal will just simply get away with their crime, and never be punished for it?

Question: Does pain serve a purpose? (And yes, I expect an answer to this question.)

Because again, we come back to the question I asked above, which was "Do you think it's harmful or not harmful for someone to avoid the consequences of their thoughts and actions?"

I'm very comfortable if your defense is that the Christian god is impotent.

Who said God is impotent?

I certainly did not.

I simply said "He does not have all power," or more precisely, "He is not omnipotent."

But on that basis I see no reason to take any notice of an impotent being much less an un-loving one.

Good thing that's not what I said, then, isn't it?

Start with the premise that God is love, and work from there.

The so-called "free will" argument is about as lame as they come and has always been cited by cowardly Christians to explain away all the appalling attrocities of the world which their god sits idly by watching and allowing.

Yet it quite nicely answers your entire position.

So let's reason it out, see if we can't find any problems with it with regards to it answering your position.

If God created men with free will, what then?

There is no free will. You don't have free will and neither do I.

And if you're wrong? Then what?

The true definition of free will is that you can "will" something and that thing happens, materialises, manifests.

No, that's not the definition of "free will."

"Free will" is redundant. ("Libertarian free will" doubly so.)

A will is just the ability to choose.

It doesn't mean that whatever choice is made, that it will somehow come about. It just means that a choice is possible.

If there is no alternative to choose from, then it is not possible to exercise one's will.

Thus, if you do not have the ability to choose otherwise, then you do not have a will.

Humans are not permitted to do this, yet the gods enjoy this natural ability. . . . We are prisoners held captive on a prison planet. Had you free will you could, with a moments thought, will yourself onto a different planet in the universe, create your own planet, do anything you desired. Please don't try appealing to the cowardly free-will nonsense, it's an absurdity.

Supra. That's not what a will is.

For God to intervene he would first have to know that the crime is about to be committed. According to your Open Theist position god is an impotent un-knowing sub-standard entity

False. Straw man.

so discussion about how he/she/it

God is male.

He refers to Himself as such in His word.

Do not call God "female" or "it" again on this board. You will receive a warning for blasphemy.

might prevent an attrocity from occurring is pointless surely.

Wrong.

Especially since you're trying to knock down a straw man.

If we instead debate the defacto Christian position of an all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing, omni-present entity

If you just want to rail against a straw man, you can do that on other forums.

But this is an Open Theist board. You're arguing against an Open Theist, who rejects the classical (read: Greek) attributes of "omni-"s and "im-"s.

God is free, and He created man to be free, thus your argument doesn't apply to our position.

then we CAN discuss it but we inevitably arrive at the same conclusion which is that this god cannot possibly be BOTH all-powerful and all-loving for love demands that action is taken (just as with the parents) and action can only be taken if there is power and ability to take it.

Except that's not what I believe.

Why should I defend a belief that I don't hold to?

So you iterate your thoroughly awful immoral position. You suggest that sexual abuse of children SHOULD be allowed to happen. How disgusting.

Not what I said.

God allows it to happen.

That's different than saying it SHOULD be allowed to happen. The explanation of this is what I've been trying to get to, but you refuse to allow us to continue to that point, because you're hung up on the (false) belief that God is "omnipotent" and "omniscient."

This makes no sense at all.

It only makes no sense from within your own paradigm of beliefs.

Try looking at things from outside your paradigm for a moment.

If a powerful god intervened then it would strike abject fear in the perpetrator who would know that he can't get away with his actions.

Would it though?

There are many miracles recorded in the Bible, instances where God directly intervened in the circumstances on earth.

If you were to look at them from a bird's eye view, you would find that most of them (not all, to be sure, but most) resulted in unbelief, a rejection of God, or the hardening of one's heart. Generally speaking, when someone is confronted with the truth, men typically resent it.

Let me demonstrate.

Confronted By Truth Why would miracles lead to unbelief? Consider this. Ten-year-old Norman bickers with his 12-year-old brother Jack. "We'll probably have left over spaghetti for lunch." Jack says, "No we won't. There's none left, it's all gone. We finished it last night." Norman: No, there's some leftovers. Jack: You're wrong, it's all gone. Norman: No, there's leftovers. Jack: Nope. We finished it. Norman: Did not. Jack: Did too. I saw mom put the rest in the garbage disposal. Norman: Do you like being wrong? Jack: I'm not wrong. You're wrong. Norman: All right, I'll just go in there and prove it. Norman comes out of the house with a serving bowl half filled with leftover spaghetti. He shows it to his brother. Question: Is Jack happy that he now knows the truth? Answer: No. Actually, Jack is angry. Why? Norman proved him wrong! People do not like the truth shoved into their faces. Jack may now know that there is leftover spaghetti but he resents his brother for proving the point. These boys quarreled over a minor issue. What is the reaction when the issue becomes more significant? Often the more serious the issue, the more a man resents those who prove him wrong. Evangelism sees the ultimate application of this principle. He who rejects God is not typically eager for correction. When someone's heart is hardened against God, a miracle shoves the truth in his face. His mind cannot deny God but his heart can resist. Thus countless witnesses of the miraculous have refused to acquiesce.

(quoted from https://kgov.com/miracles)

So the answer is no, it wouldn't strike fear into the perpetrator.

It would make Him angry that he was shown to be wrong.

And if God is trying to form a relationship with that person, do you think that would be productive? Or counterproductive?

Even if he tried to do it again, he would meet the same obstruction by god. He would soon realise that he simply can not do what he wants to do.

So he should not face the consequences of his choices and actions?

Is not facing the consequences of one's choices a good or bad thing?

False. Any god IS TOTALLY responsible and accountable for those in his chain of command.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

If he doesn't manage his chain of command adequately then he is at fault.

Sorry, but that's not how this works, especially if God gave men the ability to choose (ie, a will).

If God gave man a will (again, "free will" is redundant; if it isn't free, it isn't a will), then He cannot be held accountable for the actions of man, because man is a free agent, able to choose on his own.

If God did not give man a will (ie, made men robots only capable of doing that which God programmed them to do (as Calvinism teaches)), then ONLY God is to be blamed for whatever actions men take.

You cannot have it both ways.

Either God gave man a will, and he uses it to disobey God, and is therefore accountable for his actions and God is not, because He did not cause the man to do those things, or God did not give man a will, and he is therefore not accountable, but God is, because God DID cause man to do those things.

In other words, the only way God is accountable for the actions of men is if God caused men to do the things they do.

If He did not cause men to do things, then He is not and cannot be held accountable for their actions, because He is not the one who caused those actions.

Regardless, punishment of perpetrators and deterence is a world away from actual prevention which is what is needed in regards to some forms of attrocity.

On the contrary, it is not possible to completely prevent people from committing crimes.

That's a myth perpetrated by leftists.

No matter what method you come up with, someone will find a way to do that which is against the law.

The best way to prevent crime is not to make it so that people cannot commit a crime (which only results in the endless multiplication of laws), but to make it so that people do not WANT to commit crimes, ie, deterrence.

Your rejection of God is in part a result of your nation's (presuming you aren't American, as some of your vocabulary indicates, and even if you are, America is also under condemnation of this as well) rejection of Biblical principles of governance, such as forcing restitution upon thieves, flogging those guilty of assault, and putting to death those who are convicted of capital crimes such as rape and murder.

To the extent that a government does not apply those punishments, to that extent crime becomes rampant.

To the extent that a government implements those punishments, to that extent, crime is reduced (but never completely eliminated).

To put it simply: If criminals were punished according to how God requires, then such crimes as in the example you gave prior would be virtually nonexistent, and any instances where they would occur, the criminals would be dealt with swiftly, further deterring crime.

And even if it were possible, it's still not possible to control people's thoughts, one, because humans have wills of their own, and two, because laws "thought crimes" cannot be enforced justly.

Also, not all sin is crime, but all (actual) crime is sin (ie, things that violate God's standard of justice), because God (through Paul) said to submit to one's government, for they are his ministers to bring wrath upon those who practice evil (Romans 13).

Your god doesn't prevent such attrocity. He sits by and watches those things happen.

He commands that governments bring wrath upon the wicked. How is that "sitting by and watching those things happen"?

And do you think He won't EVER do anything about them?

What happens to the perpetrator is immaterial.

So you don't think that having a guarantee of something happening to the perpetrator would have any effect on what he wills to do?

It's what happens to the victim that is the problem.

If the victim is not made whole, do you think that's a problem?

Innocent children should be protected by those with the power to do so.

Should they be protected by those who have been given the responsibility to do so?

Your god

It's "God." Not "god."

very clearly doesn't have such power,

Or perhaps there's a reason He doesn't use that power the way you think He should use it.

nor it seems the love to induce any action.

Or, He has, and men refuse to obey Him...

You believe he isn't all-powerful or all-knowing.

Correct.

That being the case he's just one of many gods

Incorrect.

and all therefore have a case, all should be assessed in their own right.

False.

 

[SwordOfTruth]

Now that that's out of the way, can you address the point I was making, which is that God repeatedly states He is the only true God, and that other gods don't actually exist, except as concepts, which the article does indeed affirm?

False, as the cited article explains. The other gods are not remotely concepts, nor are they humans or angels.

Yes, people worship "gods." They are mentioned throughout the scriptures. I'm not denying that.

Putting your own false interpretation on it equtes to denial. The Bible mentions "gods" plural in numerous places. Not humans, not angels, not made-up fictitious concepts but other gods.

What I'm saying is that they don't ontologically exist.

As you so delight in saying . . . . "saying so does not make it true"

They ("gods," not men or angels (fallen or otherwise)) are just concepts, figments of men's imagination, intended to fill the God-shaped void in men's hearts.

Made-up hogwash. Just your personal machination needed to bolster up a fractured intellectual position.

What God was warring against in Exodus against the Egyptians was not "gods," as though Ra, et al, were actual beings, but rather He was warring against the concepts of the gods that men had created, to show that He was the one true God, and that those "gods" had no real power.

That "god" was a despotic jealous violent entity guilty of all manner of horrific actions including:

- genocide
- murder of women and children
- murder of babies
- murder of as yet unborn babies
- ethnic cleansing

and much more

In Christian terms, man is commanded "Thou shalt not kill" whilst the entity they worship kills with abject abandonment including women, children, babies as per above. As I said elsewhere, you might just as well worship Hitler. "Do as I say not as I do" are the trademark tennets of tyrants and dictators.

Stone and wood idols are not gods. They're just stone and wood idols, worshipped as gods.

Correct, but this is NOT what the Bible refers to when referring to Elohim

Do you see the point I'm making?
Rather, those gods don't exist.

No, you're simply trying to sweep under the carpet the inconvenient words of the Bible as they don't follow the required narrative as indeed all Christians do.

He was God.
He became flesh and dwelt among us.

Saying so doesn't make it true
You're entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts.

So, when you reject the One who is life itself, you expect to receive life?

Life (the true universal source) is no-ones to give or take away. It exists, it is in everything. It is free. All should have access to that source. I reject any entity that would obstruct the flow of that life energy from humans. I reject any entity that imprisons humans on a planet or anywhere else and seeks to make them his slaves.

Don't you think that's backwards?

Worshipping tyrants is backwards. Refusing to critical think is backwards.

What if that power has been delegated to someone?

Delegation = the chain of command as already highlighted

Where there is chain of commmand the top dog is always responsible for the chain even if one part of that chain falters. You can disagree all you like since it doesn't fit your narrative but it remains the case.

So you expect God to intervene instead of the parents of the child? Instead of the government?

In terms of YOUR imagined god, no, I can see why he doesn't intervene, why he can't intervene for as you point out he's not omnipotent, only some degree of potent which makes him rather disappointing and dubious as a god TBH. There are likely aliens out there in the galaxy somewhere who are more powerful than humans, more advanced, more intelligent. Yet despite this I would never refer to them as "God" or gods.

Also, should none of them intervene, do you think that the criminal will just simply get away with their crime, and never be punished for it?

You're focussed on the perpetrator not the victim. Speaks volumes.

Question: Does pain serve a purpose? (And yes, I expect an answer to this question.)

Deflection from the salient issue which you keep dodging.
You're trying all manner of ridiculous angles to try and actually justify the sexual abuse of innocent children. Are you seriously suggesting that the pain suffered (both physical and long term-psychological) of a 5 yr old child is in someway a good or beneficial thing to suffer?!!! Man that's so very sick.

Because again, we come back to the question I asked above, which was "Do you think it's harmful or not harmful for someone to avoid the consequences of their thoughts and actions?"

You're back on the perpetrator again not the victim. Appalling.

Who said God is impotent?
I certainly did not.
I simply said "He does not have all power," or more precisely, "He is not omnipotent."

If he's not omnipotent then he could not have created the universe. If he's not omnipotent then by very definition there must exist elsewhere someone or something that IS Omnipotent. Where does that leave your god?

Start with the premise that God is love, and work from there.

Why should anyone begin with your personal premise for a god?

As already stated your god according to the OT engaged in genocide, mass murder of women, children, babies, unborn babies, ethnic cleansing and much more. Such are not acts of love.

If God created men with free will, what then?

He didn't. God isn't what you describe, simple as.

Humans don't have free will. They have space to exercise some limited will within a very limited environment. They are denied the ability to manifest using will, which is an ability described of the Biblical god. Biblically speaking god said "let there be light" and there was light, just like that. Can the same be said of humans? Nope. We're denied this kind of will.

And if you're wrong? Then what?

I'm not wrong. It's perfecetly testable. Try to will something to happen. It doesn't. So you don't have any real free will. Any choices you believe you have are extremely limited and fixed, all within a totally rigged game.

No, that's not the definition of "free will."

Saying so doesn't make it true

"Free will" is redundant. ("Libertarian free will" doubly so.)
A will is just the ability to choose.

Silly semantics. A will is the ability to manifest a reality by choice. You and I do not have that ability.

It doesn't mean that whatever choice is made, that it will somehow come about. It just means that a choice is possible.

Wrong, that's precisely what it means. Choices are limitations. If I let you choose between A or B then I am denying you C and D ad-infinitum.
We are in a rigged environment, deliberately denied access to the vital universal life force so that we die early.

If there is no alternative to choose from, then it is not possible to exercise one's will.

Free will means there are no restrictions whatsoever. Not finite choices but no restrictions whatsoever. Humans are denied this but Biblically speaking your God enjoys that ability, freedom, privilege and doesn't want anyone else having it.

Thus, if you do not have the ability to choose otherwise, then you do not have a will.

Wrong as explained above. Limited choices means no free will.

God is male.

That's your belief which you are entitled to. It's not mine.

He refers to Himself as such in His word.

The Bible refers to a male god certainly.

Do not call God "female" or "it" again on this board. You will receive a warning for blasphemy.

I may choose to believe whatever I wish, thank you. If you want to shell out infractions to people who don't share your beliefs then you just show yourself to be intolerant of other's views, opinions and beliefs. Such has caused bloody wars throughout history. I will believe what I will.

But this is an Open Theist board. You're arguing against an Open Theist, who rejects the classical (read: Greek) attributes of "omni-"s and "im-"s.
God is free, and He created man to be free, thus your argument doesn't apply to our position.

Understood. You believe in a god that is only partially potent and partially knowing. Your choice.

I believe in something that is the true source of all things, that has no beginning or end, that pervades every living thing, which is not material (natively) but which can be wrapped in material elements and which can not be destroyed. In this respect I guess you could say it is omnipotent for nothing can destroy it and everything that lives is a manifestation of that immortal thing.

God allows it to happen.

Which is understandable if according to your belief system he is only potent to some degree and not omnipotent. He can't be everywhere all the time in your Open Theist framework. Either that or he just doesn't care that the sexual abuse of children happens. Either way it paints a really poor picture of your chosen deity. Not one I would personally want to be following and worshipping.

That's different than saying it SHOULD be allowed to happen. The explanation of this is what I've been trying to get to, but you refuse to allow us to continue to that point, because you're hung up on the (false) belief that God is "omnipotent" and "omniscient."

The statement "God allows it to happen" by definition suggests that he is capable of preventing it for otherwise he would not be allowing it to happen, it would be happening regardless of God. So the issue of power is actually irrelevant in the debate. If you assert that God deliberately allows innocent children to be sexually abused then the issue is one of morals and lack of love and concern. He's happy for such attrocities to go ahead. Again this doesn't paint a good picture of someone worth worshipping. Each to their own of course, it takes all sorts.

It only makes no sense from within your own paradigm of beliefs.
Try looking at things from outside your paradigm for a moment.

You refuse to do this so why should I?

There are many miracles recorded in the Bible, instances where God directly intervened in the circumstances on earth.

A powerful entity doing things on Earth doesn't represent miracles. If aliens appeared and did things on Earth that too would not be a miracle.

If you were to look at them from a bird's eye view, you would find that most of them (not all, to be sure, but most) resulted in unbelief, a rejection of God, or the hardening of one's heart. Generally speaking, when someone is confronted with the truth, men typically resent it.

No that's not true. When Jesus healed people, cured the blind man, the leper, fed the 5 thousand, raised Lazarus etc etc (i.e. the things deemed "miracles" by those without the knowledge to understand how Jesus was doing it) the people revered him and followed him around all over the place.

People do not like the truth shoved into their faces.

Ha, supra. Take this forum for example !!

He who rejects God is not typically eager for correction.

Equally he who has been religiousy indoctrinated from childhood is not typically eager to let go of that false comfort blanket and be corrected with reality.

And if God is trying to form a relationship with that person, do you think that would be productive? Or counterproductive?

Yet again focussed on the perpetrator not the victim. It really is sick. Let's flip this.

If God is trying to form a relationship with an innocent young child, how would "allowing them" to be sexually abused be productive? Please I'm all ears go ahead . . . . .

If God gave man a will (again, "free will" is redundant; if it isn't free, it isn't a will), then He cannot be held accountable for the actions of man, because man is a free agent, able to choose on his own.

God didn't, simple as. Biblically speaking He does not want humans being like him, doesn't want them being able to live forever as he does, didn't want them to have the kind of knowedge he has. We don't have free will simple as. We're caged and very limited. Any choices we have are generally Hobson's choice.

If God did not give man a will (ie, made men robots only capable of doing that which God programmed them to do (as Calvinism teaches)), then ONLY God is to be blamed for whatever actions men take.

I don't care if it's Calvinism or not but yes that would be true. The creator must take responsibility for his creation(s). Not doing so is self-denial on his part.

Either God gave man a will,

He didn't

and he uses it to disobey God

The very concept of "obeying" and "disobeying" highlights emphatically that there is no free-will, only dictatorship, tyranny. Thanks for making that clear.

or God did not give man a will, and he is therefore not accountable, but God is, because God DID cause man to do those things.

Yup this, again, Biblically speaking. Remember I don't believe the literal Bible interpretation.

In other words, the only way God is accountable for the actions of men is if God caused men to do the things they do.

Which he did, and does via various means including limiting the choices, rigging the environment and circumstances and so on.

On the contrary, it is not possible to completely prevent people from committing crimes.

If you're not omnipotent I agree. But then we're back to the concept of a rather lame limited partially potent partially knowing entity which I can't see any reason for humans to worship.

No matter what method you come up with, someone will find a way to do that which is against the law.

If there is law, then choices are limited and hence there is no free will. Does your God live within laws? Nope. See the difference?

Humans - Thou shalt not kill
God - Kills with free abandon, women, children, babies, unborn babies and so on

The best way to prevent crime is not to make it so that people cannot commit a crime (which only results in the endless multiplication of laws),

False, stupidly false.

If you can prevent a crime from happening then that's obviously the best way. Laws don't prevent crimes happening as you've already pointed out. It requires some physical tangible barrier or obstruction which would be possible with an omnipotent being but obviously not with a sub-standard deity. Note also that the word "crime" is subjective. Who gets to decide what is a crime and what is not? The universe doesn't have such concepts.

Your rejection of God is in part a result of your nation's . . . rejection of Biblical principles of governance, such as forcing restitution upon thieves, flogging those guilty of assault, and putting to death those who are convicted of capital crimes such as rape and murder.

No my rejection of YOUR particular flavour of God and really any of the Christian notions of god is the result of critical thinking and a subsequent search for truth in other directions. Essentially a maturing of the self both spiritually and mentally, letting go programmed indoctrination and moving forward, evolving.

To put it simply: If criminals were punished according to how God requires, . . . .

You're describing a dictatorship again, tyranny. Not free will. If we have true will then it doesn't matter what anyone else thinks or "requires".

And even if it were possible, it's still not possible to control people's thoughts, one, because humans have wills of their own, and two, because laws "thought crimes" cannot be enforced justly.

It's easily possible to control people's thoughts, hearts and minds. The human condition is a weak and vulnerable one. Religions, Companies and all manner of groups and people use well known psychological techniques to control people's hearts, thoughts and minds and have been doing so for 1000s of years.

He commands that governments bring wrath upon the wicked. How is that "sitting by and watching those things happen"?

See earlier re: chain of command

And do you think He won't EVER do anything about them?

And yet again . . . focussing on the perpetrator not the victim. Whatever happens to a perpetrator doesn't in any way change the suffering and hurt of the victim.

If the victim is not made whole, do you think that's a problem?

I think it's a problem that there is a victim at all.

Should they be protected by those who have been given the responsibility to do so?

Those you refer to are not potent or omnipotent. They are just human. So by definition THEY can't protect an innocent child all of the time. That being the case it is a flawed concept to suggest that a god gives them such responsibility. It doesn't wash I'm afraid. Unless of course god is an idiot which I assume you are not suggesting.

Or perhaps there's a reason He doesn't use that power the way you think He should use it.

People form relationships when others behave in ways that are agreeable to them. When people behave very much against your own standards of behaviour then relationships are not formed. It's a simple concept. Tyrants on the other hand don't care what you think or believe they simply want you to do what they say or else.

Or, He has, and men refuse to obey Him...

Again "obey" = no free choice, no free will, tyranny, dictatorship